Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/684

 NOTES OF RECENT CASES OF IMPORTANCE FROM THE NATIONAL REPORTER SYSTEM. (Copies of the pamphlet Reporters containing full reports of any of these decisions may be secured from the West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, at 25 cents each. In ordering, the title of the desired case should be given as well as the citation of volume and page of the Reporter in which it is printed.)

ATTACHMENT. (SEIZURE—PROCEDURE— SERVICE.) SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA. In Lehman & Co. v. Rivers, 35 Southern Reporter, 296. it was contended that an at tachment of the rights of a debtor in a suit which he had pending was not legally levied so as to entitle the attaching plaintiff to a lien on the right, the attachment defend ant subsequently being declared a bankrupt. This contention was based on the fact that though notice of the attachment was served on the clerk of the court and on the creditor of the right, no notice was served on the debtor of the right until garnishment pro ceedings wre commenced after judgment had been obtained in the attachment proceedings. To this contention the court replies : "While we think that in seizure of a right in suit notice should be served upon the debtor of the right, as well as upon the custodian, we do not think that we should hold that the lien recognized, as before mentioned, is lost because there was delay in notifying the debtor, when there was none in notifying the custodian. The court cites Citizens' Bank v''. Miller, 45 La. Ann. 493, 12 South. 516, to the effect that a creditor seizing a right in liti gation by his debtor is bound by the decree rendered in the suit instituted by him. There fore, the court does not think that the debtor of the right has any interest in having the date of the attachment changed so as to de feat the lien claimed by the attachment plain tiff, especially where the creditor of the right has filed an answer and thus appeared in the attachment proceedings. CARRIERS. (RIGHTS OF DELAYED PASSENGER.) SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Miller т1. Southern Ry. Co., 48 Southeas tern Reporter, 99, was an action by a passen ger against a carrier to recover damages for

a delay. It appeared that plaintiff was in formed that the train was due to leave 20 minutes late, and did so leave, but only pro ceeded a short distance down the yard when it stopped and remained there ю hours; and that the conductor of the train refused to give the passengers any information as to the probable extent of the delay or the cause thereof. The court held that under these facts, plaintiff had a cause of action and might recover exemplary damages, as a rail road company is chargeable with damages for delay in running its trains according to schedule time, unless such delay cannot be prevented by the exercise of reasonable care; but that actual damage for inconvenience, loss of time, or fatigue caused by the delay could not be recovered unless some pecun iary damage or personal loss had resulted to plaintiff. CEMETERIES. (BURIAL LOT—RESIDUARY DEVISK —DESCENT.) SUPREME COURT OF RHODE ISLAND.

In re Waldron, 58 Atlantic Reporter, 453, was a proceeding for an opinion as to whether or not a burial lot in a cemetery passed under a general residuary clause to testator's widow. The court cites Derby v. Derby, 4 R. I. 414, wherein it was held that an executor empowered to sell all the tes tator's real estate to pay pecuniary and resid uary legacies was not warranted in selling a burial lot, unless specially directed by the will, and notes the implied approval of this doctrine in Gardner v. Swan Point, 20 R. I. 646, 40 Atl. 871, 78 Am. St. Rep. 897. At tention is called to the improbability of a tes tator having in mind a burial lot when mak ing a residuary devise. It is further noted that a burial lot, where bodies have ben bur ied, cannot be mortgaged for a debt, and that