Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 18.pdf/606

 NOTES OF RECENT CASES

569

NOTES OF THE MOST IMPORTANT RECENT CASES COMPILED BY THE EDITORS OF THE NATIONAL REPORTER SYSTEM AND ANNOTATED BY SPECIALISTS IN THE SEVERAL SUBJECTS i Cupjes of the pamphlet Reporters containing fall reports of any of these decisions may be secured from the West Publishing 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.)

ALIENS. (Exclusion — Finality of Determi nation.) D. Ct., Eastern District of Pennsyl vania. — A case which seems somewhat inclined to be in conflict with the rule laid down by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Ju Toy, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 644, is that of United States v. Rodgcrs, 144 Fed. 711. It will be remem bered that in the Ju Toy case a Chinaman claim ing to be a citizen of the United States applied for a writ of habeas corpus to secure his release from the custody of the immigration officers at San Francisco, such detention being pursuant to the rules of the Department of Commerce and Labor, and after a hearing before that depart ment. The Supreme Court held that habeas corpus should not be granted where the petition alleged nothing but citizenship as making the detention unlawful, and that the decision of the department of commerce and labor was conclu sive as to the question of the propriety of the de tention including the question of citizenship. In the present case it appeared that a citizen of the United States returning to this country after an absence of several years was refused a landing because of the marine surgeon's certificate that he was almost blind and likely to become a public charge. The return to the writ of habeas corpus sued out to obtain the release of the relator stated that the writ should be vacated because the find ings of the Commissioner of Immigration which upon appeal were approved by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor were final and could not be inquired into by the court. It appeared appar ently without controversy that relator was an American citizen, but it was not apparent but ivhat the fact that Ju Toy was an American citi zen was conceded in his case. On the question of finality, the court merely remarks that, that question does not arise because the record shows plainly that the proceedings were had against an American citizen whose entire family were resi dents of this country, where he himself had resided before his visit abroad, and that under the circum stances he could not be prevented from returning to his home.

CARRIERS. (Street Cars — Wrong Transfer Ticket — Ejection of Passenger.) Ohio Sup. Ct. —

Where a passenger on a street railroad who has paid his fare and is entitled to ride over another line belonging to the same company asks for a trans fer ticket over such other line and by mistake of the conductor is given a transfer which is not good over such other line, he may nevertheless if he has exercised such care about the receiving and making use of the transfer ticket as persons of ordinary prudence are accustomed to exercise under the same or similar circumstances, lawfully insist in being carried over such other line without further payment of fare, and if such passenger without fault on his part is ejected from the car for refusing to pay fare other than by such trans fer ticket, he may recover damages for the tort and cannot be restricted to damages for breach of the contract to carry him. Cleveland City Ry. Co. v. Conner, 78 N. E. 376. It was argued that because the conductor who refused to receive the transfer was acting according to instructions and within the line of his duty as between himself and his employer that plaintiff had no cause of action against the employer for being put off the car. To this the court replies that the action is not a controversy between the master and the servant, nor between the passenger and the conductor, nor yet between the carrier and passenger solely in regard to the act of the carrier's servant in ejecting the passenger from the car, but was founded upon the wrongful and negligent act of the servant giving the transfer which was the proximate cause of the resulting injury.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. (Equal Protection and Due Process.) N. Y. Ct. of App. — A re cent statute of New York providing for the tax ation of real estate mortgages is considered in its constitutional aspects in People v. Ronner, 77 N. E. 1061. Various objections are urged against the law but all held untenable. The statute imposes a regular annual tax on every