Hill vs. Blake, 97 N. Y., 216. Raubetschek vs. Blank, 80 N. Y., 478. Butler vs. Thompson, 92 U. S., 412. Lerned vs. Johns, 9 Allen, 419. Louisville Co. vs. Lorick, 29 S. C., 533. Coe vs. Tough, 116 N Y. 273. Chaps. VII. and VIII. Boardman vs. Spooner, 13 Allen, 353. Clason vs. Bailey, 14 Johns., 484. Pinkney vs. Hagwell, 1 Duer, 89. Sienewright vs. Archibald, 17 Q. B., 115. Book II., Chap. I and II. Tarling vs. Baxter, 6 B. & C., 360. Tyler vs. Freeman, 3 Cush., 261. Coggill vs. H. & N. H. Ry., 3 Grey, 545. N. Y., 520. Halterline vs. Rice, 62 Barb., 593. § 319. Ward vs. Shaw, 7 Wend., 404. Sanger vs. Wallenburg, 116 N. Y., 371. § 320. Empire State, etc., Co. vs. Grant, 114 N. Y., 40. Andrews vs. Duerant, 11 N. Y., 35. Ballard vs. Burgett, 40 N. Y., 314. Comer vs. Cunningham, 77 N. Y., 391. CASES CITED IN AGENCY IN CONNECTION WITH EVANS ON PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GENERAL AND SPECIAL Agent. Butler vs. Mapes, 9 Wal., 766. AGENCY BY ESTOPPEL. 107 N. Y., 490. AGENCY BY OPERATION OF LAW. 134 Mass., 418. WHO ARE AGENTS? Coffin vs. Reynolds, 37 N. Y., 640. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY. 275. P. 91. Greenfield Bank vs. Craft, 4 Allen, Cooke et al vs. Millard et al., 65 N. Y., 483. Act of State. 352. Contract of sale. Kilbourn vs. Thompson, 103 U. S., 168. Hatch vs. Attrill et al., 118 N. Y., 383. Liability of officers of the law. Payment of a debt. Hamer vs. Sidway, 124 N. Y., 538. Contract to abstain from drinking. 1 Political Science Quarterly, 84. Legislative Inquests," by F. W. Whit ridge. The People ex rel. McDonald vs. Keeler, 99 N. Y., 463. Liability of witnesses before legislative body. The People ex rel. Stapleton et al. vs. Bell et al., 119 N. Y., 175. Inspectors of election-ministerial officers. Transportation Co. vs. Chicago, 99 U. S., 635. Inevitable accident. Hamilton vs. V. S. and P. Railroad, 119 U. S., 280. Inevitable accident. Boston and Albany Railroad Co. and Carney vs. Shanly, 107 Mass., 568. Inevi table accident. Cogdell vs. Yett, 1 Coldwell, 230. Inevitable accident. Assault. Corning vs. Corning, 6 N. Y., 97. Assault. Whalley vs. The Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway Co., 132 B. D., 131. Rosenberg vs. Staten Island R'y Co., 44 A. L. J., 64. Negligence. Two actions. Miller vs. Acheson, 2 Ohio St., 203. Executive acts. Contribution among wrongdoers. Grund et al. vs. Van Vleck, 69 Ill., 478. Liability of principal for agent. Bailey vs. Bussing, 28 Ct., 455. Contribution among wrong-doers. Jacobs vs. Pollard, to Cushing, 287. Joint wrong-doers. Spalding vs. Administrator of William Oakes, 42 Vt., 343. Liability of joint owners. Dodge vs. Colby, 15 Northeastern, 703. Bizzell vs. Booker et al. 16 Ark., 308. Locality of wrong. Liability. Strouse vs. Whittlesey, 41 Ct., 559. Accident liability. Helfrich vs. Catonsville Water Co., 44 A. L. J., 143. Liability of user of property. Lynch vs. Metropolitan El. R. Co., 90 N. Y., 77. False imprisonment. Field vs. Pelot, 1 M'Mullan, 385. Liability of guardian and surety. 6 London Quarterly Review, 189. Chicago & Milwaukee Railroad vs. Ross, 112 U. S., 377. Liability of master to Queen vs. W. Day, Clerk, I Cox's Criminal Cases, 207. Assault. State vs. Johnson, 75 N. C., 129. Assault. 7 Ontario, Q. B. D., 377. Bliss vs. Johnson, 73 N. Y., 529. Assault. Vanderbilt vs. Mathis, 5 Duer, 304. Malicious prosecution. Grainger vs. Hill et al., 4 Bingham's New Cases, 212. False imprisonment. Malicious prosecution. William vs. Taylor, 6 Bing., 183. Malicious prosecution. Smith vs. Weeks et al., 60 Wis., 94. Executive officers. Liability. Hazard agt. Harding, 63 Howard's Prac., 326. Abuse of legal process. Emerson vs. Cochran, 111 Pa. St., 619. Malicious prosecution. Johnson vs. Reed, 136 Mass., 421. Malicious prosecution. Heywood vs. Tillson, 75 Maine, 227. Malice. Mackin vs. U. S., 117 U. S., 348. Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S., 429. Parkinson vs. U. S., 121 U.S., 281. Above three cases define an "infamous crime." Bell vs. Sun Printing Co., 42 N. Y., Sup. 567. Libel. Innuendo. Purdy vs. The Rochester Printing Co., 96 N. Y., 372. Libel. Terwilliger vs. Wands, 17 N. Y., 54. Repetition of defamatory words. Donaghue et al vs. Gaffy, 53 Ct., 43. Libel. Underhill vs. Welton, 32 Vt., 40. Slan der. Rea vs. Harrington, 58 Vt., 181. Slander. Mahoney vs. Belford, 132 Mass., 393. Slander. Fanning vs. Chace, 44 A. L. J., 164. Slander. Zeliff vs. Jennings, 61 Tex., 458. Slander. Civil Code, 1906. Imputation of unchastity. Bassell vs. Elmore, 48 N. Y., 561. Defamation. Healy vs. Dettra, 8 At. Rep. 622. Slander. Davis vs. Johnston, 2 Baily, 579. Doubtful words; slander. De Moss vs. Haycock, 15 Iowa, 149. Slander; effect of circumstances on words. Bishop: "Criminal Law," secs. 926-927. Wennhak vs. Morgan, 38 A. L. J., 24. Publication. Libel. Fry vs. Bennett, 4 Duer, 247. Libel. Bigelow's Leading Cases, pp. 118-120. Botterill vs. Whytehead, 21 A. L. J., 103. Libel. Hamilton vs. Eno, 81 N. Y., 116. Libel. Mott vs. Dawson, 46 Iowa, 533. Slander. White vs. Carroll, 42 N. Y., 161. Libel and slander. Bishop vs. Small, 63 Maine, 12. Deceit. Maine's "Village Communities," pp. 192-193. The early market. Medbury et al vs. Watson, 6 Metcalf, 246. False representations. Cooper vs. Lovering, 106 Mass., 79. Deceit. Holbrook vs. Connor, 60 Maine, 578. Fraudulent misrepresentations. Van Epps vs. Harrison, 5 Hill, 63. Deceit. Coolidge vs. Goddard, 77 Maine, 578. Deceit. Fish vs. Cleland, 33 Ill., 237. Misrepresentation as to law. Townsend & Milliken vs. Cowles, 31 Ala., 428. Fraud. Mallory vs. Leach, 35 Vt., 156. Fraudulent misrepresentations. Anglis vs. Clifford, 44 A. L. J. Derry vs. Peek, L. R. 14 Appeals Cases, 374. Deceit. Nichols vs. Pinner, 18 N. Y., 295. Deceit. Parrish vs. Thurston, 87 Ind., 437. Fraud. Maynard vs. Maynard, 49 Vt., 297. Deceit. False Concealment. 61 L. T. Rep., N. S., 376. 5 London Quarterly Review, 410. Pollock Criticism of, 61 Law Times Reports, 376. 6 London Quarterly Review, 72. Answer to above. Kroeger vs. Pitcairn, 101 Pa. St., 311. Liability of agent. Baltzenet vs. Nicolay, 53 N. Y., 467. Liability of agent. Patterson vs. Lippincott, 47 N. J. Law, 457. Liability of agent. Sears vs. Eastern Railroad Co., 14 Allen, 433. Action for failure to run a train on time. Upton vs. Vail, 6 Johnson, 181. Deceit. With regard to solvency of third party. Allen vs. Addington, 11 Wendell, 374. Deceit. With regard to solvency of third party. Erie City Iron Works vs. Barber & Co., 106 Pa. St., 125. Principal liable for de ceit of agent. N. Y., I. Principal liable for deceit of agent. Hitchcock vs. Peterson, 114 U. S., 555. When partner is liable for representations of co-partner. State vs. Chaney Wise, 66 N. C., 122. Rhoda vs. Annis, 75 Maine, 17. Deceit. Opposite view to above. Agent's responsibility. Sherman vs. Smith, 42 Howard's Practice, 198. Liability of firm for deceit of one. Witmark vs. Herman, 44 Sup. Ct., 144. Same rule as above. Flynn vs. Equitable Life Assurance Co., 14 Hun., 389. Contrary rule to above two. Chester et al. vs. Dickerson et al., 54 Weidner vs. Phillips, 39 Hun., 1. Deceit. Johnson et al., vs. Ransom, 35 Ind., 534. Deceit. Jones vs. Town of New Haven, 34 Ct., 22. Deceit. Van Epps vs. Harrison, 5 Hill, 63. Deceit. Goodwin vs. Mass. Loan, etc., Co., 152 Mass., 202. Deceit. EDITOR'S TABLE. IN the American Law Review for September and October, 1891, appeared two articles of particular interest to students in the present senior class of Columbia. The first, "A Summary of Quasi Contracts," by John H. Wigmore, and "Is Unpaid Capital a Trust-Fund in any Proper Sense," by R. C. McMurtrie. The writer of the first named article acknowledges his indebtedness to Professor Keener's "Collection of Cases on Quasi Contracts" for the majority of his illustrations, but adopts a different plan for his summary. Speaking of Prof. Keener, the author, says: "To him with Prof. Ames, of the Harvard Law School, American law is indebted for the initial recognition of the unity and import ance of this branch of the law and for a systematic view of it." The article in the same number, by the Hon. Alfred Russell, of the Detroit bar, on "Avoidable Causes of Delay and Uncertainty in Our Courts," is of interest and value to every business lawyer. Mr. McMurtrie, in his treatise on the "Trust-Fund Theory of Unpaid Capital Stock," reviews the recent case in the U. S. Supreme Court, Handley vs. Stutz (139 U. S. 417), and holds that in no sense can the capital stock be properly considered a trust-fund for creditors. NUMBER One of volume one of the Yale Law Journal came out in October. This is another illustration of the enterprise of the Yale students, and in their work they In this number is a very exhaustive article have the co-operation of their faculty. on "Voting Trusts," by Prof. Simeon E. Baldwin. For the first issue, their effort is certainly a very creditable one, and while we doubt whether the students fully realize the magnitude of their undertaking, still we have great confidence in Yale's ability to maintain an excellent legal magazine. HARVARD is another institution where, in support of their college enterprise, the |