Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 24.pdf/442

 Latest Important Cases was supported by Chief Justice White and Justices Day, Van Devanter and Pitney. Mr. Justice Holmes dissented and with him were Justices Lurton, Hughes and Lamar. The judgment of the Court of Appeals in the Dis trict of Columbia, in the conviction of Frederick A. Hyde and Joost H. Schneider of conspiracy to defraud the United States out of public lands in California and Oregon was affirmed. In giving his opinion Justice McKenna declared that the federal statute had given a meaning to the offense of conspiracy different from that it had at common law. He declared that if the Government was put to the necessity of trying alleged conspiracy cases at the place where the conspiracy was formed the defendants might escape punishment entirely for the reason that it was not always possible to prove the place where the conspiracy was actually formed. At the same time, and involving practically the same questions, the Court affirmed the sentence of Frank V. Brown and E. C. Moore, who were arrested in California at the instance of the Federal authorities in Nebraska, as alleged members of the notorious Maybray gang of fake horse race operators. The indictment set out that the conspiracy was formed in a place "unknown to the grand jury," and the case rested entirely on certain overt acts in furtherance of the alleged con spiracy, principally the alleged fraudulent use of the mails in the Omaha post-office.

•f-

Insurance. Corporation's Insurable Interest in Life of an Employee — Unaffected by Em ployee's Leaving his Employment. O. The Ohio Supreme Court on June 24, for the first time in its history, passed upon a case involving the right of a manufacturing corpora tion to insure the lives of its managing officers and skilled employees. This right was affirmed. The case involved two policies of $5,000 of the Northwestern Mutual Life upon the life of Thomas J. Gainor, taken out while he was vice-president and general manager of the company. The first policy was made payable to the Coshocton (O.) Glass Co. The other by mistake was made to Mrs. Mary M. Gainor, and later assigned to the company. Mr. Gainor left the service of the company several months before he died, and on this fact hinged the contest. The court refused to take the view that the glass company had no insurable interest

405

in Mr. Gainor's life and that if an insurable interest did exist at the time the policies were taken out if lapsed when he left the service of the company. Insurance. Policy Payable to Wife — No New Agreement Created by Transactions Aimed at Making Policy Payable to Estate of Policyholder. N. Y. By a divided court, voting four to three, it was held, May 24, that where a man took out a policy of insurance payable to his wife, or to her children on her death, and she died first leaving no issue, the insured thereupon asking the company to make the policy payable to his own estate, receiving the written assurance' that this would be done, and paying the prem iums for five years up to his death under this understanding, the policy belonged to the estate of the wife, rather than to the estate of the husband, and the belief of the husband that the contract could thus be changed was based upon a misapprehension of the law and could not work the result which he contemplated. This was the decision of the New York Court of Appeals in Bradshaie et al., executors, v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York. Judge Gray wrote the opinion, Haight, Hiscock and Chase, J.J., concurring. Cullen, Ch. J., and Vann, J., read dissenting opinions, with which Willard Bartlett, J., concurred. N. Y. Law Jour., June 7. Pure Food Laws. States May Adopt Legis lation not in Conflict with Federal Act — Inter state Commerce. U. S. In a decision announced by the United States Supreme Court June 7, the Indiana Pure Food Law of 1907 was upheld as constitutional. The question of the constitutionality of the statut3 was raised in Savage v. Jones, the plaintiff being manufacturer of a medicinal product. Justice Hughes, in announcing the court's unanimous decision, said a state had a right to compel the statement of ingredients of such an article, and that this was what the Indiana law required. Therefore it did not interfere with the federal law, which dealt with "false and misleading" labeling. The federal law, it was added, did not cover the entire field, but left certain powers to the states in the regulation of inter-state commerce in foods. States may enact legislation without interfering with the Federal Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906.