Interstate Commerce. Interstate Commerce Commission. Effect on Jurisdiction of Territory's Becoming State

1908 Harvard Law Review  
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 » ... out Early Journal Content 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. RECENT CASES. RECENT CASES. RECENT CASES. I45 I45 I45 of the cause before such petition. In re Miller, 114 Fed. 838; In re Scatf, 144 Fed. 79. But it has been held that where the arrest is made and charges are preferred after the petition, a writ of habeas corpus should issue. Ex arte Houghton, 129 Fed. 239. See In re Carver, Io3 Fed. 624. A number of cases, however, hold that, when an arrest has been made and a writ has issued, if charges are later preferred against the infant before the final hearing, the writ should be discharged. United States v. Reaves, 126 Fed. 127; In re Carver, 142 Fed. 623. On principle these cases seem indistinguishable. In both cases proceedings were pending, but in neither had the court martial obtained jurisdiction when the petition was filed. The principal case seems right, therefore, in holding that the latter cases practically overrule the former; and the practical result reached seems desirable. INDEMNITY -TORT COMMITTtD AT ANOTHER'S REQUEST. -The defend- ant, a stockbroker, identified a woman at the plaintiff bank as the owner of certain stock, receiving only a nominal fee for his trouble. He had good reason for thinking her to be the owner, but she was in fact a fraudulent impersonator. At her order the bank registered a transfer of the stock, which it was later compelled to make good to the true owner. Held, that the defendant is bound to indemnify the plaintiff as having impliedly requested the transfer. The plaintiff and the defendant, practicing dentists, entered into a contract whereby the defendant agreed not to practice a ctrtain method of extracting teeth in Philadelphia for ten years. The plaintiff filed a bill to enjoin the defendant from so practicing. Held, that although the contract is good at law, the plaintiff is not entitled to an injunction. 7homras v. Borden, 65 Leg. Int. 404 (Pa., Dist. Ct., July 31, I908). Equity frequently refuses an injunction on the ground that it would work an injury to the public. Valparaiso v. Ha,en, 153 Ind. 337. See 22 HARV. L. REV. 61. But this doctrine seems never to have been applied to the case of a contract in restraint of trade admittedly good at law. The logical reason for this is that any unreasonable restraint of trade renders a contract invalid. Nordenfelt v. Aiaxim, etc., Co., [1894] A. C. 535. If the contract is valid, it follows that it does not unreasonably restrain, and therefore equity should not on this ground refuse to enjoin a breach. It is clear that physicians may be enjoined from breaking agreements not to practice in a certain vicinity. Wilkinson v. Collev, 164 Pa. St. 35; Beatty v. Coble, 142 Ind. 329. But here it was contended that the agreement tended to give the plaintiff a quasi-monopoly on this particular method of extracting teeth. The court ruled that there can be no equitable right to a monopoly in the means of relieving human suffering. This doctrine, if followed to its logical conclusion, would preclude equity from protecting patents on surgical instruments and medicines. Clearly that is not law. Farbenfabricken of Elberfeld Co. v. Harrinan, 133 Fed. 313; Rowley v. Koeber, 135 Fed. 363. INSURANCE -RESCISSION OF CONTRACT FOR FRAUD. -The plaintiff was induced to continue a policy of life insurance by the fraudulent representations of the insurer's agent. Held, that on discovering the fraud the plaintiff can rescind, and recover the full amount of the premiums paid. Kettlewell v.
doi:10.2307/1324167 fatcat:ylsoziqsobgbnf3zrvbbvuklbi