Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/247

 Review of Periodicals ceedings." By Van Vechten Veeder. 10 Columbia Law Review 131 (Feb). “Absolute immunity is conﬁned to members of Congress and of the state legislatures. The blic policy which requires the utmost eedom of action in the conduct of these independent de artments of government does not apply to in erior bodies exercising certain legislative functions, such as city councils, boards of supervisors, etc. Members of such bodies are sufficiently protected by their exemption from liability in the exercise of good faith." Drugs. “The Law of Poisons and Phar macy." By W. Wippell Gadd. 35 Law Magazine and Review 170 (Feb). A review of the recent work of W. S. Glyn ]ones of the Middle Temple on this subject. Employer's Liability. “Employers' Lia bility in England Prior to the Act of 1880." By James T. Carey. 58 Univ. of Pa. Law Review 259 (Feb). “The extent of the employer's duties at this time may be stated to have been: (1) in case of personal interference with the work, to be careful of the safety of the workman; (2) to warn the servant of defects in the machinery and plant of which he knew, and of which the servant was ignorant and with which the latter could not, by the exercise of reasonable care, acquaint himself; (3) in the absence of personal attention, to take reason able care to employ a corn tent man to provide a safe place to wor and suitable appliances, the employer being allowed either to furnish to said appointee suﬁicient mate rials for these purposes or adequate means of providing same; (4) to take reasonable care to select one competent to retain careful servants with whom the employee would be associated. "Such a small measure of obligation resulted in throwing on the workman risks of danger to life and limb which he was unable to pre vent, and, in view of his dependent situation, had to assume as incident to the employment. This eﬁect had been brought about by the tendency of the courts, through a long series of cases, to consider the facts, not as presenting single instances of a broad economic situation, but as dis tes between ern loyers and work men whic were to be settied on the theory that the parties had ‘impliedly contracted‘ concerning

the

subjects

in

dispute;

the

incidents implied from the contract relation were deﬁned with the result that not only

were these resolved for the most part in favor of the master, but the basis of decision was ﬁctional. "It was with a view to betterin the work man's position in the law that the mployers' Liability Act was passed, and it is interesting

to note that the jurisdiction in which it was adopted is today one of the most advanced in its methods of adjusting the relations of workmen and those for whom they labor, recognizing the status of employer and em

229‘

ployed as presenting social and legal problems of vast importance." Equitable Assignments. “Notice of Assign ments in Equity." By Edward Q. Keasbey. 19 Yale Law journal 258 (Feb). "There is no doubt that it is the established rule, applicable to equitable interests as well as to legal titles, that in the absence of con trolling equities the title that is prior in time must prevail. It is also well settled that an equitable assignment as well as a legal assign ment of a debt is complete as between the assiglnee and the assignor, although no notice of t e assilgnment bemgiven to the debtor or trustee. t is gene ly agreed that if no notice of an assignment be 'ven to the debtor, the assignment is not comp etc as a ainst him, and he may safely pay a secon assignee. The only question is whether the rule shall be applied also to the protection of a second assignee who is an innocent purchaser without notice from the debtor or depositary, espe cially if he has made inquiry of the debtor with regard to his knowledge of a prior assi ment. “ t is this question that has been answered in the aﬂirmative in Dlarlc v. Hall (3 Russ. 1, 1827), and the English and American cases in which the rule adopted in England in 1827 has been followed. . . . It may be said that the rule of reason and sound policy su ported by the weight of authority is the rule edared by Sir Thomas Plumer and approved by Lord Lyndhurst in Dearle v. Hall. Ithlcs. "Christian Morals and the Competi tive System." By Thorstein Veblen. Iuter national journal of Ethics, v. 20, p. 168 (Jan). "It appears, then, that these two codes of conduct, Christian morals and business prin ciples, are the institutional by-pfroducts of two different cultural situations.

he former,

in so far as they are typically Christian, arose out of the abjectly and precariousl servile relations in which the populace stoo to their masters in lgte lﬁgmaln tiiﬁes, as dalso, inha eat, thoug ess, eslfiitea, latter, uringtthee gt'i-ark' and the per midd es ages. morals of pecuniary competition, on the other hand, are habits of thought induced by the exigencies of vulgar life under the rule of handicraft and petty trade, out of which has come the peculiar system of rights and duties characteristic of modern Christendom. Yet there is something in common between the two. . . . The principle of fair play appears to be the nearest approach to the golden rule that the pecuniary civilizationwilladmit. . . . "There are indications in current events that these principles—habits of thought— are in process of disintegration rather than otherwise. . . . The principles of fair play and cuniary discretion have, in great meas ure, ost the sanction once afforded them by the human propensity for serviceability to the common good, neutral as that sanction has been at its best. Particularly is this true since business has taken on the char