Page images
[blocks in formation]

Adams Express Co. v. Schlesinger, 360.

Armstrong, Cal. Pacific R. R. Co., v., 124, 452.

Etna Ins. Co. v. Hannibal & St. J. R. R. Co., 206.

Ah Fong, Matter of (with note), 516.

Ah Fook, Matter of, 515.

Alexander v. Central R. R. of Iowa, 543.

Alston v. Grant, 307.

Andover, Spaulding, v., 197.

American Express Co., Christenso v., 446.

Beckerford, In re, 578.

Beecher v. Gillett, 27.

Bell & Murray v. State, 630.

Belmont & Co. v. Auditor N. Y. State, 111.

Beloit, Morgan v., 123.

Benedict, Lange v., 591.

Cass Co., Jordan v., 319.

Cass Co., Kennard v., 35.

Castellar v. Simmons, 236.

Central R. R. of Iowa, Alexander v., 543.

Chamberlin v. St. Paul & Sioux City R. R. Co., 51, 53.

Chandler, Receiver, v. Siddle, 341.

Birdseye, Trustee v. Lake Superior Ship-Canal, Chapin v. James, Administratrix (with note), 540. &c., Co., 127.

Birmingham, Rex v., 236.

Chapman v. Rose, 235, 242.
Charter Oak Life Ins. Co., Smith v.,

Bledsoe, Compr., v. International R. R. Co., 375, Cheek, Waggoner v., 186.
401, 627.

Bliss v. Commonwealth, 260, 449.

Andrews, Pittsburgh & Connellsville R. R. Co., v., Boatmans' Savings Institution, Tiffany v., 99, 104. 489.

Andrews v. State, 273, 287.

Angell, In re (with note), 363, 371.

Appleton v. Bowles, 135.

Arthur, Carlisle & Son v., 95.

Atlantic & Pacific R. R. Co., Bailey v., 418, 502.
Aymette v. State, 273.

Auditor, N. Y., Belmont & Co., v., III.

Aurora City, West v., 27.

[blocks in formation]

Bolton, Baker v., 615.

Borden, Luther v., 488.
Boston, Haley v., 69.
Boston, etc., v. Dana, 614.

Boston & Hingham Steamboat Co., Parker v., 206.
Boston & Lowell R. R. Co., Hill Manf'g Co. v. 423.
Bourbon Co. v. Lewis, 16, 30.

Bowen, Philadelphia & Baltimore R. R. Co., v., 63.
Bowles, Appleton v., 135.

Bowles, Ryppon v., 308.

Boyer, Knight v., 572.
Boutwell, United States v., 231.
Breedlove, Gwin v., 27.

Baker v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R. R. Co., Brewer Brick Co. v. Brewer, 371.

[blocks in formation]

Brinkley v. Brinkley, 259, 272.

Ballentine, Daniels v., 224.

Brooks v. Page, 238.

Baltimore, City of, Barron v., 295.

Brossard v. Marsouin, 51.

Bank of Kentucky v. Adams Express Co.,


note) 436, 446, 498, 500, 570, 572.

Brown v. Mayor, etc., of Glasgow, 585.
Buchanan In re, 446, 565.

Baring Bros.& Co., v. Dabney, Morgan &


Buchanan Co., Huidekoper v., 177.

Buckland v. Adams Express Co., 571.

[blocks in formation]

Burch In re, 565.

Bank of Charleston, Whaley v., 211.

Bank of N. America, Lemoine v., 529.

Barnes v. Wyethe, 236.

76, 171.

Cheek v. Columbia Fire Ins. Co. (with note), 465.
Cheek v. N. American Fire Ins. Co. (with note),

Cheek v. Phoenix Fire Ins. Co. (with note), 465.
Chicago & Alton R. R. Co., The People v., 340.
Chicago & Alton R. R. Co. v. Pondrom, 490.
Chicago & Northwestern R. R. Co. v. Northern
Line Packet Co., 578.

Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R. R. Co.,
Baker, v., 502, 503.

Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R. R. Co., City
of Davenport v., 384, 385.

Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R. R. Co.
Provost v., 502, 509.

Christenso v. American Express Co., 446.

City of Davenport v. Chicago, Rock Island &
Pacific R. R. Co. (with note), 384, 385.

City of Memphis v. Battaile, 119.

City of Mexico (steamship), United States v., 191.
City of St. Joseph v. Kansas City St. Jo. and
Council Bluffs R. R. Co., 184.

City Bank, Vanderhoff v., 15.

City Bank of St. Paul, Wilson v., 40, 135.
Clark, etc., v. Barnwell, 571.

Clark Co., Smith & Hall v., 45.
Clarke, Holmes, v., 112.

[blocks in formation]

Barnett v. Hightower, 565.

Barney v. Leeds, 532.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Caballero v. Hentz, 303.

Cochran v. D'Arcy, 173, 179.
Coffman, Gray v.. 326.

California Pacific R. R. Co. v. Armstrong, 124,452. Cole Murder case, 377.

Callaway Co., Foster v., 263.
Cameron v. McLennan, 462.

Canada Iron Mining, &c., Co., Commercial

Union Ins. Co., v., 271.

Carew v. Rutherford, 232.

Carlisle & Son v. Arthur, Collector, 95.

Carris v. Carris, 235.

Coleman v. Riches, 399.

Collier v. Dublin, Wicklow & Wexfor

R. Co.,


Columbia Fire Ins. Co., Cheek v., 465.

Commercial Bank of Cleveland v, Simmons, 371. Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Canada Iron Mining & Manufacturing Co., 271.

Carroll, Nashville & Chattanooga R. R.Co., v., 434. Commonwealth, Bliss v., 260, 449.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Hannibal & St. Joseph R. R. Co., Aetna Ins. Co. Leeds, Barney, v., 532.

V. 206.

Hare, Woods v., 3.

Harriman, Schulenberg v., 411.

Harriman v. Stowe, 400.

Harris, McGready v., 34.

[blocks in formation]

Dollar Savings Bank v. United States (with note), Heffron, In re, 565.


[blocks in formation]

R. Co., 423.

Hoag. Dewey v., 616.

Hoag, Sawyer v., 43.

Hoeger, Ramsay v., 321,

Holden, University R. R. Co. v., 112.

Espy v. First National Bank of Cincinnati,


Homestead Cases, 174.

Everett, Hale v., 91.

Hooker v. Miller (with note), 55.

Eyser, Western Union Tel. Co. v., 87.

Hubbell v. Town of Waterloo, 124.

Fair, Laura, v. State, 29.

Hubbell & Chappell, In re, 247.


[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Lull, Flint & Pere Marquette R. R. Co. v., 131.

Lyon, Pollard, v., 424.

Lyons, In re (with note), 137.

McCarter, Trustee,v. Lake Superior Ship Canal etc.

Co. 127.,

McCartney, Voorhees v., 562.

McCarty Murder Case, 64.

McConnellsville R. R. Co. v. McClung, 490.

McCown, Kane v., 114.

McCue, N. W. Union Packet Co. v., 112, 119.

McDonough v. Gilman, 307.

McGinnity v. White (with note), 241.

McGlory v. McGlory, 94.

McGready v. Harris, 34.

Ingersoll, People v., 301.

McLennan, Cameron v., 462.

McMillan, Kuhn, Netter & Co. v., 46.
McShane, Union Pac. R. R. Co. v., 347.

Macauley v. Clinton, Auditor, 160, 164.
Macon Co, State v., 225, 226, 229.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Redhead v. Midland Etc., R. R., 463.
Redfield & Co., Steadman v., 569.

Morris v. St. Louis, Kansas City & Northern R. R. Reed, State v., 262, 87.

Morrison, Rex v., 148.

Mott, Martin v., 94.

Munn & Scott v. The People 88, 89

Murdock, Woodson & Ewing v., 619, 628.
Murphy, Marrett v., 554.

Murrin, In re, 51.

Myers, Assignee, v. Seeley, 451.

Nashville & Chattanooga R. R. Co., Vaughn v.,
Nashville & Chattanooga R. R. Co. v. Carroll, 434.
Nashville & Chattanooga R. R. Co. v. Sprayberry,


[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Sweet v. Barney, 446.

Swift v. Jewsbury, 160.

Tait v. New York Life Ins. Co., 171.

Wolf v. Connecticut Mutual L. Ins. Co., 301.
Woodhouse v. O'Donohoe, 462.

Woodland. Bark, Fichtenburg v., 60.
Woods v. Hare, 3.

Woodson & Ewing v. Murdock 619, 628.

Woolsey, Dodge v., 412.
Wright, Keuchler v., 627.

Tappan v. Merchants' Nat. Bank of Chicago, 239. Wyethe, Barnes v., 236.

Hon. JOHN F. DILLON, Editor.
S. D. THOMPSON, Ass'te Editor.




We present to the legal profession and the public, the first number of the CENTRAL LAW JOURNAL. We have not undertaken this enterprise without due consideration of the nature of the task before us, nor without making extensive enquiry, by correspondence and otherwise, to ascertain the needs and expectations of the profession in regard to such a publication. We have chosen to make it a weekly in prefer-notices to be candid and impartial; to avoid extravagant praise ence to a monthly or quarterly, not because this form promises on the one hand, and unjust censure on the other. The demore profit in proportion to the labor and money expended partment of "Book Notices" will not be kept open as an adverupon it, but because a paper published weekly, will afford, as tising medium; it will be under the exclusive control of the we conceive, the highest degree of usefulness. editors; the publishers will have nothing to do with it. Judges and counsel, who furnish us with early copies of important decisions, will place us under special obligations to We shall be under like obligations to reporters who may favor us with advance sheets of their reports. Correspondence on topics of current legal interest, is solicited. It will be scarcely necessary to advise correspondents to be brief. In a busy profession, like that of the law, few persons can afford the time or find the patience to peruse

legal matters; and any like items of news that may be supposed to be of interest to the profession.

We shall examamine, with what care our time will permit, and notice editorially, any important law book sent to us for that purpose. While we cannot hope to devote to any book more than a hasty examination, we shall endeavor in these

It concerns the bench and bar to know, at the earliest possible period, the rulings which are being made in arts of eminent character and of last resort. This inforon we them. shall endeavor, as far as practicable, to supply. Opinions which possess a general interest or peculiar local ve, will be published in full, with carefully prepared head-notes, and such other annotations as may seem appropriate. Other decisions will be presented in the shape of editorial notes of greater or less length, according to the supposed importance of the ques-long articles; nor can a weekly journal, dealing with a great tions adjudicated. This plan, while it involves more labor, seems to us preferable to the "digest" plan adopted by most of the legal publications. It gives us more freedom of expression, enables us to add where it seems necessary, our own notes and comments, and brings us more nearly into a sort of conversational connection with our readers.

Most of the matter used in these notes, coming from courts in the Mississippi Valley, will be furnished by our own special correspondents and reporters. For such as comes from courts at a greater distance, we shall be indebted, principally, to our legal and other exchanges.

In view of the growing importance of the Federal Courts, it will be a special feature of the JOURNAL to advise its readers at the earliest practicable date, of the important questions therein adjudicated. It will give, from week to week, a summary of the proceedings had in the Supreme Court of the United States during its sessions; and special pains will be taken to keep its readers fully advised of the important questions decided in that court. It will also contain early advice of the important matters transpiring in the English courts. In a department of “Notes and Queries" we shall answer, as well as we can, any questions of general interest propounded to us by correspondents.

variety of topics, afford the space to print them.

Hoping to be able to improve upon each number of the. JOURNAL, until it approximates somewhat to our conception of what such a legal serial should be, we commit this first number to the criticism of the legal profession, and, we trust, to their support.

The Bankrupt Act-Shall it be Repealed? In a commercial, manufacturing and trading country, a bankrupt system so framed as to be adapted to the circumstances of the people, is beneficial alike to the debtor and the creditor. Such a system is particularly desirable in a country of vast extent. Divided, as the United States is, into forty states, each of which, in the absence of a bankrupt enactment, makes the laws which regulate the relation and rights of debtors and creditors within its limits-if credit is to be extended and commercial intercourse freely maintained between the people of the different states and sections, a bankrupt system, wisely conceived, becomes almost a necessity.

Without a bankrupt law, each state has its separate collection and attachment laws, under which the creditor who first moves, secures a preference over the rest; and the local or the favorite creditor fares well at the expense of all the others. A bankrupt law, also, affords the only means by which debtors who have failed in business, can be relieved from the load of hopeless insolvency.

Some space will also be devoted to news items of interest to lawyers; embracing such matters as the death of eminent judges and lawyers; changes in the constitution of important courts; the doings of Congress, of constitutional conventions, We doubt whether the present bankrupt law is worse than and of the state legislatures, so far as they involve important the system which it superseded. Doubtless, it has many faults

and defects.

judicially employed for more than fifty years; for, after his retirement, he investigated a most complicated cause, and prepared an elaborate and masterly opinion in it, which was

Most of these, however, are not intrinsic, but Judge MARCY, elected to the senate, and he continued to be remediable by well-considered legislation. Undoubtedly, that an associate justice of that court until 1837, when he was com portion of the involuntary feature of the present law, which missioned to be its chief justice, and he remained such until makes it an act of bankruptcy merely to suspend payment, or 1845, when he was appointed by President Tyler, an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and refail to meet one's commercial paper for fourteen days, is, un-mained such until his voluntary retirement from the bench in der the existing state of the finances of the country, harsh and November, 1872. oppressive, and it ought to be immediately repealed, or essen- Lacking but a few months, therefore, he was a judge, withtially modified. There is no such feature in the English bank-out interruption, for fifty successive years. He was, in fact, rupt laws. By the English acts, "the suspension of payment by a banker, merchant, or trader, of his commercial paper and liabilities, is resolved into an act of bankruptcy by summoning him before the court of bankruptcy, and if the debt or demand be not paid or arranged to the satisfaction of the creditor within a prescribed time, the non-arrangement or non-payment, within such prescribed period, constitutes an act of bankruptcy." (James, Bankrupt Law, 261; In re But his character as a judge is that which endears his memClemens 2 Dillon C. C., 536.) This provision is much pre-ory, and will perpetuate his fame. His integrity-that comferable to the similar one in our act, and even this might be too stringent at the present time.

In a gust of seeming popular feeling, the house of representatives recently passed a bill for the absolute repeal of the bankrupt act. The senate seems wisely to insist upon time for consideration. In a matter of so much consequence, it would appear to be the part of true wisdom, to repeal at once only those portions of the law which are not adapted to existing circumstances, and which work harshly, and then, following the course which is so often adopted in Great Britain in respect to important legislation, appoint a commission to investigate the defects and imperfections of the present act, and report such changes as experience has demonstrated to be necessary for the successful working of the system. Such a commission, composed, in part, of members of congress and of one or more of the federal judges, and an attorney of large experience in bankruptcy proceedings, would doubtless be able to suggest such amendments to the existing law, as to make its workings satisfactory to the country at large.

The Late Mr. Justice Nelson.

completed only a short time before his death.

Judge NELSON's personal appearance was impressive. No one who ever saw his erect bearing, his massive frame, his large head, with its flowing white hair, the clean cut features of his handsome but strong face, could forget his striking presence.

monest, but indispensable quality in a judge—no man ever questioned. The simplicity of his nature was never corrupted, nor its strength enervated by the luxurious and extravagant tastes and habits which, unhappily, have become too prevalent in these latter days. To the end, he preferred the quiet of his rural home, beside the waters of the beautiful lake on which he lived, to a residence in the great metropolitan city, within his circuit, or in the feverish, atmosphere of the capital. His love of justice was intrinsic, predominant and supreme. He had been favored by nature, in an extraordinary degree, with what may be called the judicial temperament.

His patience was invincible; his equanimity of temper never deserted him; and he was incapable of becoming a partisan in the trial or hearing of a cause, or of receiving an undue bias, or of yielding to hasty and crude views.

We have good authority for the statement, that in the heat and ardor which sometimes attend the discussions of the conference room, one member was never known to lose his evenness of temper, and that was the illustrious deceased.

His judgment was almost unerring, and was noted for its breadth and soundness. His learning was varied and extensive, and he brought to the discharge of his duties in the federal courts, the great experience of his long service upon the nisi prius and appellate bench of the state.

The opinions of no judge in the country were more deferentially submitted to than his; and he seemed equally conversant with the peculiar and difficult questions of federal jurisprudence, which arise under the constitution and statutes of the United States, and with questions of commercial, international and admiralty law. His knowledge of the law relating to patents for inventions, and his skill and judgment in the decision of questions of novelty and infringement have, perhaps, never been surpassed.

The death of this distinguished jurist, which occurred on the 13th of December last, at his home in Cooperstown, N. Y., makes it fitting to refer to his life and character, and to draw from them the lessons they are so well calculated to teach. We have long regarded him, in his personal and judicial character, as the highest type of an American judge. His whole life was given to his profession. Born in 1792, he was admitted to the bar in 1817, and continued in the practice until 1823, when he was appointed one of the circuit judges of the An admirable judicial quality of Judge NELSON'S was his state. In 1821, however, he was a member of the constitu-utter want of pride of individual opinion. He seemed to tional convention of New York, and it is said that it was in this body that his great legal abilities first became generally known, and that this led to his selection and appointment to the bench two years afterwards. He went upon the circuit bench in 1823, and remained there until 1831, when he was transferred to the supreme bench of, the state, in the place of

care nothing for views which he had expressed when upon the supreme bench of the state or upon the circuit. If satisfied, after more reflection and further argument, that he was mistaken, he would be the first to insist on setting the law right, and correcting his own errors. The judgment of the future will confirm the verdict of the present, that the deceased wa

« PreviousContinue »