Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal

more »

... ntent at http://about.jstor.org/participate--jstor/individuals/early-journal--content. JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. COMMENTS COMMENTS requires, and leave those whose rights are affected by it to take steps to annul it. Applying the rule deduced from the decisions to the case under discussion we conclude that, though there is much support, the weight of authority is against the proposition that a ministerial officer has a right to question the constitutionality of a law in a mandamus proceeding to compel him to act under such law. DEATI AND SURVIVORSHIP-PRESUMPTIONS. In the case of Walton & Co. v. Burchel, decided by the Supreme Court of Tennessee in I907, but reported only recently in 121 Southern Reporter, 39I, where a father and son were killed by a premature explosion of dynamite, the court held that "in the absence of evidence as to which died first, there is no presumption in favor of either; the presumption being that both died at the same time;" and affirmed the decision of the lower court which charged the jury that "when the proof shows that two persons are killed in a common sudden disaster, the presumption is that they died simultaneously." Among the leading cases cited by the court to back up this opinion are: Russell v. Hallett, 23 Kan. 276; Newell v. Nichols, 75 N. Y. 78; Moehring v. Mitchell, I Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 264; Young Women's Christian Home v. French, 187 U. S. 401, all of which clearly follow the common law rule that when two or more perish in the same disaster, there is no presumption of law whatever upon the subject and that the law will no more presume that all died at the salme instant than it will presume that one survived the other.