Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/635

 6o6

THE GREEN BAG

and execution before complainants could obtain judgment, and that by the levy of the executions, the leases under which defendant conducted its business and which constituted its chief asset, would be forfeited, and all the assets of the de fendant consumed leaving nothing for complain ants. Complainants further declared that de fendant was using every effort to work out its leases and distribute the avails as profits among its stockholders, so that its property, which chiefly consisted of the mines, would be exhausted, converted into cash, and distributed in the form of dividends before complainants could obtain a judgment. All these allegations together are held to be insufficient to support a bill quia iimet for the purpose of impounding defendant's property. There is nothing new in this decision, but it serves to remind those interested in remedial leg islation that between the commission of a tort and judgment therefor, there is an interval during which the person injured is helpless at common law against schemes of a tort-feasor to render himself execution proof. Attachment, in a few states, affords a remedy more or less effectual. See for example, N. Y. Code Civ. Proc., $ 635. Frank Irvine. CARRIERS.

(INTERSTATE COMMERCE) TEXAS COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS. A recent case in support of the general propo sition that the federal regulation of interstate commerce does not extend to matters of police regulation by the states is that of Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Nelson, 87 Southwestern Reporter, 706, wherein it is held that Tex. Rev. St. 1895, Arts. 4s6o(f) to 456o(h), making railway companies liable for the negligence of a servant affecting another servant, is applicable to an action for the death of a railroad engineer owing to a collision between two of defendant's trains though the trains at the time were engaged in interstate traffic. It was contended that such an application of the statute would render it violative of the commerce clause of the Federal Con stitution, but the court holds in the language used by the United States Supreme Court in Sherlock v. Ailing, 93 U. S. 99, that general legis lation of this kind prescribing liabilities or duties of a citizen of a state is not open to any valid objection because it may affect persons engaged in foreign or interstate commerce. King v. Transportation Company, 14 Fed. Cas. 512, Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Mayes, 83 S. W. 53, Brechvill v. Randall, 102 Ind. 528, i N. E. 362, and Norfolk & "W. Ry. Co. v. Commonwealth, 93

Va. 749, 24 S. E. 837, are cited as supporting, in a general way the proposition passed upon. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. (DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS — RELIGIOUS LIB ERTY) N. Y. SUPREME COURT — SPECIAL TERM. The charter of the city of Buffalo, in defining the duties of the school examiners, provides that they shall hold at least one stated meeting each month, and shall hold examinations at such of their regular meetings as they may designate, and at least as often as once every three months. Acting under this regulation the Board deter mined upon a time for examinations, which time included Saturday. An applicant for a teacher's license, alleging that she was a member of the Orthodox Jewish Church, under the teaching of which labor of any kind on Saturday is regarded as sinful, protested against the continuation of examination on Saturday, and brought suit to enjoin the examiners from continuing the exam ination on that day. There being no statute prohibiting the holding of examinations on Sat urday, or requiring the Board to refrain from ex amining on that day persons who observe it as a day of worship, or to grant such persons a special examination on some other day, the court reaches the conclusion that plaintiff was not deprived of the equal protection of law or discriminated against because of her race by being denied such examination on some other day than Saturday. This holding seems to rest largely upon the view which the court takes of the legal status of Sun day, which, it is affirmed, is regarded as a day of rest, merely because it was regarded as such at common law before that system was adopted in New York, and not because of its religious ob servance by any particular sect. The whole matter seems to be summed up in the court's statement that the transaction of public business on Sunday is prohibited because of the character of the day as a civil institution. Cohn v. Townsend, 94 New York Supplement, 817. CUSTOMS DUTIES. (DAMAGE TO MERCHAN DISE — REFUND OP DUTIES — SALVAGE) CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS — SECOND CIRCUIT. The first construction which we have noticed of the provisions of the so-called Tucker Act is that contained in United States v. Cornell Steamboat Co., 137 Federal Reporter, 455. Rev. St. Sec. 2984 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1958). declares that the secretary of the treasury is authorized to abate or refund the amount of impost duties paid or accruing upon imported merchandise damaged or