The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-09-10
NOTES OF LEGAL EVENTS.

In the recently reported case Of the Louisville
Trust Company against tho Louisville, New
| Albany and Chicago Railway Company, tho
| Supreme Court Of the United States, speaking
| through Mr.. Justice Brewer, has most clearly
| pointed out the distinctions which exist between
| the foreclosure of an ordinary mortgage on real
estate and the foreclosure of a railroad mortgage
| In foreclosing simple mortgage in the common
| form upon land, the Court need consider only
| tho mortgagor and the mortgage and may treat
the claims OF other parties though hostile to both
liugants, as being outside the scope OF the fore
closure and TO be dealt with, II at ALL in separate
suits. The fact that a railroad is an instrument
| OF public service well as private property has led
the courts TO adopt a different doctrine in railroad
foreclosure proceedings and TO permit in such
cases limited preference in behalf Of temporary
or unsecured creditors over those whose rights are
declared by contract in the form Of a recorded
| mortgage Hence the foreclosure OF a mortgage
| on railroad, whatever may be the strictly legal
rights OF the parties, is proceeding which should
be conducted in the interests OF all those who have
any rghtful claims ag ainst the mortgaged prop
erty, thus including creditors well the stock
| holders and bondholders Hence, the Supreme
Court holds that where bondholder desires to
foreclose and exclude general unsecured creditors
he may do SO. provided the foreclosure also de
prives the stockholders Of all their interest in the
railroad property; but he cannot leave any interest
remaining in the stockholders unless the prior
rights of the general creditors Of the railroad
secured
In some OF the States Of the Union, statutes
which provide for the incorporation Of telegraph
| companies, and W hich enacted before the
telephone was known have been held by the courts
TO authorize and permit the incorporation Of telc
phone companies. The correctness Of several
decisions TO this effect seems questionable in
view of the construction which the Supreme Court
of the United States has put upon the act Of Con
gress passed in 1885, comforting certain important
and extensive privileges upon ANY telegraph
company now organized or which may here
after be organized under the laws Of any State
in this Union" The Court holds that this enact
ment does not embrace a corporation formed to
carry on communication by telephone, which
Is clearly deistingushable from communication
by telegraph, in that one involves the trans
mission OF articulate speech while the other does
| not As Mr. justice Harlan points out, the ques-
ton is not what Congress might have done in
1886. or may do hereafter but what was in the
mind OF Congress when it enacted the statute
Bells invention was not made public until ten
years later. and in 1866 the word telegraph meant
only one thing, namely that method of trans
hitting intelligence which is still popularity known
the telegraph.
In the opinion Of the Supreme Court Of the
United States in the suit by the Government
against the RioGrande Irrigation Company which
was written by Mr.. Justice Brewer and which We
find in the latest pamphlet number OF the United
States Reports is an interesting discussion OF the
extent to which the courts will take judicial
notice of geographical facts-that is, will
act the information pOSaesaPd nv the
Judges matters of common knowledge,
and without requiring any evidence to be
given ON the subject Greenleaf in his we'll
known treatise on the law OF evidence
states the rule to be that courts will generally
take notice Of whatever ought TO be generally
known within the limits OF their jurisdiction But
Mr.. Justice Brewer observes that there is often
much difficulty in determining what ought TO be
generally known, and this has been the expert
enoe OF the courts in regard TO geographical ques
tons. 1t has been held however that the Court
could take judicial notice Of the geographical
position of New Orleans in order TO determine
whether it was a place where the tide ebbed and
flowed; and in another case the Supreme Court has
said I'VE are supposed to know judicially the
principal features Of the geography of our coun-
try and. a part Of it, what streams are public
navigable waters OF the United States" While
acquescing in the correctness Of this view. the
Court in the Rio Grande case refused to take Judi
cia notice of the particular point on that river
where its navigablity ceases.
According to decision rendered by the Su-
prcme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,, it is still
the law in that State that a wife can acquire no
property by direct gilt from her husband with the
exception of wearing apparel and few other
classes oil articles In a suit TO determine the
title to certain savings-bank deposits 1t appeared
,taI half tho ayina 81
a husband who gave them To his wife Tor her own
and that she in turn deposited them in the bank
and was credited in her handbook with the
amount of each deposit which she made After
her death a contest arose as u whether these
moneys formed part Of her estate or not, and
the Supreme Court sitting at Boston last week
answered the question in the affirmative, holding
that the wife the agent of the husband to
deliver his earnings to the bank, and in his be-
half request the bank to agree to deliver the money
TO her when she desired This transaction gave
her or her legal representatives the right to re-
cover the amount of the deposit from the bank,
although the money would not have become hers
by git direct from her husband
In Sylvan Beach, an incorporated village in
Oneida County, there is an ordinance forbidding
peddling within the village limits except upon
the payment Of a small license fee, A viola
ton of this ordinance is punishable by fine and
imprisonment nonresident charged with
offending against its provisions arrested,
| pleaded not guilty and was given opportunity TO
find bail but failing 10 do So asked leave 10 change
| his plea and pleaded guilty. He then paid the
! prescribed license fee and fine of twenty five
| dollars which was imposed upon him by the vii
! lage Police Justice. He subsequently brought
| n suit for false Imprisonment against the presi.
dent trustees, police justice, clerk and two po-
| Al,