The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-10-06
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

wbeT divorce has been gnnted to TIE
wife. md unrestricted custody of m,
minor child OF the marriage given her E
the decree, the Supreme Court of Minna-
sofa. in re Vanderwarker's estate esq ".
w. Rep, $3.50. holds that her own douici,a
establishes that OF the chilli. The court
said the question was a new one. and din
cult OF determination in view Of the artI-
hciai rules which have long been reeoe-
nized concerning the subject in analogous
cases.
1t is contended by counsel for resoon
dent, said the court, that the domicile O,
child is that of its father. AID that not.
withstanding the legal separation of father
ana mother, or the guardianship imposed
ny the courts upon the mother. the domi-
che OF the father is imputed, as a matter
OF law. TO the child, which domicile affects
inheritance rights, draws to il the law of
suen domiciie, and controls the disposition
oi It's estate. 1t may be conceded that this
contention finds support from ca ses in Eng
Iahd ana this country. but none that d.
seeuy decide upon the relations arising
from the separation OF the husband ana
wife, when the custody of the minor child
Is given to the latter. The wife
formerly had no separate legal existence.
and until the recent enabling statute,
recognizing her independent right to cor
troll and manage her property, had swept
away this unjust relic of antiquity. Il fol-
lowed as logical necessity that the resi-
denee Of the wife and Aother, even in case,
OF separation, did not control and fix the
doiaicile OF the marriage offspring" But
the court held that now that the reason OF
the rule had ceased, and the law had en-
dowed married women With the right tu
hold property and the means for Its protec-
ton, an adherence to artificial rules should
not be required.
An attorney who receives money for his
client, and without the knowledge, cor
sent. or authority of such client Icons
such money to third person for his own
benefit is held by the Supreme Court of
North Dakota. in re Simpson $50 N "
KEEP, 54l), to be guilty of embezzlement:
and 1t was further held that where an at
torney settles an account upon which 4
suit is pending and receives payment Oh
such settlement and thereafter conceafs
from his client the fact that the money
has been paid and the account settled,
and continues the prosecution Of the case
at his clients expense, such act is a de-
ceit practiced upon a party to an &C.
ton. and is an express ground for dis
barment.
A man in Massachusetts bequeathed
property to town as 4 trust for the
purpose of providing for the care and
identifying of the place OF his burial,
and for the preservation OF the monument
erected at nis grave. The will was con-
tested on the ground that the city was
not authorized to receive such a bequest
and that the city had ceased to own the
H.
death. But the Supreme Judicial Cour.
held that the city had the authority TO re-
ceive and apply moneys for the preesrTa-
tion and care of any public or pT etc
burial place or lots, and that the fact ti,s
the city had ceased to own the cen
at the testator's death did not renssr
trust invalid, since the city was s4tts
ised to be trustee. whether the
terry be public or private. Morse
habitants of Natick, 81 n. e Rep., So
A broker who is employed ..to pro- ne
a loan has earned his commissions,
cording 70 the Supreme Judicial Cour'
in the case of Fitzpatrick
VS.. Tilson t57 N W. Rep, 1cc0), VIII.
he has found a customer ready to make
the loan, although the loan may not 30
made because of defect in the title OF
the property offered as security.
when the DTOkeT mas a GUS
TONER said the court. his duty is at
an end So far7as his rights or his duty
are concerned, 1t is imma terial whether
a contract is or is not made. or, il made,
whether it is or is not performed. This
brokers' right to commission Is no more
dependent upon or affected by the fact
that contract is or is not drawn up and
executed than it is by the fact that the
contract, II drawn up. is OF is not car
LII
a contract with the customer produced.
enforcing or not enforcing a contract.
IL made are matters for the brokers'
principal to do or not to do as his abili-
ty and inclination determine. They are
matters with which the broker is not
concerned, and on which his right to a
commission is not dependent"
On application for an injunction to re-
strain the use on boxes or goods OF q
label claimed by person to be an Ia
fr,ngement of his label, Justice Level-
tritt of the New York Supreme Court,
special term, in the case of Monopo,
bacco Works VS.. Yensior (66 New irF
Supp, 1861, holds that the test to B.
used in determining whether there
an infringement is, viii the pure
be deceived by the delineations or
pressiozs on the label or goods int
lieving The article the product OF
and IL so there has
an infringement, even though Their
which appear more
nently when the wrappers are place.
by side.
Under the New York statute ino5r
ating the New York Juvenile asylum,
tice Lawrence of the Supreme Court
cial term. in the case of People VS..
York Juvenile Asylum (66 New
Supp. 1881 has held that where a IA
surrenders his children to me
asylum for a certain period the asylum
las not the authority TO apprentice the
children beyond that time. The children
n question had been appreaticed TO par
les in the State of Illinois, and ii was
.ontended that as these parties refused to
surrender the children it was incumbent
lpon the petitioner to resort to the courts
II Illinois for redress. But the court held
hat as he had been deprived of the Gus
ody of his children beyond the period
or which they were surrendered, not only
without his fault, but against his pro-
est, it would be hardship to which he
should not be subjected to compel him
lnder such circumstances to incur the ex-
,ense of legal proceedings for the re-
.overy of his children.
The United States Circuit Court Of APP
,eals, in the case of American dashboard
ca MAJ ufa Cam