Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 21.pdf/429

 402

The Green Bag

1908, were, however, ambitious in their aspirations. With a sublime indifference to the conditions which govern the reform of the domestic laws of many of the Unionist and Non-Unionist countries, they elected to aim at a code which should at once comprehend much of the old machinery, tinkered a little here and there, and much that was wholly new. There is every danger that, as a result, they will retard instead of advancing the realization of their aims, and complicate instead of simplifying the international sys tem." Corporations. "Jurisdiction of the Fed eral Courts Based upon Diversity of Citizen ship in an Action Brought by an Individual Against a Corporation which is Incorporated in or Adopted by Two or More States, Where the Plaintiff is a Citizen of One of Such States." By P. J. Altizer. 43 American Law Review 409 (May-June). "To summarize, it is well settled that a citizen of one state can go into another state and sue in the federal courts there, on the ground of diverse citizenship, a corporation actually created, whether by original incor poration or by the consolidation of different corporations, under the laws of the state of the forum. And this is true, notwithstanding the fact that there may be in the state ol plaintiff's domicil a corporation of the same name as the corporation sued, both having one set of officers, incorporated by the con current legislation or consolidated under authority of the two states, and acting and doing business as a single corporation. "In cases where the defendant corporation has not actually been incorporated as an original corporation by the state in which the suit is brought, under the holding in Railway Company v. James (161 U. S. 545; 1896), the suit cannot be maintained in the federal courts in that or in any other state by a cit izen of the state granting the original char ter, where jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship. "And, finally, a suit cannot be maintained in the federal courts on the ground of diversity of citizenship, in the state of plaintiff's residence, against a corporation actually incorporated under the laws of that state, whether by original charter or by re incorporation. If there be no reincorpora tion in the state of the forum, then the federal court has jurisdiction; and the question of whether or not there has been reincorpora tion is to be determined by judicial con struction of the statutes and acts done there under." See Bill of Rights, Conflict of Laws. Criminology. "How Thieves Live." By Charles Somerville. Everybody's, v. 21, p. 101 (July). The writer is criminal reporter for the New York Journal. "For twenty years a certain male shop

lifter had eluded not only capture, but even suspicion. His well-furnished apartment in the upper west side of New York City—in a neighborhood of the highest respectability— had known him as a tenant for more than fifteen years. Every one of the pretty orna ments in the home had been filched. The great rolls of silks that he brought home from time to time aroused no suspicion in his wife's mind, for she understood that he was a buyer for a large drygoods house. His trips away from home, when he disposed of his goods in distant cities, were all accounted for by the same explanation. The man was very fond of children, and planned a big Christmas party to which his two young sons were to invite their friends, big and little. He was arrested while attempting to steal toys which were to have been gifts from his children to their playmates." Defamation. "Absolute Immunity in Defa mation: Judicial Proceedings." By Van Vechten Veeder. 9 Columbia Law Review 463 (June). The first portion of a paper to be concluded next month. "The rule of absolute immunity is founded upon the principle that on certain occasions it is indispensable, or at least advantageous, to the public interest that persons should speak freely and fearlessly, uninfluenced by the possibility of being brought to account in an action for defamation. This class of cases is naturally a comparatively narrow one. It is strictly limited to judicial pro ceedings, legislative proceedings, and certain official proceedings of executive officers of state. "The common law doctrine has been little disturbed by statutory enactment. Although the common law doctrine of absolute privi lege is recognized, with slight variation in details, in all the states, this familiar term is not once mentioned in any of the statutes. It is always clear, however, whether absolute or qualified privilege is referred to by the absence or presence in the statute of refer ence to the term malice. . . . "The rule applies to and includes every publication which constitutes a step in, or arises out of, a judicial proceeding, or which has some relation thereto, whether such pro ceeding be ex parte or inter partes, in open court or in private, or of a preliminary, interlocutory or final character. But it does not apply to or include any publication of defamatory matter before the commencement, or after the termination of the judicial pro ceeding (unless such publication is an act incidental to the proper initiation thereof, or giving legal effect thereto); nor does it apply to or include any publication of defam atory matter to any person other than those to whom, or in any place other than that in which, such publication is required or author ized by law to be made for the proper conduct of the judicial proceedings. The requirement that the publication must have some relation