Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 19.pdf/773

 732

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 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.) CARRIERS (State Regulation of Rates). U. S. Cir. Ct., D. of Minn. — In an oral decision in the case entitled Perkins ct al v. Northern Pacific Ry. Company, et al, reported in 155 Fed. Rep. 445, Judge Lochren passed on the question of restrain ing enforcement of certain railroad rate regulations of the state of Minnesota. Three different classes of rates are discussed in the opinion; one fixed by the Railroad and Warehouse Commission known as the " Merchandise Rate": one fixed by the legislature known as the " Passenger Rate Law" and the other also fixed by the legislature, known as the " Commodity Rate Law." Questions as to the conflict of power between Congress and the states relative to regulations of commerce are passed upon. Reference is also made as to the authority of federal courts to enforce provisions of the LTnited States Constitution but the point principally discussed is as to whether these regula tions reduced the compensation of railroads affected to such an extent as to be confiscatory and amount to the deprivation of property without due process of law. Preliminary injunction was refused so far as related to the rate fixed by the Railroad and Warehouse Commission and the ' Passenger Rate," both of which were already in operation, but was granted as against the " Com modity Rate Law " which had not yet gone into effect. Referring to portions of the legislation providing severe penalties for disobedience by railroads and their employes, the court vigorously condemns it; characterizing it as vicious and "almost a disgrace to the civilization of the age and a reproach upon the intelligence and sense of justice of any legislature which could enact pro visions of that kind." CONFLICT OF LAWS (Damages — Mental Suffering). N. C. — Another addition to the case law on the subject of recovery for mental suffering and non-delivery of a telegraph message as depen dent on the lex loci or lex fori is that of Johnson v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 57 S. E. Rep. 122. The telegram involved in this case was sent from a point in Virginia to one in North Carolina. It seems that under the laws of the former state, such damages are not ground for recovery though

allowed in the latter. The question then to be determined was whether the action was to be governed by the law of the place where the contract was made and the telegram started or that where it was received and the failure to make proper delivery took place. The court gave the matter a somewhat elaborate discussion, referring to a number of text-writers and decisions from several states. It eventually arrived at the conclusion that the law of the place wher? th? con ract was made, and in which a part of it was performed, should govern, and denied recoverv. This is an unfortunate decision, opposed to such authority as there is on the question, and to sound principle. The law of the place of contracting should doubtless govern the obligation of the con tract; but the obligation to pay damages is not part of the obligation of the contract, but is a new right which arises upon the breach, according to the law of the place of breach, that is, the place of performance. Meyer v. Estes, 164 Mass., 457. So the rate of interest payable by way of damages is determined by the law of the place of payment. Gibbs v. Fremont, 9 Ex., 25; Fanning v. Consequa, 17 Johns. 5x1. The same principle is applied in causes of action for tort. Louisville, etc. R.R. v. Whitlow (Ky.), 43 S. W. 711 5 Northern Pac. R.R. v. Babcock, 154 U. S. 100. The North Carolina and Texas cases which are followed in the princi pal case appear to proceed upon a confusion between the obligation of a contract and a right of action for its breach. J. H. B. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (Carriers — Dis crimination). Ky. Ct. of App. — In Chiles v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 101 S. W. Rep. 386, 30 Ky. Law Rep. 1332. The point in issue as stated by the court being as follows: — "Has a railroad company within this state, independent of any statute, the right to adopt an enforce rules and regulations requiring colored passengers, although they may be interstate, and because of their color and race, to occupy coaches or compartments in coaches separate and distinct from those occupied by white persons? " The court discusses at considerable length the existing