Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 23.pdf/236

 210

The Green Bag

everything stops at a certain date. Interest was not computed beyond the date of the com mission. Ex parteBennet, 2Atk. 527. . ..

We

take our bankruptcy system from England, and we naturally assume that the fundamental principles upon which it was administered were adopted by us when we copied the system, some what as the established construction of a law goes with the words where they are copied by another state. No one doubts that interest on unsecured debts stops.

See .5 63 (l).

Shawnee

County v. Hurley, 94 C. C. A. 362, 169 Fed. 92, 94. The rule is not unreasonable when closely considered. It simply ﬁxes the moment when the affairs of the bankrupt are supposed to be wound up." Chinese Exclusion Act. Seamen not Ex cluded-—— Intent to Leave Vessel must be Alleged in Indictment.

U. S.

That the captain of a vessel who, having one or more Chinamen in his crew, permits them to land in New York on arrival, does not violate the Chinese exclusion act, was the gist of an

opinion handed down Feb. 3 by judge Hand in the United States Circuit Court, sustaining a demurrer to an indictment. The indictment charged that Robert Jamieson, as master of a steamship, did knowingly bring to the port of New York a Chinaman named Ah Farr, a seaman

and a member of his crew, and did knowingly land the said seaman and permit him to be landed. Judge Hand held that a seaman or member of a crew of a vessel is not comprehended within section 9 of chapter 1015 of the First Session of the 50th Congress, 25 Stat. at Large, 476 (Act of Congress of September 13, 1888), providing that the master of any vessel who shall knowingly bring within the United States and land or at tempt to land or permit to be landed any Chinese laborer, or other Chinese person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, etc. The intent to leave, the Court also held, is

included in the term l‘bring" as used in this statute, and must be alleged in an indictment thereunder in like manner as any other speciﬁc intent which is the ingredient of a crime. U. S. v. Jamiesan, N. Y. Law Journal, Feb. 11. Insurance.

of Illness.

Requirement of Written Notice N. Y.

In Whiteside v. North American Accident Insurance Co., decided Jan. 3 (44 N. Y. Law Journal 1681, Jan. 24), the New York Court of Appeals held that one holding an accident policy containing a provision that written notice

of sickness must be mailed to the company by him or by his representative, within ten days after its commencement, is not excused from complying with the condition though incapaci tated from giving the notice by the sudden and serious character of his sickness. The Court (Hiscock, 1.), said:—

"Here the parties by their free and voluntary action have entered into a contract by which each has assumed certain obligations. The in surance company has agreed to make certain payments on account of sickness, and the assured ment of as such a condition obligationprecedent has agreed to the to the enforoe~ pay ment of certain premiums and to the service of the notice in question, which might have been prepared and served by some one else in his behalf if he was incapacitated from personally doing it. All of these provisions and engage ments enter into the substance of the contract which respondent is seeking to enforce, and under

such circumstances the courts will not relieve either party under the conditions here presented from fulﬁllment of the engagement which he has voluntarily undertaken. This distinction be tween obligations imposed on a party by statute and against his will and those voluntarily assumed by him as a part of a contract is clearly recognized by the decisions." Judge Haight dissented. Negligence. Contributory Negligence of One Who Blinds Himself to Object: in Busy Street. N. Y. A photographer who stands at the curb of a city street in the act of taking a photograph and on looking about and seeing no vehicle in sight except a city ash cart, a hundred feet or more

away, with no person on it, covers his head and face with a dark cloth, thus preventing his seeing approaching objects, and remains in that condition for about ﬁve minutes when he is struck and injured by the approaching cart, is guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law, which precludes a recovery by him for the injury in an action against the city. Such was the holding of the New York Court of Appeals in Mastin v. New York City, decided Feb. 14 (44 N. Y. Law Jour. 2297, Mar. 3). Judge Wil lard Bartlett, who wrote the opinion, said: — "My brother Werner's suggestion in the dis senting opinion, that the question of contribu tory negligence should be deemed a question of fact for the jury instead of being decided against him as a question of law because a majority of all the judges who have considered the case have entertained that view, would preclude us from