Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/214

 NOTES OF RECENT CASES for his death, there was no violation of the con stitutional provision and declared the law valid. Justices Harlan, White and McKenna dissented. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. (Taxation— Assessment without Notice.) U. S. Sup. Ct. — The tax law of Georgia provides for assessment by the comptroller general, from the best information obtainable, of property of which no return has been made and that such assessment shall be conclusive. There is also a provision for the issue of execution for the enforcement of taxes so assessed. The validity of the statute was attacked in Central of Georgia Ry. Company v. Wright, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep., 47, on the ground that the assess ment and enforcement of a tax being judicial in nature and no notice being required to be given to one failing to make return, it would deny due process of law to one failing to list property under an honest belief that it was not taxable. This contention was held to be well founded and the law declared invalid. CRIMINAL LAW. (Larceny.) Ga. Ct. App. — That a party may be convicted of larceny for the stealing of his own property was the holding of the Court of Appeals of Georgia in Ayers f. State, 59 S. E. Rep., 924. The property had been levied upon by a constable under an attachment and the defendant, after lulling the constable into a sense of security by promising to replevy the property, had it moved across the state line into Alabama. The court held that, although the property was that of the defendant, the title to the same in the constable was sufficient to sustain a conviction of larceny for the fraudulent taking and carrying away by the defendant. EQUITY. (Discovery — Exhumation of Corpse.) U. S. C. C. Kan. — In Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York v. Griesa et al, 156 Fed., 398, Judge McPhersoh holds that where an action at law is pending to recover on a life insurance policy shown to have been obtained under circumstances indicating fraud, and one of the defenses in support of which there is con siderable evidence, is that the insured committed suicide by poisoning, which would avoid the policy, a court of equity has power in aid of such' defense to order the body to be exhumed for examination, although the action to recover on the policy was brought by the executor of the insured, and his widow, who had the right to control the body, was not a party thereto. The court states that Rev. St. § 724 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 583], provides only for requiring the production of books or writings in the possession of the party and does not authorize a federal court in an action at law in general to order the

'55

production or inspection of inanimate objects, and that the court has no power to order the exhumation of a dead body in an action at law to which the widow of the deceased who has the right to control the body is not a party, but that the right of discovery is not obsolete and may be directed in aid of an action then pending or immediately contemplated, so that where an action at law to recover on an insurance policy under the terms of the policy could not be long delayed and in fact was soon brought, a bill of discovery was maintainable in equity in aid of the law action. INSURANCE. (Notice by Insured.) N. Y. Ct. of App, — A boy was injured by being knocked from a car by a truck driven by a servant of a Transfer Company, and the liability insurance company refused to defend the action brought for the injury sustained, upon the ground that the insured, a joint stock association, had not com plied with the provisions of the policy requiring it to give immediate notice of the accident or claim and a judgment was obtained against the Transfer Company. In Woolverton v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, 82 N. E. Rep., 745, an action brought by the president of the Transfer Company against the Insurance Com pany to recover the amount of the judgment and its expenses, the court held that the Transfer Company was not excused from giving notice of the accident merely because none of its officers or directors or any one who had the duty of adjusting differences between it and the Insurance Com pany, had knowledge thereof, but that while the knowledge of the driver who caused the accident was not imputable to the Transfer Company, yet if he reported it to one whose duty it was in the ordinary and natural conduct of the business to receive reports of accidents and transmit them to the general superintendent, and he failed to transmit such knowledge, the Transfer Company was chargeable for his delay and neglect. INSURANCE. (Valued Policy Insuring Special Interest.) Wash. — A statute of Washington provides that as between insured and insurer the amount written in a policy covering realty shall be conclusive evidence of the value of the insured property if it be totally destroyed. The question arose in Bright v. Hanover Fire Insurance Com pany, 92 Pac. Rep., 779, whether this provision was applicable if insured only had a special interest in the property. An agreement for exchange of property had been entered into between the owner of the property and insured and deeds were placed in escrow to await clearing up title. While things remained in this situation insured went into possession and placed insurance