Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 24.pdf/532

 Latest Important Cases greater power in equity cases or in jury waived cases, and I do not recall that we hear very much about an abuse of such power." "Reform in the Judicial Administration of Justice." By Alexander W. Stephens. 75 Central Law Journal 127 (Aug. 16). "We are sadly in need of a standard practice act for adoption by the various states. It should first be adopted by Congress for the fed eral courts: — then each state, as it saw fit, could adopt it, or parts thereof, as same might be applicable to conditions obtaining in such particular state. A practice act should not con sist of hard and fast rules. It should merely lay down general rules to be followed as guides governing the procedure of a trial, together with wholesome restrictions upon the power of the judge calculated to prevent an abuse by him of the functions of his office. Specific rules of procedure should be worked out and formulated by the judges themselves as rules of court. The best thought of the profession today seems to be along this line. Rules of procedure should be directory in their nature rather than obligatory."

491

"Civil Judicial Statistics, 1910." 37 Law Magazine and Review 430 (Aug.). "The chief results shown by the returns are tersely summed up by Sir John Macdonell: 'Decrease in total proceedings begun or heard, absolutely and relatively to population; this decrease extending to almost all the Courts including the County Courts; the shrinkage particularly observable in the Chancery Divi sion.'" Public Insurance. "Social Insurance in England and Germany — A Comparison." By William Harbutt Dawson. Fortnightly Review, v. 92, p. 304 (Aug.). Comparing the principal features of the two systems, and showing in what respects they diverge, without, however, reaching any gen eral conclusion regarding the superiority of one over the other. Publicity of Court Proceedings. See Mar riage and Divorce. Social Insurance. See Public Insurance.

Latest Important Cases Bankruptcy. Trust Funds — Mingling with General Funds - Recovery by the Cestui que U. S. Trust. In In re M. E. Dunn & Co., 28 Am. B. R. 127, the rule was stated that where trust funds have been unlawfully diverted and intermingled with the general funds of a bankrupt, so as to render their identification impossible, the bank ruptcy court, acting as a court of equity, will follow them and decree restitution to the cestui que trust, if the unlawful appropriation of the trust funds resulted in swelling the assets and came into the possession of the trustee; but if after the misappropriation and mingling all the money is withdrawn, the equities are lost, al though moneys from other sources are subse quently deposited in the same place; or if a part of the funds so mingled is withdrawn, so that the fund is reduced to a smaller sum than the trust fund, the latter must be regarded as dissipated, except as to the balance, and funds subsequently added from other sources cannot be subjected to the equitable claim of the cestui que trust. Employers' Liability. Release Executed in Accordance with Sick Benefit Contract Invalid. U.S.

An employee on entering the service of a rail road company and becoming a member of its relief department, entered into a contract which provided that, in the event of his disability or death from accidental injuries, the benefits thereunder should not be payable or paid until a release should be made and filed releasing the company from all claims for damages by rea son of such injury or death. The employee re ceived sick benefits and life insurance by virtue of his membership of the department, and, on subsequently receiving an injury while employed in moving a train in interstate commerce, in order to obtain the benefits provided therefor duly executed a release in the terms required by the contract of membership. In Gawinske v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., de cided in May ( N. Y. Law Jour., Sept. 13) the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the third circuit (Buffington, J.) held that while the release was voluntarily made after the injury and after his right of action therefor had ac crued, it was not based on any settlement thereof, nor on any new consideration, and, being made in pursuance of the original contract and without additional consideration, was made void by Employers' Liability Act, April 22, 1908 (c. 149, sec. 5, 35 Stat. 66, U. S. Comp. St. Supp.