Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/352

 NOTES OF RECENT CASES

265

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 con Ui nine full report! of any of these decisions may be seemed from the West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, at 15 cents each. In ordering, the title of the desired cate should be given ai well as the citation of volume and page of the Reporter in which it is printed.)

ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. (Disbarment for Contempt.) Nev.— The Supreme Court of Nevada was recently called upon to sustain its dignity as against certain statements made by one of the district judges of that state. The case is reported in 93 Pac. Rep. 997, under the title In re Breen. A murder case tried before respondent had been appealed to the Supreme Court. After the de cision by the appellate court the district attorney in open court made certain statements relative to the opinion handed down by the Supreme Court, upon the conclusion of which respondent, who was presiding judge, stated that he heartily commended the remarks and made a statement of his own which he directed to be entered in the court records in connection with that of the district attorney tn which he severely criticised the opinion of the Supreme Court " as being an abnormally strange document," and " whether or not it was made for the purpose of bolstering up a decision which to my mind is neither founded on law or supported by fact;" " reprehensible, as a modifi cation I shall say — reprehensible if the court 'knew what it was doing, pitiful if it did not." Citation was issued to respondent to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt of court and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys. His answer denied intentional dis respect and alleged that his remarks were due to a misunderstanding. The Supreme Court however directed that he be suspended from practice until further order and that he cause the expunging from his court record of the objectionable state ment. In the contempt case in the same connec tion, In re Breen, 93 Pac. Rep. 1004. it was decided that no further punishment than such as had been meted out in the disbarment proceedings should be inflicted as if that should be done it would be in the nature of double punishment. BILLS AND NOTES. (Illegality of Considera tion.) Mass. — Decisions involving the validity of contracts as dependent on the legality of con sideration are of frequent occurrence but that of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Kennedy v. Welch, 83 X. E. Rep. n, discusses some phases of the question of rather unusual

interest. The note in suit was given in considera tion of release of liability on another note and dismissal of an action thereon. The consideration of the original note was the transfer of a liquor license in violation of law. The court held that the illegality permeated the entire transaction and that as the first note was invalid, the dismissal of an action on it furnished no valid independent consideration for the new- note. COMMERCE. (Boycott — Anti-Trust Law.) U. S. Sup. Ct. — Few, if any decisions mere import ant to labor unions have ever been handed down by the courts than that of Loewe v. Lawlor, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 301. The case was heard on de murrer to the complaint which alleged that com plainants were manufacturers of hats at Danbury, Conn., and engaged in interstate trade in many other states, and practically dependent thereon for the disposition of their product; that defend ants were members of the United Hatters of North America and combined with The American Federa tion of Labor; that they were attempting to force all hat manufacturers to unionize their establish ments and on refusal of complainants to do so. had instituted a boycott against them and such dealers as handled their hats; that the combination was so nearly complete that seventy out of eighty-two manufacturers had acceded to their demands; that the acts of defendants constituted a violation of the Act of Congress of July 2, 1890 [26 Stat. 209 c. 647, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3200] en titled " An Act to Protect Trade and Commerce against Unlawful Restraints and Monopolies and asked for three fold damages under that act. It was claimed that the statute was not appli cable to labor unions and the demurrer to the complaint was sustained by the circuit court. The Supreme Court reviewed, to some extent, the his tory of the legislation and directed that the demurrer be overruled. The complainants in selling their hats in the various states wrere held to be engaged in interstate commerce: thus bringing the boycott within the terms of the anti-trust act. As the Federal Anti-Trust Law has at divers times since its enactment, been held applicable to