Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 02.pdf/487

 444

upon the same state of facts, because it was shown that the defendant had torn the deceased's breechesleg, jerking off his wooden leg. See also the case of Smith against Pennsylvania Railway, which was an action for damages to plaintiff, distress of mind, bodily pain, doctor's bills and expenses, and loss of time, incurred in curing an injury to a wooden leg, cut off by the defendant, while caught in the frog of a switch. Although it was shown that defendant's engineer was going at an unusual rate of speed, and that defendant's switches were constructed without the slightest reference to our wooden-legged citizens, it was held to be damnum absque injuria. The principles of this case have not been accepted in this country or in England. In a Kentucky case it was held that the maxim nemo est hares viventis does not apply to wooden legs. The court held that one might be heir of a wooden leg, although the rest of the man were living. The wooden leg in that case was a cork leg, and the single dissenting justice applied the maxim, qui haret in Uteris, haret in cortice, to the majority opinion. It is believed that a question of public policy had much weight in bringing the court to this opinion. The vendetta has taken such deep root in Kentucky that it is beginning to be feared that property cannot descend at all, unless through the wooden legs. The Supreme Court of the United States, construing the law of Virginia, in a case involving an entailed estate, held that a wooden leg can only be a tenant in tail, as a tenant-tail-after-possibility-of-issue-extinct. The Supreme Court of Tennessee has decided that the rule in Shelley's case does not apply to woodenleg estates. The court laid some stress on the fact that the General Assembly of Tennessee once took the rule in Mr. Shelley's case for some sort of dog-tax law in disguise, and repealed it. See Code of 1858, § 2008.

CURIOUS WILLS. WD. FOSTER, the dramatic company • promoter, would have no woman present at his funeral, says the " London Standard." If his wife survived him, he would be cremated; otherwise he would be buried in the ordinary way. One of the strangest cases occurred in France a few months ago. M. Travers, declaring the French to be "a nation of dastards and fools," left his fortune to the poor of Lon don, and further ordered that his body should be launched into the sea a mile from the English coast. An attempt was made to declare this unpatriotic Frenchman insane, but the Court of Appeals upheld the will. Frenchmen always have been more in clined to frivolity than we are in the disposal of their estates. One bright specimen actu ally provided that a new cooking recipe should be pasted on his tomb each day. There was more force, however, in the fri volity of the French lawyer who left $10,000 to a local mad-house, declaring that it was simply an act of restitution to his clients. For sheer levity no will of the last two years

compares with that of the rich American, a cousin of the Vanderbilts, who left every dollar he possessed to a girl he used to watch in the theatre. He did not even know her, and the only reason he gave for the strange freak was that her turned-up nose amused him. Another American gentleman, Horatio G. Onderdonk, has of late enjoyed an elaborate joke at the expense of his heirs. There was a good estate and many expectant relatives; but deep was their dismay when it was found that no one could benefit under the will who did not reach an almost unattainable exalta tion of life. No one could so benefit who was an idler, a sluggard, a profligate, a drunkard, or a gambler. The use of liquor and tobacco would deprive a legatee of his portion. He was also debarred from enter ing any bar-room or porter-house, from get ting married before the age of twenty-five, or even from not having risen, breakfasted, and got ready for business by nine o'clock in the morning. We have not heard if any heir has claimed, or if the money is still un-