amount, a gift of the residue of it is not, as many might suppose, and most settlors may intend, a gift of all of the fund which fails, but a gift of an aliquot portion. (Page v. Leapingwell, 18 Ves. 463; Re Tilt's Trusts, ubi 8 p.) In Page v. Leapingwell, it is worth observing in passing, this construction was applied to the disposition of an estate which the testator directed to be sold, but which he assumed would produce a given sum. This question case. does not show that the said loose earth was the cause of said stone's falling over, but shows that the danger complained of was incident to the service, failure to negative the assumption of which renders the complaint bad. (Salem Bedford Stone Co. v. Hobbs [Ind.], 42 N. E. Rep. 1022.) MINES AND MINING-RIGHT TO FOLLOW DIP.When the outcrop of a vein passes through one end line and one side line of a location, the locator may draw in the other end line to the point of intersection of the vein with the side line, and abandon what lies beyond; and he will then have the same located in the first instance. (Tyler Min. Co. v. Last Chance Min. Co. [U. S. C. C., Idaho], 71 Fed. Rep. 848.) NEGLIGENCE -PLEADING. In an action by a servant of the lessee against the lessor for personal injuries caused by the defective condition of the elevator in the building of the lessor, which the lessee had the privilege of using, and received while the servant was using the elevator, by reason of its falling, the complaint need not set out in what way the elevator was defective. (Ellis v. Waldron [R. I.], 33 Atl. Rep. 869.) of construction arises from the consideration as to whether the settlor or testator did not assume he had a certain sum to distribute, and divided the sum up in definite proportions upon that hypothe-extralateral rights as if the claim had been so sis; and so, in fact, used the expression "the residue" for the actual sum then remaining, and instead of figures. As, however, this construction depends upon the fund being of an ascertained amount, or rather upon its being so treated by the settlor, the general rule as to the comprehensiveness of the expression applies where this is not the (Faulkner v. Butler, Amb. 514; Petre v. Petre, 14 Beav. 197.) The great importance of determining whether a bequest of the residue of a fund is or is not specific, will be perceived when it is remembered that wherever the fund is actually found to be less than was estimated by the testator, if the bequest be specific, all the beneficiaries must abate proportionately, but, if it be not specific, the loss will fall on the person to whom the residue is given. (Page v. Leapingwell, ubi sup.; Petre v. Petre, ubi sup.) It is convenient, therefore, when a will or other instrument is found to express the settlor's or testator's intentions on this topic in language that is clear and free from all doubt.- Law Times. Notes of American Decisions. MASTER AND SERVANT - ACTION FOR INJURIES.A railroad company is not an insurer of the safety of its employes, but is liable for injuries resulting to an employe from its failure to exercise reasonable and ordinary care toward him, unless he has been guilty of contributory negligence upon his part. (Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Winston [Kan.], 43 Pac. Rep. 777.) PRINCIPAL AND AGENT-AGENCY TO SELL LANDREVOCATION.-The interest of a real estate broker in commissions to be earned will not prevent a revocation of his agency at any time prior to a sale. (Neal v. Lehman [Tex.], 34 S. W. Rep. 153.) PRINCIPAL AND SURETY INDEMNITY. - - A share of certain money distributed by order of court was alloted to a married woman, and paid to her attorney. Before paying it over to his client, he exacted from her a bond of indemnity to hold him harmless if he was compelled to refund it, which was given and signed by her husband as surety. The order of distribution was afterwards set aside, and the attorney assigned the bond to the person by the final order entitled to the money: Held, that there having been no recovery against the attorney, and there being no liability for the money on his part, the assignee could not recover on the bond. (Warrum v. Derry [Ind.], 42 N. E. Rep. 1123.) RAILROAD COMPANIES-SPEED OF TRAIN-NEGLIGENCE. When the ordinances of a city through which a railroad runs prohibit the running of trains at a greater speed than six miles an hour within the city limits, the running of a train at greater speed than that allowable is negligence per se, but it is not such negligence as authorizes the recovery of damages for an injury inflicted by such train, unless it appears from the evidence that such unlawful speed was the proximate cause of the injury. (Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Kennedy [Kan.], 43 Pac. Rep. MASTER AND SERVANT-INJURIES TO EMPLOYE.A complaint alleging that deceased, while employed in the yard of defendant stone company, was crushed by a large stone, which fell on him; that defendant had negligently placed and for three months allowed said stone to remain with its edge resting upon two small stones, laid on loose earth, which was liable to press down on one side, and allow the stone to fall over; and that deceased was ignorant of the dangerous condition of said stone, and was unable to see the earth under said stone, | 802.) Notes of English Cases. ADMINISTRATION. A., on retiring from his partnership business, entered into an agreement with the continuing partners, dated in April, 1894, by which it was agreed (inter alia) that his capital in the firm should be taken as ascertained at the sum of £15,772, and should be considered as money lent by him to the continuing partners at five per cent per annum, and such capital was to be paid in August, 1904. The continuing partners might, however, pay it at any time or times, in one or more sum or sums. They were to produce annually to A. a balance sheet of the business, and all books and documents in relation thereto, and permit him to examine the stock of the business. In certain specified events the testator was to be entitled to demand and recover immediate payment of the sum of £15,772, or so much thereof as remained owing. In September, 1894, A. died, having by his will, dated in February, 1890, given his residuary estate upon trust for certain persons for life with remainders over. Held, (1) That there ought to be no restriction on the discretion of the trustee of the will as to how often there should be audits and stock-takings of the business; and (2) that as the audits and stock takings were for the benefit of the whole estate, the object of them being to ensure the safety of the £15,772, the expenses thereof represented part of the " costs, charges and expenses properly incurred" by the trustee in the performance of his duty, and ought therefore to be paid out of the capital of the estate and not out of the income. (Ct. of App., Re Bennet; Jones v. Bennett, 74 L. T. Rep. 157.) BANKRUPTCY It is not true to say that no personal earnings of the bankrupt after the bankruptcy pass to his trustee, for it is only the personal earnings reasonably necessary for the maintenance of the bankrupt and his family which do not pass to the trustee. The right to work an invention patented by an undischarged bankrupt was sold by him to a company for £500 and a royalty of £10 a week. Instalments amounting to £20 became due, and in an interpleader issue between the company and the official receiver, the County Court judge decided that the £20 were personal earnings of the bankrupt and must be paid by the company to him, and leave to appeal was refused. Further sums became due, which were claimed by the official receiver as after acquired property as well as all future earnings. The bankrupt's solicitor also claimed, under a charge given him by the bankrupt over the patent and the royalties, to have his costs. Held, That the trustee was estopped by the County Court judge's decision from denying that these royalties were personal earnings. That the bankrupt could only retain for himself out of them sufficient for the reasonable maintenance of himself and his family, and that £5 a week was sufficient for that purpose. That the balance must go to the trustee, subject to this, that the solicitor was entitled to a first charge on the whole fund for his costs incurred in creating the fund. (Q. B. Div., Bankruptcy; Re Graydon; Ex parte The Official Receiver; 74 L. T. Rep. 175.) INLAND REVENUE.--The buildings of Charterhouse school consisted of a head master's house, the houses of two assistant masters, a chapel, hall, library, and other buildings. By the school statutes the head master was required to reside continually during each school term in his dwelling house, in respect of which he paid no rent, rates, or taxes, and in which he kept boarders for his own profit. The commissioners having confirmed an assessment to inhabited house duty of the buildings as a whole upon the governors as the occupiers of the whole: Held, that the assessment of the buildings as a whole was wrong, and could not be sustained; that the head-masters and the assistant masters were the occupiers of their respective houses, and that as such occupiers they, and not the governing body, were liable to be assessed to inhabited houseduty in respect of their own houses, and that the governing body were not liable to be assessed for the other buildings (with the exception of the sanatorium), as these buildings were not inhabited dwelling-houses. (Q. B. Div.; The Governing Body of Charterhouse School v. Gayler, 74 L. T. Rep. 171.) INLAND REVENUE. The buildings of Clifton College, which was founded by charter, consists of the school itself, the head master's house and offices in which the head master and his family reside and several boys are boarded, a sanatorium, porter's lodge, chapel, library, gymnasium, racket courts, and other buildings used for the purposes of the school. With the exception of the head master's house, porter's lodge, and sanatorium, no one sleeps in or resides upon any of the school buildings during the night time, and during the day time these buildings are used by all the boys, whether boarders or day boys. The head master occupies his house under a lease subject to be determined if he ceases to hold the office of head master. college admitted that the head master's house, porter's lodge, and sanitorium, were accessible to inhabited house duty, but the commissioners assessed the whole of the buildings. The Held, That the buildings of the college were not assessable as a whole to inhabited house duty; that the head master was the person assessable in respect of his own dwelling house, as being the occupier thereof, but that he was not assessable in respect of any of the other buildings, as they did not "belong to and were not occupied with" the head master's house; and that the college itself was not assessable to the duty either with regard to the head master's house or with regard to the other buildings (except the porter's lodge and sanatorium), inasmuch as these buildings could not be regarded as inhabited dwelling houses at all. (Q. B. Div.; The Clifton College v. Tompson, 74 L. T. Rep. 168.) SETTLEMENT VOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENT. - T., | who was contingently entitled to a respective share in certain property, voluntarily assigned it, in 1830, to trustees upon trust (among other trusts) to pay a sum of £500 to one K., and as to the residue upon other trusts. T. became entitled to her share in the property in 1894, and, by a letter in 1895, directed that a portion of it should be transferred to the trustees of the voluntary assignment in 1880. K. died in 1888, intestate, and the question now arose as to his £500, which was claimed (1) by his personal representative, (2) by those entitled to residue, and (3) by the settlor as upon a resulting trust. Held, (1) That, a person dead at the date of the execution of a deed could take no benefit under it, and the confirmation of the deed by the letter in 1895 only set up such trusts as were then subsisting, and had no retrospective effect; (2) that the failure of the gift to K. did not make it fall into a residue, and that the donees of the residue could only take an aliquot portion; and (3) that the £500 belonged to T., the settlor, by way of resulting trust. (Chan. Div.; Re Tilt; Lampet v. Kennedy, 74 L. T. Rep. 163.) Held, That the use of the same name, though in connection with a label that did not at all resemble the label used by the appellant, was calculated to mislead, and that the appellant was entitled to an injunction. The appellant had printed on the labels which bore his trade-mark the words "Manufactured in Ireland by Royal Letters Patent. " The article manufactured was not the subject of any patent, but the machinery used in the manufacture was patented, and the appellant was the sole licensee in Ireland. Held, That this statement did not amount to a false representation disentitling the appellant to the protection of the court. (Priv. Co., Cochrane v. MacNish & Son, 74 L. T. Rep. 109. ) New Books and New Editions. THE EXCISE AND HOTEL LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AS AMENDED BY THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION OF 1896. By Robert C. Cumming and Frank P. Gilbert, assistants to the Commissioners of Statutory Revision. The editors have cleverly inserted the Liquor Tax Law, chapter 112, of the Laws of 1896, in place of the Excise Law, and have arranged the annotations wherever any citation of the old law could be made to construe sections of the new law which were taken from the Excise Law. Following the Liquor Tax Law is the Public Officers' Law, which is followed by many pertinent sections of the different codes and provisions of the Revised Statutes. At the end of the book are the forms; following this is an index which permits easy and rapid reference to the different parts of the laws mentioned. Published by Matthew Bender, 511-513 Broadway, Albany, N. Y. COMMENTARIES ON THE LAW OF CORPORATIONS. Volume VI. By Seymour D. Thompson, LL. D. This last volume of this enormous and most comprehensive work has just been received by us, and if we saw but the table of cases and the index, a glance would quickly convince us of the import ance and amount of work which this set embraces. This volume deals with Receivers of Corporations; Receivers of Railroads, Insurance Companies, National Banks and Foreign Receivers; Powers to Sue and to be Sued; Jurisdiction as depending upon Residence and Citizenship; Jurisdiction as depending upon Process and its Service; Jurisdiction as dependent upon Voluntary Appearance; Jurisdiction as depending upon Parties to such Actions; Name in which Actions brought by Corporations; Pleadings, Questions relating to Corporate Existence; Evidence in such Actions; Attachments against Corporations; Garnishment of Corporations; Mandamus against Corporations; Limitations and Laches, Foreign Corporations, their Power to Sue, Service on Foreign Corporations. This work has been so highly written and spoken of on all sides and its distinguished author holds such a high rank in his profession that we cau hardly add one encomium of praise to the work. It is certain that no such work on this subject has ever been published before and that it will always be regarded as a most able and useful book in the library of the lawyer and the scholar. Published by Bancroft-Whitney Company, San Francisco, Cal. and Long Island City for a year, based upon the figures of the Boards of Estimate and Apportionment, is about $13,000,000. The most important department, as far as patronage is concerned, is that of the police. The New York force now has about 4,000 men, including every grade. This is not the full quota. Chief Conlin, several weeks ago, asked for 800 more. The Brooklyn department consists of 1,630 men, and Long Island City has fifty-four men. The city of New York has added large tracts of territory in Westchester and Brooklyn has taken in several of the outlying towns. These added districts are inadequately guarded. The Brooklyn territory will require several hundred more men, and the present force of Long Island City will be at least doubled. The Greater New York will require between 7,000 and 8,000 men in its consolidated police department. There will be many positions in the Election Bureau, attached to the police department. This is an immense source of patronage. The expenses of the New York Bureau of Elections for 1895 were $412,000. The expenses of the rest of Greater New York, which has a population about half that of the present city, will be about $200,000. It will cost at least $600,000 to conduct the election machinery of the great The local government within the territory embraced are continued as now without change unless they shall be altered by the Legislature. Andrew H. Green, the president of the Greater New York Commission, created in 1890; the mayors of New York, Brooklyn and Long Island city; the State Engineer and Surveyor and the Attorney General, and nine other persons to be appointed by the Governor from among the residents within the limits of the en-city. larged city, are created a commission to report to the Legislature by February 1, 1897, by bill, a charter for the enlarged city and a scheme for securing equality of taxation and valuation. The commission shall go out of office March 1, 1897. It may employ counsel and clerks, subpoena witnesses and examine records and documents. It must provide for the election of the Mayor of Greater New York and the other municipal officers at the general election in 1897. The cities of New York and Brooklyn are required to raise and pay $25,000, in proportion to their assessed valuation, for the expenses of the commission. The organization of the Greater New York means the filling of many offices and the expenditure of vast funds. The patronage of this great municipality which is to be, is equal to that of many a State. The total expenditure of the Fire, Police and Health departments of New York, Brooklyn VOL. 53- No. 18. Greater New York's fire department will cost a princely fortune every year. The departments of New York, Brooklyn and Long Island city now enroll 2,090 men. A larger force will probably be required when the department is reorganized. There will be an increase in pay for many of the firemen. The New York firemen receive from $1,000 to $1,200 a year, and the Long Island City firemen get $800. There has been much dissatisfaction in recent years. because the firemen do not receive as much as the police, and it is likely that when reorganization comes the pay of firemen will be increased. New York has three fire commissioners at $6,000 each, and Brooklyn has one at $5,000 and a deputy at $3,500. All the outlying villages will have improved fire apparatus and engine houses, in order to come up to the metropolitan requirements. The volunteer firemen of the villages will be supplanted by the paid fire fighters of the Greater New York. The fire departments of the various cities and towns are not uniformly organized, and the reorganization means more fire chiefs and foremen and a corresponding increase in cost. The New York and Brooklyn fire chiefs each receive $5,000. In New York there are eleven chiefs of battalion, who receive $2,750 each. Brooklyn has ten fire chiefs, known as district engineers, who receive much less than the New York chiefs. New York has fifty-nine engine companies and twenty-two hook and ladder companies. Brooklyn has thirty-seven engine companies and twelve hook and ladder companies. The mains of the Brooklyn water works are too small, and this means the expenditure of large sums of the public money for improving them. The salaries of sanitary inspectors in New York now range from $1,200 to $1,800. The Brooklyn inspectors get from $900 to $1,500 a year. The Health Commissioners receive from $4,000 to $5,000, and there is a large staff of superintendents, deputies and messengers. The registration of the births and deaths in this Greater New York will involve a large expenditure. The hospital systems of the cities will be consolidated, and there will be many surgeons and attendants to be appointed. Under the direction of the newly organized Health Department there will be inspectors of the markets, and milk inspectors also will constitute a small army themselves. This bill is now in the hands of the governor. It is of such vast importance and has within its provisions so many possibilities of good or ill that we hardly feel able to determine whether or not it will be for the best interests of the localities affected. The largest verdict since the $5,000 limitation was removed by the Constitutional Convention of 1894, was awarded by a Brooklyn jury to the widow of John A. McMahon, who was drowned as the result of a collision between a steam launch and a ferry boat. The Constitution of the State, it will be remembered, since the adoption of the amendment proposed by the Constitutional Convention of 1894, permits the plaintiff in a suit to recover damages for loss of life in any amount that the jury may agree upon. The old Constitution limited the amount to $5,000. Before Mr. Justice Dickey of the Supreme Court, in Brooklyn, the jury in the case of McMahon, as executrix, awarded a verdict of $21,000 against the New York & Brooklyn Ferry-boat Company for causing the death of her husband on July 2, 1895. Mr. Charles J. Patterson represented the plaintiff, while ex-Judge James H. Troy appeared for the defendant. The accident occurred in the East River opposite South Sixth street, Brooklyn. About 7.30 on the evening of July 21, McMahon and two friends were aboard the steam launch Nadjy. The ferryboat City of New York, coming from East Twenty-third street, New York, was rounding into her slip. The tide was against the boat, she missed the slip, and started to come about. In doing so she struck the launch and swamped it. McMahon was drowned, but his companions were saved. The claim of the plaintiff was that those aboard the Nadjy, seeing the ferryboat coming, slowed up and signalled that they would pass under the ferryboat's stern. After the Nadjy had whistled it was asserted that the ferryboat suddenly changed her course, and the collision followed. The defense set up that, at the time of the collision, it was so dark that the Nadjy, which carried no lights, could not be seen until she was right under the port bow of the ferryboat. Mrs. McMahon asked for $50,000 damages. It will be interesting to see whether the courts will permit the verdict to stand, or whether they will reduce it as being excessive. We always feel as if we should write some sort of an obituary on each Legislature as it adjourns, but like many such notices of this kind bestowed upon people, it is rather hard to find something which is nice to say. It is particularly hard in our case, as we are impressed with the idea that we have about 100 times more legislation than is good for us or for our neighbors; also because we think that the Legislature has managed to leave undone many things that it should have done and should undo almost all the things that it has done. We would not like to say anything unkind of the Legislature, because many of them are our friends; and further we know that some of the worst things |