Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 18.pdf/507

 474

THE GREEN BAG

NOTES OF THE MOST IMPORTANT RECENT CASES COMPILED BY THE EDITORS OF THE NATIONAL REPORTER SYSTEM AND ANNOTATED BY SPECIALISTS IN THE SEVERAL SUBJECTS (Copies of the pamphlet Reporters containing full reports of any of these decisions may be secured from the West Publishii{ Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, at 35 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.)

ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. (Champerty.) If. Y. — Undue and misdirected zeal in the acquisition of business is held to be champertous conduct in the case In re Clark, 77 N.E. i. New York Code of Civil Procedure prohibits attorneys from pro curing retainers by offering or giving any valuable consideration therefor, and declares that every attorney who shall violate its provisions shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and removed from office. This provision is held to prohibit an attorney from agreeing to pay an agent out of the profits of cases for his services in inducing persons to place their claims in the attorney's hands for collection and settlement. The respondent attorney in this case employed an agent to visit persons through out the state' having claims against telephone companies because of the erection of poles, and induce them to place the claims in respondent's hands for collection. By this means respondent obtained some thousands of such claims, and then arranged with the telephone companies to assign the contracts to the companies and to assist in every possible way in effecting amicable settle ments of the claims. This conduct was held to be malpractice within the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure that any attorney guilty of mal practice shall be disbarred. CARRIERS. (Rules — Reasonableness.) Ala. — That a rule of a sleeping-car company exclud ing from its cars insane persons and persons in fected with contagious or infectious diseases is reasonable, is held in Alabama in Pullman Com pany v. Krauss, 40 So. 398. . The rule in question would seem, says the court, "to have been adopted for the safety and com fort of defendant's patrons or passengers, and whether the defendant is to be treated as a com mon carrier or otherwise, the rule is a wise and sal utary one. and we have no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that it is a reasonable one." No authorities are cited by the court in support of its holding, and in fact it would seem that none are needed.

A connected point of some interest is involved in the declaration that whether the rule is or is not reasonable is a question for the court. Upon this question it is suggested that if it were left to the jury one rule might be applied at one time and another on a different occasion, so that the com pany might be held liable in one case and not liable in another presenting the same question. CONFLICT OF LAWS. (Comity.) Wis. — A holding defining and limiting the rights extended to aliens by our courts on principles of comity is contained in Disconto Gesellschaft v. Terlindcn, 106 N.W. -821. It is there held that where a corpora tion of Germany obtained a judgment in the courts of Wisconsin against a non-resident alien debtor on a cause of action accruing in Germany, the cor poration having agreed with the trustee in bank ruptcy of the debtor appointed in Germany that all moneys recovered should form a part of the bankrupt's estate, the corporation could not by ancillary remedies in Wisconsin impound property of the debtor there as against a creditor who was a citizen in Wisconsin, though his cause of action accrued subsequent to the corporation's cause of action and his proceedings to impound the property were subsequent to those of the corporation. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. (Carriers — Ticket Brokers.) Ore. — Almost every constitutional objection which could reasonably be raised against a law intended to prohibit the business of ticket brokerage is overruled in State v. Thompson, 84 Pac. 476. A recently enacted statute of Oregon re quires railroads to provide agents authorized to sell tickets and armed with a certificate of author ity, and makes it unlawful for a person not pos sessed of such certificate to sell tickets or operate a ticket office. The obvious effect of this statute is to prohibit the ticket brokerage business and restrict the sale of railroad tickets to the duly con stituted agents of the railroads issuing the same. This statute was attacked on the ground that it deprived the holders of tickets of their property without due process of law; that it impaired the