Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 18.pdf/459

 428

THE GREEN BAG

possession of the subject of insurance, has appli cation only where the insured owns and insures an interest less than title, and has no application where the insured owns the title; consequently, where the insured owned the title of the subject of insurance and after the execution of the policy made an executory contract to convey the prop erty, under which the consideration was fully paid but no transfer either of title or possession had been actually made, there had been no change in interest, title, or possession within the meaning of the forfeiture clause quoted. MONOPOLIES. (Express Companies — Ex clusive Contracts.) Tex. Sup. Ct. — The anti trust statute of Texas has recently received a construction which has a tendency to somewhat broaden the scope of the statute and give it appli cation to agreements not previously held to be within its provisions. The statute requires every railroad to furnish reasonable and equal facilities, upon reasonable and equal rates, to all corporations engaged in the express business. Another statute defines a trust as a combination of capital, skill, or acts of two or more persons to create or carry out re strictions in the free pursuit of any business auth orized by the laws of the state or to prevent or lessen competition in the transportation of mer chandise, and makes a trust unlawful. Under this statute, it is held in State v. M., K. & T. R. Co., 91 Southwestern Reporter, 214, that a contract between a railroad company and an express company whereby the latter was given exclusive privileges and the former bound itself not to contract with others to do an express busi ness on the road, and agreed that in case privi leges should be accorded others by legislation or judicial proceedings, the express company in ques tion should have credit for the sums paid by other companies, was violative of the anti-trust statute.

chase a site therefor, and to issue bonds to dis charge the indebtedness arising from its con struction. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. (Franchises.) U. S. S. C. — A number of related points deter mining the charter rights of street railways in the city of Chicago are contained in Blair v. Chicago, 26 Supreme Court Reporter, 427. The right of. the city to fix the term during which street rail way companies may occupy the streets is declared by the holding that the authority given to the city under acts, February 14. 1859. and February 21, 186 1, to fix the terms and conditions upon which the street railway companies chartered by these acts with a corporate life of twenty-five years should occupy its streets, includes the power to fix the term of such occupation. Prob ably the decision of paramount importance is to the effect that the right to use the streets of Chicago for street railroads was not extended to ninety-nine years without reference to any limi tation of time fixed by the municipality by the amendatory act of February 6, 1865, which ex tended from twenty-five to ninety-nine years, the corporate life of the companies created by the acts formerly referred to, and also gave the right to construct and maintain street railways on streets designated by the common council upon terms and conditions approved by such council. It is held that the right to operate the street railways until the city should exercise its re served right to purchase them is confined to the streets designated in the original ordinances and such later ordinances as indicate a purpose to preserve the permission of the original ordinance, and does not, by reason of the fact that the street railway system has become a unity, extend to the rights of occupancy acquired in other streets so as to continue such right until the purchase of the entire system.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. (Bonds.) Colo. — In view of the apparently growing inclination of cities to give municipal aid to the erection of structures designed for auditorium purposes, we call attention to the recent holding of the Supreme Court of Colorado in City and County of Denver v. Hallett, 83 Pacific Reporter, 1066. The court there declares that Colorado Constitution, 120, granting home rule to the city of Denver and providing that the people in the city shall always have the exclusive power of making, altering, re vising, or amending their charter, bestowed upon the people all the power possessed by the legisla ture, so that they were authorized to provide by charter for the erection of an auditorium, to pur

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. (Ordinances — Billboards.) N. J. — The popular movement looking towards the abolition or at least regulation of billboards receives a setback in the case of City of Passaic v. Patterson Bill Posting, Adver tising, and Sign Painting Company, 62 Atlantic Reporter, 267. An ordinance requiring that sign boards should be constructed not less than ten feet from the street line and that no sign or bill board shall be at any point more than eight feet above the surface of the ground, is held to be a regulation not reasonably necessary for the pub lic safety and not justified as an exercise of the police power. It is pointed out that in all cities fences and buildings are erected on street lines, involving the same or even greater possibility of