Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

McTerren v. Mont Alto R. Co., 791

PANAMA ETC., TEL. Co, v. INDIA RUBBER, ETC.

Meckler v. First Nat. Bunk of Hagerstown, 471

Co., 399, 452

Meeks v. Tassault, 14

Parcels v. Johnson, 161, 163

Mendelsohn, In re, 774, 807

PARKS v. CUFFEY, 149

Meneeley v. Meneeley, 663

Passmore v. W. U. Tel. Co., 631

Menx v. Jacobs, 435

Patterson v. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 639

Mercer Min. Co. v. McKee, 67

PATTERSON V. HEMPFIELD R. Co., 49
Merchants' M. Ins. Co. v. Baring, 14

PAYNE V, PATTERSON, 35
Merrill v. Merrill. 574

Payne et al. v. Lloyd et al., 791
Merwin v. Wheeler, 709

Peabody v. School Board, 403

Messenger v. Messenger, 321

Pearce v. Carrington, 195

Metz v. Soule et al., 595

Pease v. Warren, 727
Meyer's Appeal, 467

Pechner v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 807
Meyer v. Basson, 227

PEKIN v. BRERETON et al. 697
Michigan Cen. R. Co. v. Lantz et al., 737

PENNINGTON v. BAEHR, 92
Michener v. Payson, 709

Pennsylvania v. Ortwein, 121
Mickey v. Burlington Ius. Co., 146

Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Weber, 531
Miller v. Speed, 679

Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Krick, 483
Mills, in re, 86

People, the, v. Barrie, 14

Millikin v. Martin, 323

People, the, v. Hogan, 15

MILLER V. TEACHOUT, 354

People, the, v. Hastings, 259

Miller v. Williams, 436

PEOPLE, THE, V. NEWMAN, 649
Minor v. Happersett, 48, 246

People, the, v. Cage, 528
Miss. River Tel. Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 178

People, the, v. Hunckeler, 528
Miss. Valley L. Ins. Co. v. Neyland, 598

People, the, v. Collier, 710
M. & O. R. Co. v. Weiner, 113

People, the, v. McGowan, 752

Mitchell v. Lancashire, etc., R. Co , 620, 368 People, the, v. Com. Council of Detroit, 727

Mitchell v. Mayor, 304

People, the, v. Gov'r of Michigan, 727

Mock, et al. v. Detroit Build. Assoc., 72

People, the, v. Holihan. 727
MOLLIE MOHLER" v. HOME INS. Co., 50

PEOPLE, THE, V. STOREY, 249

Monger v. Shirley, 368

People F. Ins. Co. v. Heart, 34

Monitor M. F. Ins. Co. v. Buffum, 402

PERKINS v. FON DU LAC, 49
Montgomery, In re, 440

Perkins v. Clay, 726

Moore, In re, 239

Perris v. Higley, 370

Moreland v. Marion Co., 792

Perry v. Lorrillard, 710

MORROW v. WOOD, 649

Peters v. “ Dexter," 371

Morris v. Shryock, et al., 235

Pierce v. Chicago, etc., R Co., 377, 389

Mount v. First. Nat. B. of Mt. Pleasant, 616

Pingham v. Mattax, 225
MUIR v. FOLEY, 713

Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Nucum, 829
Mullen v. Indiana, 661

Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. S. W. Penn. R. Co., 67
Munford, 7. E., ex parte, 45

Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Pillow, 79
Munnell v. Peters, 68

Pittsburg's Assessors, In re, 306
Muller v. Fern, 147

Pittsburg Loco. & Car W. v. Nat. Bank of Keokuk,
Murdock v. Mayor, etc., of Memphis, 135, 151

692
Musselman v. Cravens, 482

Philadelphia, etc. R. Co. v. Stinger, 555
Mutual B. L. Ins. Co. v. Atwood's Adm., 500

PHILBRICK v. PELLSTON, 230

Phillips v. Dunkirk, etc., R. Co., 669

Naesen, In re, 570, 761

Plaisted v. Palmer, 575

Nalle & Co. v. Lurly, 678

Platt v, Parker, 774
Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Tennessee, 179

Plummer v. Guthrie, 67, 678

Nashua Fire Ins. Co. v. Moore, 436

Pollard v. Bailey, 3

Nat. Gold Bank & Trust Co, v. McDonald, 820 Pollock v. Landes, 615
Nat. State Bank v. Independent School, etc., 34

Pomeroy v. Benton, 130
Nat. Bank of Washington v. Texas, 49

Pontiac v. Carter, 531
Nat. Bank of Commerce v. Merchants' Bank of Porter v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 383
Memphis, 793, 803

Porter v. So. Express Co., 774

Neal v. Coe, 147

PORTER v. BRIGGS, 681

Port v. Port, 178
Neeley v. Merritt, 598
NEELEY v. TENNESSEE, 533

Potter v. Hopkins, 179

Nelson v. Haynor, 468

Providence, etc., S. §. Co., In re, 241

Nelson v. lowa, etc., R. Co., 729, 739

Price v. Bailey, 324

Neuman v. Goddard, 130

Neville v. Cork, etc., R. Co., 366

Quale v. Moon, 528

NEWCOMEN v. LYNCH, 385

Queen v. Taylor, 458

Newton v. Newton, 225

Quincy, etc., R. Co.v. Wellhoener, 622

New Hampshire v. Tebbetts, 710

New Hampshire v. Clark, 711

Rafferty v. People, 451

New Hampshire v. Archer, 711

Railroad Com. v. Portland, etc., R. Co.. 574

New Hampshire v. Woods, 97

Rain v. Roper, 677

New Orleans Gas Co. v. Crescent City Gas Co , 149 Rand v. Hubbell, 403

Newton v. McKay, 727

Randall v. Smith, 574

New York Life Ins, Co. v. La Boiteaux, 806

Reading v. Wedder, 403
Nichols v. Marsland, 523

READ V. WOODWARD, 649

NOONAN V. ORTON, 649

Reck's appeal, 631

North Carolina v. Hughs, 807

Reed v. Buttington, 112
Norwich, Steamship, In re, 241

Reed v. Hatch, 695
North western P. Co. v. Clough, 83

REES et al. v. PELIZER et al., 663

Richardson & Co., In re, 86

Noyes, In re, 40

Riddle v. Littlefield, 97, 225

Riddle et al. v. Roll, 259

Ochiltree v. Iowa R. Const. Co., 178

O'Hale v, Sacramento. 527

Ridgeway et al. v. Underwood, 661

Onde v. North M. L. Ins. Co., 567

Ripley v. Gage, 97

Ohio v. Fertilizing Co., 306

Robinson v. Laraba, 574

Ohio v. PECK, 697

Robinson v. Noel, 112
Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Selby, 483

Robinson v. W. Pacific R. Co., 528
Oliver v, Omaha, 772

Robinson v. Elliott, 227

Onore, In re, 242

Roberts v. McGrath, 734

Orner v. Saunders, 772

Rodman v. Thalheimer, 434

Rodocanachi v. Elliott, 195

Orr v. Quinby, 726

Roddin v, Shurley, 323

Ortwein v. Commonwealth, 678

Rohrback v. Germania F. Ins. Co., 807

Osgood v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 275, 283
Osborne's Case, 528

Rohrback v. Ætna Ins. Co., 807

Roman v. Serna, 449

Owens, In re, 530

Root's appeal, 99

PACIFIC MAIL v. TEN BALES OF GUNNIES, 47

Rosher v. Williams, 483

Ross v. JONES, 434

Page v. Brewster, 710

Rowe v. Page, 711

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

CENTRAL LAW JOURNAL_TABLE OF CASES.

Rubber Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 161

Slevens v. Gage, 589

Vannevar v. Bryant, 223
Ruchman v. Lightner's Exec., 500

Steward v. Teutonia, 482

Varner v Khite, 696
Ryan v. World Mut, Ins. Co., 131

STICKNEY, ASSIGNEE, v. WILT, 39

Vermyle et al. v. Adams Ex. Co., 381
Ryder v. Meyer, 324

St. Joseph, etc., R. Co. v. Callender, 31

Visauska v. Bradley, 774
St. Yohn v. Quitzon, 89

Wadham v. Gay, 547
Saint v. Pilley. 529

St. Louis County Court v. Griswold, et al., 56

Walker v. Day, et al., 179
Salkey and Gerson, in re, 110, 224

St. Louis Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Grigsby, 123

WALKER V. Miss. VALLEY, ETC., R. CO., 481 Salmon et al. v. Burgess, 775

St. Louis Sav, Bank v. Shawnee Co. Bank, 46 Walker v. Seigel et al., 508 SAUNDERSON v. GRAVES, 654

Stollenwerk v. Thacher, 402

Wallace v. Auer, 467
Salmon v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 662

Stout v. Merrill, 146

Wall, ex parte, 527
Sanborn v. Robinson, 710

Stover's Appeal, 179, 227

Waller v. Creswell, 774
SARGENT V. BOSTON & L. R. Co., 403, 714 Strader, et al., V. Snyder, 652

Ward v. Belton, 435
Sargent v. Cornish, 380

Stram v. Gourden, III

Ward v. Flood, 527
San Francisco, etc., R. Co., v. Bee, 528

Strehl v. D'Evers, 303

Warner v. Cronknite, 773
San Francisco v. Spring V. Water W.,

528
Stroho v. Hartford F. Ins. Co., 710

Warren v. Wisconsin Val. R. Co., 542
Sausser's case, 529

Sulkey v. Joseph, In re, 291

Warning v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 67
Sawyer et al., ex parte, 482

SULLIVAN v. N. PACIFIC R. Co., 12, 165

Washington v. Meigs, 563
Scaife v. Farrant, 383 (Ex. Ch.) 605

Sullivan Co. v. Snell, 99

Waterman v. People, 599
Schalwin x. Holmes, 668

Sullivan's Admr. v. Louisville B. Co., 598

Watson v. Citizens Sav. Bank of S. C., 126
Schrader v. Burr. 14

Sullivan Co. v. Grafton Co., 695

Watson v, Taylor, 511
Scott v. Kelly, 160

Swain v. Saltmarsh, 388

Watson v. Rundurant, 371
Scott v. Miller, 661

Sweeney v. Lomme, 371

Weaver v. Ohio, 260
Scudder v. Union Nat. Bank, 827

Swihart v. Shaum, 82

Weave v. Linnell, 727 • Sea Gull” v. “Sarah Watson," 228

Sykes v. Sykes, 112

Webb, In re., 775
Seaman v. O'Hara, 727

Weber v. Anderson, 227
Seckel v. Scott, 451

Tappan's appeal, 694

Weed Sewing Machine Co. v. Wicks, 475
Secombe v. Railway Co., 322

Tarrant v. Swain, 754

Weil v. Calm, 97
Selma, etc., R. Co. v. Lacey, 305

Tawney v. Long, 531

Weimar v. Bunbury, 99
Sewall v. Roberts, 402

Teat, ex parte, 48

Weise v. JUNKER, 197
Seymour v. Bailey, 661

Templeton v. Kraner, 259

Welch v. Ware, 346
Shanks v. Albert, 483

TENNANT'S CASE, 97

Wells v. Mayor, 529
Shedd v. Hawthorne, 96

Tennille v. Phelps, 305

Wells' Admr. v. Robb, 598
Sherrard v. Lafayette Co., 347

Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 482

Wemys v. Hopkins, 509
Shirts v. Overjohn, 423

Terry v. Imperial F. Ins. Co., 459

West Chester, etc., R. Co. v. Jackson, 178
Schulman et al. v. Loeb & Brother, 42

Texas Bank & Ins. Co., v. Texas, 691

West End, etc., R. Co. v. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 305 Shurtleff v.. Thompson, 725

Third Nat. Bank of St. Louis v. Allen, 612

Weston v. Arnold, 195
Sierra's Case, 529

Thomas v. Groesbeck, 449

WESTERN Co. MANURE Co. v. LAWES, ETC., 287 Singer v. Sloan, 141, 133, 218

Thompson v. Donaldson, 192

Weymouth v. Washington, etc., R, Co., 563
Sinking Springs etc., Ins. Co. v. Hoff's Exrs., 791

Thompson v. Toland, 527

Whipple v. Giles, 484
Sinus v. Bice, 689

THRELFALL V. BARWICK, 302

Whitaker v. Eastwick, 434
Skouton, et al., v. Wood, 61
Tills & May In re, 224

Whitney v. Mary Gratwitch, 241
SLAUGHTER v. LYNCHBURG, 277
Titus v. U.S., 289

Whiting v. Butler, 727
Sloan v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 781
Titusville Novelty W. v. Graham & Co., 67

Whitney v. McConnell, 727
Slottv,
Rutherford, 562
Toledo, etc., R. Co. v Muthersbaugh, 83

Whitaker, ex parte, 483
SMITH V. ATTECK, 34
Tomlinson v. Derby, 662

Whitier v. Hartford F. Ins, Co., 484
Smith v. Glenn's Falls Ins. Co., 710
Towell v. Pence, 483

Whyle v. Whyle, 195
Smith v. House, 35
" Tonawanda," The, 483

Wilde v. Wilde, 615
Smith v. Nichols, 322
Treat v. Jemson, 372,

Wildes v. Dudlow, 317,
Smith, et al., v. Smith, et al., 720
Tremain v. Hitchcock, 450

Wiley v. First Nat. Bank of Brattleboro, 306
Smith's Case, 528
Tucker v. West, 607

Wiley v. Ewalt, 323
Somerset Co. Ins. Co. v. May's Exrs., 791

Williams &. McPherson in re, IIO
Sonnerborn v. Mina, 164
Underwood v. People, 315

Williams v. Hugunin, 162
Southern Ex, Co. v. Caldwell, 481
Underwriter's agency v. Seabrook, 305

Williams v. Corson, 520
Southern Ex. Co. v. Craft, 112

Union Central L. Ins. Co. v. Poettker et al, 792 Wilmington, etc. R. Co. v. King. 770
South Carolina v. Railroad Corporations, 774 Union Hall Assoc. v. Morrison, 15, 98

Wilson v. Cox, 112
Southern & Atlantic Tel. Co. v. New Orleans, ete., Union Pacific R. Co. v. McShane et al, 104 Wilson v. Stewart, 354
R. Co., 88
United Land Co, v. Great East. R. Co., 195

Wilson v Citizens Ins. Co., 725
South Boston Iron Co. v. Brown, 574

UNITED STATES V. STEAMBOAT MONTICELLO, 50 Winter's appeal, 178
SPADES v. SPADES, 713
U. S. v. Kansas Pacific R. Co., 801

Wood v. Harrison, 782
Spalding v. Abbott, 695
U. S. v. George et al, 77

Woodman v. Spencer, 712, 547
SPEED V. MACAULEY, 698
U.S. v. Villalonga, 83

Woodruff v. Moseley, 725
Spear v. Hill, 388

U. S. v. State Nat. Bank of Minneaporis, 107 Woodward v. Calhoun Co. Sup., 396
Speer v. Bishop, 306, 355
U, S. v. Southmayd, 86

Wright v. Gardner, 450
Speyer v. “ Mary Belle Roberts," 240
U. S. v. Maxwell, 314

Wright v. Trainer & Sons, 179
Sprattey v. Mut. Ben. Ins. Co., 243

U. S. v. Shrewsbury. 322
Spratt v. Pierson, 774
U. S. v. Distiliery No. 28, 749

Youley v. Lavender, 178
Sianton v. Haverhill Bridge Co., 599
U.S. v. Williamson, 371

Youngblood et al. v. Sexton, 700
State Board of Agriculture v. Citizens Street R., U. S. v. Rinsdorf, 679.

Young vi Shinn, 527
483
U. S. v. Union Pacific R. Co., 831

Young et al. v. Redenbaugh's Admr., 224
Stanberry, et al., v. Dickerson, 147
U. S. v. Cheeseman, 791

Young v. Young, 200, 204, 293, 365, 825
St. Clair Co. v. Wiggin's Ferry Co., 178
U. S. v. ex rel McKee v. Vernon Co., 771

Young v. McGown, 15
Stearns v. Mason, 500

U, S. etc., Felting Co. v. Haven, 758
Ste. Marie's Case, 529

UNIVERSAL NON-TARIFF INS. Co., in re, 318 Zimmer v. Schlahauf, 402
Stephens v. Green Co. Iron W., 44
Upchurch v. Anderson, 467

Zimmerman v. Rote, 434
Stephens v. Black, 67
Upton v. Haines, 695

Zuver v. Zuver, 615
Stevens v. Bowen, 112

Upton v. Tribilcock, 784

SEYMOUR D. THOMPSON,

Editor.

}

ST. LOUIS, FRIDAY, JANUARY 1, 1875.

{

Hon. JOHN F. DILLON,

Contributing Editor.

Our Second Year.

LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS IN INSOLVENT CORPORATIONS. Most of our readers will be apprised, by a circular from the

-We publish in this number the full text of a very recent publishers, of the reasons which have induced the changes States, delivered by the chief justice upon this subject. In

and satisfactory opinion of the Supreme Court of the United with which we begin the present year. Judge Dillon retires view of the large number of corporations which have from the active management of the Journal at his own re- failed in the last two years, this opinion is one of no inconquest. We are authorized in saying that this will not di- siderable interest. It will be seen that the supreme court minish his interest in the Journal, nor will it materially hold, that a provision for proportionate liability on the part of lessen the amount of his contributions. He will not, how-members for the debts of the corporation, is equivalent to a ever, as heretofore, feel under the necessity of contributing stockholders, and for the benefit of all the creditors, and that

provision that the remedy must be in equity against all the at stated times, but will be free to confine his labors on the at common law there is no individual liability on the part of JOURNAL to such intervals of leisure as he may have between stockholders for corporate debts, and that such a personal liathe terms of his various courts. Nor will he in any sense bility is purely statutory. be chargeable with responsibility for opinions which may be

EXCHANGE OF BRIEFS.-During the past year we received expressed editorially in these columns.

from friends and subscribers a large number of valuable briefs, Without making any definite promises, we have it in mind many of them on novel and important questions. How to to say that the four pages of additional space which we shall utilize these puzzled us somewhat, particularly as we could

It now OCcarry during the present year, will be chiefly devoted to the not find time to read and digest their contents. publishing of novel decisions of the state courts, and decisions curs to us that we may accomplish this by making the Jour:

NAL a sort of bureau for the exchange of briefs. For instance, of the Supreme Court of the United States which are of

suppose a subscriber in California sends us a printed argument general interest. We also have in mind the introduction of upon some novel question. Suppose another subscriber is one or two new features of interest, but think it best not to laboring on the same, or on a similar question ; it would be make any promises in connection with them. The general of great advantage to the latter to know that he could prosatisfaction of our readers with our first volume, has induced us

cure material assistance from his professional brother in Cali

fornia. To enable our readers to communicate with each other, to continue the general plan of the Journal without substan- and to profit by each other's labors in such cases, we propose tial change. A little experience has sufficed to teach us that examining any briefs with which we may be favored, so far it is unwise to make definite pledges as to our future course. as will enable us to publish in the Journal a statement of the Instead of doing this, we shall endeavor to see that the meas- points involved in the controversy, and the name and address ure of each day's duty is fulfilled, and shall trust our readers of the counsel from whom a copy of the brief can be pro to judge of what we may do in the future by the efforts whịch cured. Any reader who may desire to examine it will thus

be enabled to procure it by addressing a request to its author. we have been able to put forth in the past.

We desire to tender our earnest thanks to those judges and ADMIRALTY CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT.-If Mr. Chief members of the profession who have favored us with opinions Justice Waite keeps on as he has begun this term, he will enand contributions, and we solicit a continuation of their dear himself to the profession by the brevity of his opinions.

The case of Rogers v. Schooner Wheeler, for instance, was a favors during the coming year. We need not remind them case of collision in admiralty, and involved, as such cases that our space will still be too limited to publish in full all usually do, questions of fact only. Instead of writing a opinions which we may receive; but we hope to be able either great, long opinion, bringing out all the points in the evidence, to publish or notice all that are of general interest. We shall and giving Mr. Wallace an opportunity to illustrate them with

“Quesbe obliged to any of our readers for timely information of diagrams, he disposes of the case in these words: any decisions which they may consider of sufficient importance tions of fact only are presented by this appeal. There is no

dispute as to the law. Two courts have already found against and general interest for publication.

the appellants. It has been over and over again ruled by this

court, that under such circumstances the burden is on the apMANDAMUS AGAINST EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF STATE Gov- pellant to show the error. Every presumption is in favor of ERNMENT.-Contrary to our usual custom, we yield a large the decrees below. We ought not to reverse unless the error portion of our space in this issue to the opinion of the ma- is manifest. Such is not the case here. It is, indeed, urged jority of the Supreme Court of Texes, in the case of Keuch that the claimants, by their own proof, established the fact ler v. Wright, which we noticed at length in our issuc for that there was no lookout at the bow of the Wheeler when the December 18. (1 CENT. L. J. 627). We shall publish the collision occurred. This is so, but whether that was a conseparate opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Roberts next week. tributing fault was a question of fact, and that has been twice found against the appellants. We are entirely satisfied with information of the same nature, which enables litigants to watch the progress

of their causes. all the findings.

Heretofore, on the first day of a term, the attorneys' clients The judgment of the circuit court is

and witnesses, promiscuously attended court, in consequence of which the affirmed."

court rooms were crowded to such a degree that no business could be transBut what shall we say of the fact that the precious time of acted; ani so for several days thereafter. Now, none need nor will attend, the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States must be except those whose causes are set down for trial. But the great feature of the

bill, and that which should specially command it to the public, is the provitaken up with the consideration of questions like these, which a

sion by which all legal notices or advertisements required by law to be pubjury of old sea captains would be more competent to determine? lished in one or more papers are required to be published in the official organ Under the ruling in Morgan v. Thornhill, 11 Wall. 65, we as one of such papers. As a matter to be proven, it is proper that some one now have substantially nine final courts of bankruptcy, the paper should be designated for such purpose. For the object of reference, number of questions and of causes which can be taken above such notice or advertisement will always be found in the official journal ; and

in perfecting the titles to properties sold under foreclosures or other processes, the circuit judges being extremely limited, compared with this singling out a certain fixed and determinate publication will be invalthe great volume of bankruptcy litigation. If "a uniform uable. system of bankruptcy" can be successfully administered in

The Supreme Court of the United States. nine final courts, it should really seem that questions in admir

The French writers on the art of war, say that the ravalry alty which do not involve important and unsettled questions

should never be required to perform the police on Latigue of law, might stop in the circuit courts.

duty of an army when it can be avoided; but that the

strength and spirit of this arm of the service ought to be husThe Publication of Legal Notices.

banded and nourished, not only in time of peace, but also An act passed by the Legislature of New York last win- during the active movements of the campaign, to the end that ter, and which Governor Dix has just approved, provides as it may be freely lavished at the decisive moment on the field follows:

of battle. It would perhaps be well if Congress would apply The presiding Justice of the Supreme Court of the First Judicial District, this principle to the work of the judges of the Supreme Court the Chief Judge of the Common Pleas Court in and for the City and County of the United States. Their strength should not be wasted of New York, the Chief Judge of the Superior Court of the City of New York, and the Chief Justice of the Marine Court of the City of New York, by the consideration of a mass of miscellaneous litigation with or a majority of them, shall designate a daily law journal, published in said | which their docket is crowded, which might equally well be city, in which shall be published all calendars of the courts of record held in determined in other tribunals, but should be carefully husand for said city and county, which calendars shall contain the numbers and banded, in order that they should be able to give their best titles of the causes and names of the attorneys appearing therein, with such particulars and notices in respect to such calendars, or the causes thereon, as

efforts to the determination of the great questions of constitumay be specified by the clerks of said courts respectively, under the order of tional and public law which are constantly coming before said courts, together with every notice or advertisement in legal proceedings. them. To give them some relief, and to render it possible or which may be required by law to be published in one or more papers in said for them to get through with the work which is constantly city or county. If such notice or advertisement is required to be published in only one paper, then such publication shall be made in said paper ; but if accumulating and increasing before them, several measures such notice or advertisement is required to be published in more than one have been suggested. Of these the more important are the paper, then one of such requisite papers shall be the paper so designated following: Provided, that no greater sum shall be paid per folio than that now allowed by

1. To increase still further the number of the judges. To We referred to this particular measure, and expressed our tions. Some who have attentively studied this subject, be

this proposition there are serious, if not insuperable, objecviews on the subject at some length in a previous number (1 lieve that a court composed of more than five judges, is too CENT. L. J. 391). The appropriateness—nay, even the neces

. Every one who has had sity-in large cities of selecting some one law journal as the unwieldy for a good working court. medium in which all legal advertisements shall be published, stands how much more readily a difficult and complicated

experience with the workings of deliberative bodies, underis too obvious to dwell upon. It must have been this consid

measure can be developed in a small committee than by the eration which inclined Governor Dix, after a long delibera

whole house. In fact we believe that “committee of the tion, to approve the above act, although it was opposed by the whole” is seldom resorted to, except for the purposes of desleading daily papers, and by the Council of Political Reform, ultory debate, and as a sort of preparation for the final vote. of New York City, and although it involves what, on a super- The plan of increasing the number of judges, then, although it ficial examination, may seem to savor of monopoly. We need not add that the Daily Register is the journal missed as the one least practicable.

seems the measure most likely to be adopted, may be diswhich the judges have designated as the official journal of

2. To abolish appeals and writs of error from the supreme legal advertising under this act. This journal has, by its courts of the territories, and from the Supreme Court of the judicious attention to local interests, by its habit of reporting District of Columbia. Concerning the expediency of this the decisions of the courts of New York City immediately measure, there would seem to be no room for hesitation. after their rendition, by the freshness and ability of its edi- There would seem to be no valid reason whatever why these torials, and by the judicious quality of its selections from courts, composed as they are of benches of judges selected by other journals, justly deserved this favor, and its managers and the President and Senate from the whole Union, cannot exeditor deserve our congratulations. In entering upon its new ercise final jurisdiction over all matters wherein the jurisdiction career, the Register makes the following observations:

of the highest state tribunals is final, and why the supervisory This daily publication is hereafter to be official, and therefore a legal notice to parties litigant of the time when, and the place where, their eauses will be power of the Supreme Court of the United States should not tried. The benefit to the legal profession is great, because of the daily infor- be limited as to them in the same manner as it is limited with mation conveyed by such official organ; and to the general public it conveys | reference to the state courts.

law.

u

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »