Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 21.pdf/206

 Notes of Cases

185

In Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Louis was alleged to be committed. The California Voighi & Sons Co., decided Feb. 1, the Supreme Court denied a rehearing. It re United States Supreme Court, by a majority marked that as on one side of the line there of five against a minority of four judges, laid may be a right of trial by jury, and on the down the principle that a corporation cannot other side no such right, accused was denied collect debts for merchandise sold under an no right or constitutional privilege, as each illegal agreement in restraint of trade such state prescribes its own modes of judicial as is prohibited by the Sherman anti-trust proceedings. law. The Court found it could not give judg Divorce. Amount of Alimony Pendente ment to the plaintiff "without departing from Lite—Wife's Real Necessities. N. Y. the statutory rule, long established in the Pending a divorce suit the husband volun jurisprudence of both this country and Eng land, that a court will not lend its aid in any tarily allowed his wife $25,000 a year for her way to enforce or to realize the fruits of an support. She deemed this insufficient and agreement which appears to be tainted with sought to have the amount raised to $120,000. illegality." The opinion, which was written In Gould v. Gould, 114 N. Y. Supp. 331, the by Mr. Justice Harlan, sustained the action New York Supreme Court remarked that no of the lower courts. Justices Brewer, White, rule had been adopted by the courts entitling a wife to one third her husband's income, Peckham and Holmes dissented. irrespective of that income's relation to rea Contracts. Lex Loci Contractus Governs— sonable expenditures by the person who Affreightment Contracts—Bills of Lading. N. Y. possesses it. The sum granted was amply The Appellate Division of the New York sufficient as alimony pendente lite, in accord Supreme Court, following the decision of the ance with the rule which requires that, pend United States Circuit Court of Appeals in ing a matrimonial action, an award of alimony Erie R. R. v. P. C. M.& E. Co., 162 Fed. should be limited to the real necessities of the Rep. 878, has decided that the validity and wife's proper and reasonable support. construction of a contract of affreightment Due Process of Law. Municipal Ordinance are to be determined by the law of the place —Condemnation of Food without Hearing. where it was made, unless a different inten tion of the parties is clearly shown. It was U. S. In North American Cold Storage Company held that an entire contract made in Illinois for the transportation of goods from Chicago v. City of Chicago, in the Supreme Court of to New York, via the Great Lakes, was gov the United States (December, 1908, 29 Sup. erned by the law of Illinois which requires Ct. Rep. 101), it was held that due process of provisions in a bill of lading exempting the law is not denied the owner or custodian of carrier from liability for damage by fire in food in cold storage by a municipal ordinance order for their validity to be expressly as under which such food when unfit for human sented to, although the goods were destroyed consumption may summarily be seized, con in transit within the state of New York, demned, and destroyed by municipal officers according to the law of which latter state without a preliminary hearing. the fire exemption provision would become Highways. Obstruction by Railroad—Lia binding by simple acceptance of the bill of bility for Damage by Fire—Concurrent Cause. lading. Edward Valk et al. v. Erie Railroad Ill. Co. (Jan. 1909). The fire department, while hurrying to Criminal Procedure. Constitutional Law— extinguish a conflagration, was delayed for Right to Jury of the Vicinage. Cal. about thirty minutes by a train of cars which A woman who had sent a box of poisoned had been left standing across a street. In Houren v. Chicago, M. 6- St. P. Ry. Co., 86 candy from California to a woman in Dela N. E. Rep. 611, the railroad was sued for the ware, causing her death, was tried and con victed in California. In People v. Botkin, destruction of respondent's house, which it 98 Pac. Rep. 861, she sought a rehearing, was alleged was caused by the inability of on the ground that by the trial in California the fire-engines to reach it in time. The of a crime committed in Delaware, she was Illinois Supreme Court held that the obstruc deprived of her right to trial by a jury selected tion was a concurrent cause of the burning, from the vicinage or county where the crime and that although absolute proof of the result