Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/403

 356

the duty of the government to clothe a part of its people with great powers and privi leges, peculiarly susceptible of abuse, with out providing reasonable protection against, and adequate remedy for, such abuse. The writer believes that the corporation is the most efficient business machine yet invented; and its very efficiency makes it, in the hands of the honorable, most beneficent; but in the hands of those otherwise disposed, most op pressive. The vast majority of business men are honorable, and need but little, if any, restraint beyond their own consciences; there are, however, many others who are bent upon securing and exercising undue advantage over their fellows; the former, not needing restraint, will not, or should not, feel hampered by such restraints as are made necessary by the latter; while the law cannot make men better, it may make it more diffi cult for them to injure their neighbor,—and this is the standpoint from which many pro visions herein should be judged. Many of the provisions are designed to meet the evils that the investigations of the Industrial Com mission, .the Interstate Commerce Commis sion and the Commissioner of Labor have found to exist,—over-capitalization, unjust discriminations, predatory competition, op pressive combinations, unjust, unsafe, and unsanitary conditions of labor, and insuffi cient publicity either' for safe investment or proper legislation. IN the April number of the Harvard Law Reinen1, J. L. Thorndike of the Boston Bar, discusses at considerable length two re cent English cases, cited below, involving the question of indemnity arising through the registration by a corporation of a forged transfer of stock, and maintains that the re versal of Lord Alverstone's opinion, cited be low, was wrong. In two recent cases (says Mr. Thorndike), the question has come before the English courts whether a corporation that has been induced to register a forged transfer of stock, or to allow a transfer of stock on its books under a forged power of attorney, is entitled to indemnity from the person that has induced it to do so, when he has acted

in good faith and in the belief that the docu ment was genuine. In one [Starkey v. Bank of England (1903) A. C. 114] it was held that the person who induced the corporation to allow him to transfer the stock under the forged power of attorney thereby represent ed that he had authority to make the trans fer, and that this representation imported a contract that the authority under which he acted was valid, and made him answerable for the damages sustained by the corpora tion. In the other [Sheffield Corporation v. Barclay (1903) 2 К. В. 580; reversing the de cision of Lord Alverstone, C. J. (1903) i K. B. i] it was held that the person who in sim ilar circumstances induced the corporation to register the forged transfer made no rep resentation or, contract that the document was genuine and was not bound to indemnify the corporation. . . . There is one case in this country [Boston & Albany Railroad Co. v. Richardson. 135 Mass. 473] in which the question was decided [affirmatively that] a company could recover damages from a person who had induced it to register a transfer of shares under a forged power of attorney or a forged trans fer, where he acted in good faith. ••THE Modern Law of Charities as Derived from the Statute of Charitable LTses" is the subject of an excellent article by Rupert Sar gent Holland in The American Law Register for April. The Statute 43 Eliz. c. 4, passed in 1601 (says Mr. Holland), was long regarded as limiting the classes of legal charities. It re cited that land, money, and other property had been given for various charitable pur poses, which it enumerated, and authorized the appointment of commissioners to inquire into such gifts and make orders for their proper application. The list of charitable purposes contained in it has always been treated as an expression by the Legislature that all such purposes are lawful charitable purposes, and a guide to the court in decid ing on the legality of other purposes. The list enumerated in the statute is as follows :