PROGRESS OF THE LAW. AS MARKED BY DECISIONS SELECTED FROM THE ADVANCE REPORTS. ATTORNEYS. The general employment of an attorney to defend a case is an entire contract, and if he withdraws without cause, Right to or is discharged for justifiable reasons, before Compensation the contract is completed, he cannot maintain an action for the value of his services: Supreme Court of California in Cahill v. Baird, 70 Pac. 1061. See also Holmes v. Evans, 129 N. Y. 140. In Walsh v. Shumway, 65 Ills. 471, the court suggests the modification that the case is different "where an attorney has been retained without a specific contract," but no such restriction is made in this case or in Moyers v. Graham, 15 Lea, 60. CARRIERS. Through In Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Harris, 32 Southern, 309, the Supreme Court of Mississippi holds that where a roundtrip ticket is sold, good only for one day, it is good for a return trip on the only train returning that day, though such train is not scheduled to stop at the station of purchase. See Head v. Railway Co., 79 Ga. 358. A railroad company sold a ticket for itself and as agent of a connecting line, limiting its liability for any injury to Limitation of a passenger to its own line. The Supreme Liability Court of South Carolina holds in Oliver v. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 43 S. E. 307, that it was, nevertheless, responsible to a passenger for an injury caused by negligence on a track of a connecting line, over which it was accustomed to run its cars for a short distance before turning them over to the connecting line, and this though the conductor moves his train under orders from the connecting line. CONFESSIONS. Inducement A promise that, if one charged with a crime will confess, he will be protected by those having him in charge against the wrath of others implicated in the crime, does not render the confession inadmissible, if otherwise voluntary: Supreme Court of Alabama in Hunt v. State, 33 Southern, 329. "The promise which will render a confession involuntary, in the eyes of the law, must have relation to the legal consequences of the offence itself. The mere collateral benefit of protection from the personal violence of those who acted with him in the commission of the crime will not suffice." CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. In Kennedy v. Mayor of Pawtucket, 53 Atl. 317, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island holds that a statute, providDelegation of ing for the appointment of commissioners to Legislative divide a city into not more than seven wards, Power in such manner as to secure, as nearly as may be, an equal number of electors in each ward, having regard to the number of inhabitants, and to divide the wards into a convenient number of voting districts, is not unconstitutional as a delegation of legislative power; the acts to be done by the commissioners being only administrative and ministerial. See City of Jacksonville v. L'Engle, 20 Fla. 344. of Future Wages In Indiana the statute law prohibits the assignment of wages to become due to employes, and declares invalid Assignment any agreement whereby an employer is relieved from weekly paying to his employe his full wages. In International Text-Book Co. v. Weissinger, 65 N. E. 521, the Supreme Court of Indiana holds that in view of the importance to the state of the wellbeing of the wage-earners and in view of the temptations to sacrifice future earnings, the disability imposed by the act constitutes a lawful exercise of the police power, and is not in violation of the Constitution, either as an unreasonable restraint upon the liberty of the citizen, or as a deprivation of property without due process of law. See Railroad Co. v. Matthews, 174 U. S. 96. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (CONTINUED). Pensions A law granting a pension to the widow of a policeman who had died several years before its enactment is unconstitutional as an appropriation of money to private purposes: People v. Partridge, 65 N. E. 164. See also the recent case of Mahon v. Board, 171 N. Y. 263, 63 N. E. 1107. Regulation of Sales In Neas v. Borches, 71 S. W. 50, the Supreme Court of Tennessee holds that an act of the state providing special terms for sales in bulk of stocks of merchandise, otherwise than in the ordinary course of trade, and declaring that such sales shall be deemed fraudulent unless the parties make an inventory five days before the sale, and the purchaser makes diligent inquiry as to creditors of the seller, and gives them five days' notice of the sale, stating the cost price and the price to be paid, is a valid regulation of such business and not unconstitutional as class legislation or as depriving persons of the freedom of contract guaranteed under the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. One judge dissents. See Third Nat. Bank v. Divine Grocery Co., 97 Tenn. 611. Due Process Trespasses on the property rights of an individual, committed by public officers or agents professedly acting under authority of a state law, but which are not only of Law, State not authorized by such law, but by a fair conAgencies struction of it are prohibited, cannot be imputed to the state so as to bring them within the constitutional inhibition to deprive persons of property without due process of law, and on that ground to confer jurisdiction on a federal court to grant relief: U. S. Circuit Court (S. D. New York) in Huntington v. City of New York, 118 Fed. 683. See Chicago B. & Q. R. Co. v. City of Chicago, 166 U. S. 226. Service of With two judges dissenting, the New York Supreme Court (Appellate Division, Fourth Department) holds in Goldie v. Goldie, 79 N. Y. Supp. 268, that an Order order to show why one should not be punished for contempt for failure to pay alimony, served on the attorney of the defendant, is void, and in violation of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States declaring that no one shall be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law. See McComb v. Weaver, 11 Hun. 271. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (Continued). Compulsory The Georgia Code provides in general that where goods are shipped over the lines of connecting carriers under contracts whereby the first carrier is liable only as a forwarder, and are lost, it shall be the duty of the initial or connecting carrier, upon application by the shipper, "to trace said freight and inform said applicant in writing, when, where, how and by which carrier said freight was lost, damaged or destroyed, and the names of the parties and their official positions, if any, by whom the truth of the fact set out in said information can be established. If the carrier to which application is made shall fail to trace said freight, and give said information in writing, within the time prescribed, then said carrier shall be liable for the value of the freight lost, damaged or destroyed, in the same manner, and to the same extent as if said loss, damage, or destruction occurred on its line." In Central Ry. Co. of Georgia v. Murphey, 43 S. E. 265, the Supreme Court of Georgia holds this very important statute constitutional. CORPORATIONS. The Court of Appeals of New York holds in People v. American Loan and Trust Co., 65 N. E. 200, that while Insolvency, interest is allowed, as against an insolvent corPreferences, poration or it stockholders, if the assets are sufInterest ficient for that purpose, on the settlement of an insolvent corporation, where a receiver has been appointed, no interest is allowed after such appointment, as between preferred and unpreferred creditors. See also Thomas v. Car Co., 149 N. S. 16. COURTS. In Jersey City, etc., Ry. Co. v. New York, etc., Ry. Co., 53 Atl. 709, the Court of Chancery of New Jersey holds that when two railways cross each other at grade, Jurisdiction and, being unable to agree upon proper provisions for protection against collision, submit that question to the determination of the court, it has jurisdiction to determine it. CRIMINAL LAW. Larceny by In an indictment for larceny by a bailee, it is necessary to allege the name of the bailor, and in concise terms the purpose or use for which the property was intrusted to the defendant; for this is an essential ultimate fact, which must be proven in order to sustain the indictment: Supreme Court of Minnesota in State v. Holton, 92 N. W. 541. See People v. Poggi, 19 Cal. 600. DEATH BY WRONGFUL ACT. Right of Action, Parties The Ohio statutes provide that an action for injuries by wrongful death shall be brought for the exclusive benefit of certain relatives of the deceased person, "and it shall be brought in the name of the personal representative of the deceased person." The father of one wrongfully killed in Ohio, being a resident of Indiana, brought suit in his own name in Indiana, claiming under the Ohio statute. In Fabel v. Cleveland, etc., Ry. Co., 65 N. E. 929, the Appellate Court of Indiana (Division No. 2) holds that, the right of recovery being in derogation of the common law, the only party who could bring the action, whatever might be the provisions of the Indiana statute in regard to similar cases, was the personal representative, as designated in the Ohio statute. See Usher v. R. R. Co., 126 Pa. 206. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania holds in Marsh v. Western New York & P. Ry. Co., 53 Atl., 1001, that the Assignment right of action of a widow to recover damages of Claim for the wrongful death of her husband is one for unliquidated damages in an action sounding in tort, and may not be assigned. Since in such action, the measure of damages is strictly the pecuniary loss sustained the soundness of this decision may well be questioned. See Quin v. Moore, 15 N. Y. 432. DOWER. The New York Supreme Court (Appellate Division, First Department) holds in Nichols v. Park, 79 N. Y. Equitable Supp. 547, that a husband who paid for land, Interests but who had the title conveyed to his brother to prevent his wife's dower right attaching, had neither seisin in fact nor in law of the land, but at most a mere |