Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/155

 loO

THE GREEN BAG

Judge Sanborn discusses at considerable length the cases bearing on the questions at issue and comes to the following conclusions: "(i) Every corporation empowered to engage in interstate commerce by the state in which it is created, may carry on interstate commerce in every state in the union, free of every prohibition and condition imposed by the latter. "(2) Every corporation of any state in the employ of the United States has the right to exercise the necessary corporate powers and to transact the business requisite to discharge the duties of that employment in every other state in the union without permission granted or conditions imposed by the latter. "(3) Every corporation of each state has the absolute power to institute and maintain jn the federal courts and to remove to those courts for trial and decision, its suits in every other state in the cases and on the terms prescribed by the acts of Congress." He then passes to a consideration of the char acter of the contracts and decides that they are factorage agreements, the carrying out of which would not constitute " doing business in the state" within the meaning of the law. CORPORATIONS. (Foreign Corporations.) Wis. — The questions whether a contract for fur nishing text-books and instruction by a foreign correspondence school is doing business in the state within the meaning of the Foreign Corpora tion Law, and whether the carrying out of such agreement constitutes interstate commerce, were discussed by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in International Text-Book Company v. Peterson, 113 N. W. Rep. 730. With reference to the first question, the court says the contract violates the spirit of the Foreign Corporation Law, as would also " the details of soliciting pupils, imparting instruction, and the delivery, bailment, and return of books." No case of the same character is cited, but the Court discusses the analogy between the case at bar and decisions relating to newspaper subscriptions and insurance contracts. The con clusion was reached that the acts alleged did not constitute interstate commerce. EVIDENCE. (Conversation over Telephone.) Ky. Ct. of App. — The Kentucky Court of Appeals recently considered the admissibility in evidence of a telephone conversation. The attorney for plaintiff had looked up defendant's number in the telephone directory, called her up in the usual manner, and conversed with her. It was not shown that he knew her voice, or that he asked her name. The court held that the subject of the conversation taken in connection with the circum

stance of defendants' answering the telephone at the number corresponding with her address, was sufficient identification to charge her as being the person with whom the conversation was had. The case is found in 104 S. W. Rep. 1034, under the title Holzhauer v. Sheeny. INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. ' (Construc tion.) Ore. — Submission of legislation to the people by the method known as the Initiative and Referendum being in an experimental stage any statements on the subject by the courts are of general interest. The decisions of the Supreme Court of Oregon in Stevens i>. Benson, 91 Pac. Rep. 577 and Palmer i>. Benson, 01 Pac. Rep. 579, though not involving the validity of the laws putting the system into operation, state the con struction to be placed upon some parts of the constitution and statutes bearing on the subject. In the first mentioned case it is held that although the constitutional provision should be construed as self-executing, legislation providing a method of procedure is valid. Also that the part of the law relating to form of petition is merely directory. In the latter case a distinction is drawn between the form of petition designated for the initiative, and that for the referendum. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. (Roller Skat ing on Streets.) N.J. Sup. Ct. — The use of roller skates on a city street was the cause of litigation which recently reached the Supreme Court of New Jersey. The case referred to is Billington t;. Miller, 67 Atl. Rep. 935. The only question con sidered was the validity of an ordinance forbidding roller skating on certain portions of a street. It was contended that if it should be held valid it would interfere with the lawful use of roller skates as a means of travel. The court held, however, that such was evidently not the intention of the city authorities, and that whatever might be said as to the right to use a street for mere sport, it was a right which, if existing at all, was subject to reasonable municipal control. The ordinance was held valid. PRACTICE. (Appeals.) Col. Sup. Ct. — A peculiar state of affairs comes to. light in Nicholson v. E. P. McGovern Undertaking Co., 92 Pac. Rep. 225. Plaintiff was injured by the sudden starting of the horses attached to a carriage from which she was alighting on her return from a funeral, conducted by defendant, who had hired the car riage from a third person. The action was dis missed by the court below, and plaintiff thereupon not only prosecuted a writ of error, but also brought a new action against the owner of the team and carriage, and obtained judgment. In