Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/763

 730

THE GREEN BAG

9. But an act of 1870 provided that such statutes should not be construed to prevent the peaceable cooperation of workmen to raise wages. (5. Y. Penal Code, §170.) Under the above decision a conspiracy to commit an injury to one in his trade or. calling may be made indictable only if the con spirators have no lawful excuse or justification. What is a lawful excuse or justification remains in the realm of debate.

the recognition of fraudulent contract as a ground of divorce by the laws of Connecticut; there are only a few states recognizing this ground, Kansas being one of them. £. F. CORPORATIONS. (Stockholders' Bill — Juris diction.) N. Y. S. C., App. Div. — Jacobs v. Mexi can Sugar Refining Co., 93 New York Supplement. 776, has a holding of some moment on the question of jurisdiction. Under the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. § 1780, that an action against a foreign corporation may be maintained by a resident of the state for any cause of action, it is held that the courts of New York have jurisdiction of an action by resident stockholders in a foreign cor poration against another foreign corporation to have declared void for fraud an agreement can celling a lease from defendant to the corporation of which plaintiffs were members. The majority opinion places its holding upon the ground that while the relief to be awarded would be in favor of the corporation in which plaintiffs were stock holders, nevertheless, the cause of action sought to be enforced was one which vests in a minority stockholder to prevent the majority stockholders and officers from carrying out a fraudulent scheme to injure the corporation. McLaughlin, J., in the dissenting opinion, suggests that as it is conceded in the main opinion that the court would not have jurisdiction had the action been brought by one corporation against another, he does not understand that the stockholder can do for the corporation what it cannot do for itself, and is, consequently, of the opinion that the court was without jurisdiction.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. (Liberty and Pur suit of Happiness.) Conn. — The Connecticut statute prohibiting the marriage of epileptics has received judicial sanction — Gould v. Gould, 61 Atlantic Reporter, 604. In the argument in sup port of its position that the statute is not in con travention of that provision of the Connecticut constitution guarantying life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all, the court points out that while one of the rights preserved by the constitution is the right to contract marriage, yet that is a right which can only be exercised under such reasonable conditions as the legislature may see fit to impose. For example: it is not possessed by those below a certain age, and is denied to those who stand within certain degrees of kinship. Taking judicial notice of the grave nature of the disease and of its hereditary char acter the court holds that as the law applies equally to all under the same circumstances, and as the legislature might reasonably believe that the law was necessary for the preservation of the public health, it is not in conflict with the con stitution. A subsidiary holding of some impor tance is to the effect that fraudulent concealment by an epileptic of the fact that he is such, by This decision should be compared with that of means of which concealment the marriage is effected, justifies a divorce on the ground of a the Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey in Wilson v. American Palace Car Co., 65 N. J. Eq. fraudulent contract. 730 (1903), in which it was held that the Court of The test of reasonableness laid down is that Chancery of New Jersey, had no jurisdiction over there are substantial grounds for believing that a foreign corporation in a suit by some of its the determination that the law is necessary for stockholders to set aside a transfer of all of its the preservation of the public health is supported property, not being real estate, to a corporation of by the facts upon which it is apparent that it was New Jersey. The court in that case applied the based. Would this test be met by the Kansas law doctrine of Pennoyer v. Neff (95 U. S. 714) and of 1903, which extends a similar restriction to said that a decree against the foreign corporation children born after one of the parents was afflicted would be without due process of law, but the pur pose of the suit was only to give notice to the cor with insanity? poration of a suit to restore to it its own propertyi The act of Connecticut is prohibitory and pro vides a penalty for its violation. In analogy to and the decision would seem to be an unnecessary extension of the principle of Pennoyer v. Neff. the provisions prescribing certain forms of solem nization, a marriage entered into in contravention In this connection it is interesting to see that to the law is not void. The same interpretation the English and continental courts have not hesi will probably be placed upon the similar prohibi tated to take jurisdiction over foreigners in cases tion to be found in the acts of Minnesota, Kansas, in which the contract was made or to be performed and Ohio. The ruling that the concealment of the without the jurisdiction and in many other classes epileptic condition may justify divorce, rests upon of cases, and it is worth while to refer to Piggott on