Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 21.pdf/268

 Latest Important Cases* Journal (Apr. 8) says, "It may be taken as finally determined for this state that a general right to prohibit advertisements on private property cannot be secured without a con stitutional amendment," and quotes an article in the Harvard Law Review for November, 1906 (20 H. L. R. 42), the writer of which says that while the law must be taken as settled, "it is entirely possible that the in creasing aesthetic sentiment will, in time, sanction the judiciary in taking a cognizance of particular nuisances, as is now done with nuisances of noise and smell." Common Carriers. Liability Limited to Valuation in Shipping Receipt—Interstate Commerce Act. N. Y. Under section 20 of the interstate Com merce Act, as amended by Act of Congress, passed June 29, 1906, an initial carrier is liable to a shipper for a loss occurring on the lines of connecting carriers, as well as his own, having a right of recovery over against a connecting carrier if the loss occurred on the line of the latter. But in Greenwald et al. v. Weir, decided in March (N. Y. L. J. Mar. 17), Billboards. "Sky Sign" Ordinance— Police the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Divi sion, held that such amendment to the Inter Power. N. Y. state Commerce Act does not, however, The New York Court of Appeals decided abrogate the rule that a carrier's liability is on March 30, in People ex rel. M. Wineburgh limited to the value of merchandise shipped Adv'g Co. v. Edward S. Murphy (N. Y. L. J. as declared in the shipping receipt signed and Apr. 8), that the ordinance of the City of delivered by or in behalf of the carrier and New York forbidding the erection of a "sky accepted by or in behalf of the shipper. sign" for advertising purposes over nine feet Contracts. Equitable Mutuality.—Injunc in height above the front wall or cornice of a tions. U. S. building is unenforceable when the sign is on An injunction pendente lite was granted private property and is safely and securely constructed. The prohibition in such a case against breach of that portion of a contract cannot be said to be in the interest of the as to which there was equitable mutuality by the United States Circuit Court for the public health, morals or safety, and the ordi nance is not, therefore, enforceable as an exer southern district of New York, in B. F. cise of the police power. (Building Code, Keith v. Annette Kellerman, decided in March (N. Y. L. J. Apr. 7), the contract being one City of New York, sec. 144.) Commenting editorially, the New York Law to perform unique services, in giving diving and swimming exhibitions. But the Court •Copies of the pamphlet Reporters containing refused to lend its relief for a breach of that full reports of any of these decisions which are part of the contract which regulated the cited in the National Reporter System may be summer season, as that portion failed to fix secured from the West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, at 25 cents each. In ordering, the periods for summer performances and the title of the desired case should be given as well lacked equitable mutuality. For if no summer as the citation of volume and page of the Reporter performances should be held the defendant in which it is printed. Bankruptcy. Conveyances for Good Con sideration— Vendee Acting in Good Faith. D. C. The Supreme Court of the District of Colum bia, per Mr. Justice Barnard, dismissed a bill in equity in March, 1909, brought by a trustee in bankruptcy to set aside a sale of property in good faith and for a valuable consideration {Wilson v. Powell et al., Wash ington Law Reporter, April 2, 1909, pp. 210212). It was held that when it is proved that the vendor made the sale with fraudulent intent to hinder and delay his creditors, the burden is upon the vendee to prove payment of a sufficient consideration; but this being established the burden is then upon the creditors attacking the sale to show bad faith in the vendee. Moreover, where it appeared the vendees were not acquainted with the vendor prior to the negotiations for the sale, had given a full and fair consideration for the property, which had been actually delivered, and had employed an attorney to examine the title, it was held that there was nothing to overcome the presumption of good faith.