Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 21.pdf/625

 592

The Green Bag

tiff appealed from the judgment rendered in the consolidated action. The Court of Appeals of the State of New York, in a judgment rendered Oct. 5 (N. Y. Law Jour., Oct. 11, 1909), held that while the plaintiff might have grouped his several causes of action in a single suit, he was not legally bound to do so, as each suit was based upon a separate cause of action. The Court (Werner, J.) said:— "A tenant who holds over after the ex piration of a definite term for a year or years may be treated by his landlord as a trespasser or as a tenant from year to year. If the landlord elects to treat the tenant as holding over for another year, the conditions of the original lease apply, except as to duration (Haynes v. Aldrich, 133 N. Y. 287; Adams v. City of Cohoes, 127 id. 175). Under such a holding over a tenant is bound for another Interstate Commerce. Transactions of For year not by virtue of an express contract, eign Corporation not Licensed to Do Business but by implication of law springing from the in the State are Interstate Commerce. Colo. circumstances ( Herter v. Mullen, 159 N. Y. Without having secured permission from 28, 43). The only logical deduction from the that state, a foreign corporation, through its choice thus given to the landlord of treating a traveling representatives, sold goods in Colo holdover tenant either as a trespasser or as rado. The vendees were sued for the pur a tenant for another year is that each holding chase price. A statute provides that no over, where acquiesced in by the landlord, foreign corporation shall prosecute a suit in constitutes a new term, separate and distinct the state until it has complied with the law. from those which preceded it and related to The Colorado Supreme Court in Herman each other only in the conditions of the Bros. Co. v. Nasiacos, 103 Pac. Rep. 301, original lease which the law reads into the held the transaction a contract of interstate new tenancy. Some of the text-writers and commerce, and ruled that it was not within a few of the earlier decisions seem to have the power of the state to interfere with the confused the subject by referring to tenancies business of the foreign corporation so long as from year to year arising by operation of law, its transactions in the state were confined as continuations of the original terms, when to transactions of interstate commerce. It it would have been more correct to character was not doubted that the states might exclude ize them as new tenancies subject to the foreign corporations entirely, or that they original conditions. The later decisions in might exact such security for the perform this court have, however, defined this species ance of their contracts with its citizens as in of tenancy with a precision that admits of no their judgment would best promote the pub misunderstanding." lic interest, but statutes imposing obliga Edward T. Bartlett, J., dissented in a tions upon foreign corporations will be con lengthy and carefully prepared opinion. strued as not applicable to corporations Legislative Power. Congress May Delegate engaged solely in interstate commerce. Power to Determine Facts on Which Operation Landlord and Tenant. Consolidation of of a Statute Depends—Constitutionality of Actions—Claims against Tenant Holding Over Twenty- Eight Hour Live Stock Law— Unit After Expiration of Lease. N. Y. of Violation the Shipment and Not the Car U. S. In the case of Kennedy v. City of New York, load. the plaintiff, a landlord, had brought two In Southern Pacific Co. v. U. S. (N. Y. actions for the rent of the years 1898 and Law Jour. Oct. 5, 1909), decided by the 1899, on a lease held over after the expiration United States Circuit Court of Appeals for of the term. The two actions were con the ninth circuit in July, the plaintiff con solidated by order of the court, and the plain tended that the Twenty-eight Hour Law (Act measure which the court has not been able to find in willful misapplication. If the facts stated in the indictment do not set forth a case of conversion, the indictment is bad, and a general allegation of wrongful intent will not cure it." The Court also said :— "That the statements setting forth overt acts cannot be resorted to to aid or supple ment defective averments in the indictment proper is plain law. The technical reason for this rule is stated by Judge Woods in the Brittin case, 108 U. S. 199. Laying aside therefore the 'overt acts,' the statement of conspiracy under section 5440 to commit an offense under section 5399 is clearly insufficient under Pettibone v. United States, 148 U. S. 197, in that secretion is not charged. No point other than this is now considered."