« PreviousContinue »
breach of contract, even where no “malice” was proved on the part of the defendant union leaders.
The Hitchman case 245 U. S. 229, decided in 1917, which upheld an injunction against outside union organizers in attempting to unionize the mine workers through inducing breach of an alleged contract, was a severe blow to labor, but because of the generally disturbed conditions prevalent at the time owing to America's entry into the Great War, did not attract the attention it otherwise would have, and since has attracted; it may serve as a transition decision, therefore, to the next period into which the authors divide their story.
For with this second period, the year 1921, the Duplex case 254 U. S. 443, the Tri-City case 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 72, and the Truax case 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 125, brought organized labor again to a halt, for the Duplex case emasculated the anti-injunction section of the Clayton Act to mean a dispute between employers and their immediate employees, the Tri-City case limited the power of peaceful picketing, and the Truax case held unconstitutional a state statute similar to the anti-injunction section of the Clayton Act.
With the years 1922 and 1923, however, the authors find labor taking renewed courage in the favorable decisions in the Coronado case 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 570, holding the activities of the United Mine Workers in the coal mining industry to be exempt from interference by the federal government because coal mining was not interstate commerce; the Service Letter cases 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 516, 524, upholding state statutes compelling a corporate employer to give to a discharged employee the cause of discharge in writing, and the decision in Pennsylvania Railway v. United States Railway Labor Board 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 278, recognizing as legal the principle of collective bargaining as against the efforts of the railway to overthrow it, and lastly the decision of Judge Amidon in Great Northern Railway v. Brosseau et al. 286 Fed. 414, refusing to follow the interpretation of the Clayton Act as announced by Judge Wilkerson in the Federal Shop Crafts case 283 Fed. 479, and the greater liberality allowed to labor unions engaged in peaceful picketing, by saying that pickets needed as much protection from the attacks of strike-breakers and private detectives as the latter two groups might need protection from mobs of picketeers.
The volume closes with a brief narration of the present agitation in America to limit the power of the Supreme Court of the United States to declare a law unconstitutional, and the growth of a schism in judicial attitude with reference to the legal protection of the activities of organized labor-shown in the numerous dissenting opinions—as well as conflicting decisions of lower federal courts. Lastly, there is a short sketch of the difficulties to be encountered in any international co-operation for improving the cause of labor in the United States.
The work merits approval of the most commendatory kind, and should be read by every student of the labor problem in America.
Although written in French, it is in the reviewer's opinion the best summary of the federal Supreme Court decisions involving organized labor in America that has so far appeared.
E. F. ALBERTSWORTH.
ARTICLES IN PERIODICALS FRAUDULENT BILLS OF LADING. Merton L. Ferson. Mich. L. Rev. XXI 655. RIGHTS OF FINDERS. Ralph W. Aigler. Mich. L. Rev. XXI 664. A CRITIQUE OF METHODS FOR ALTERATION OF WOMEN'S LEGAL STATUS.
Gladys Wells. Mich L. Rev. XXI 721. FOREIGN MARRIAGE AND THE CONFLICT OF Laws. Herbert F. Goodrich.
Mich. L. Rev. XXI 743. What BAR ORGANIZATION MEANS TO MINNESOTA. Morris B. Mitchell.
Minn. L. Rev. VII 263. THE HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT IN RESUMÉ. Robert Eugene Cushman.
Minn. L. Rev. VII 275. MUNICIPAL HOME RULE IN MINNESOTA. William Anderson. Minn. L. Rev.
VII 306. STATE TAXATION OF NATIONAL BANK SHARES. Henry Rottschaefer. Minn.
L. Rev. VII 357. “ARISING OUT OF THE BUSINESS DONE IN HE STATE.” George E. Osborne.
Minn. L. Rev. VII 380. EFFECT OF ALTERATION OR ABOLITION OF A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION UPON
ITS DEBTS. John Donald Robb. Minn. L. Rev. VII 388. ULTRA VIRES TRANSACTIONS. James Lewis Parks. Univ. of Mo. Bull.
XXIV 3. AGENCY. Warren A. Seavey. Neb. L. Bull. I 5. PAR CLEARANCE OF CHECKS. C. T. Murchison. N. Car. L. Rev. I 133. ESTOPPEL AND REBUTTER IN NORTH CAROLINA. L. P. McGehee. N. Car. L. Rev.
I 152. LIMITATIONS ON THE ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE DOCTRINE. Lyman P. Wilson.
N. Car. L. Rev. I 162. LEGISLATIVE POWER IN NORTH CAROLINA. M. T. Van Hecke. N. Car. L.
Rev. I 172. REMINISCENCES OF THE OREGON BAR, Thomas A. McBride. Ore. L. Rev.
II 136. PRACTICE IN THE SUPREME Court. George H. Bennett. Ore. L. Rev. II
150. A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE CRIMINAL CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
OREGON FOR THE YEAR 1921-22. William G. Hale. Ore. L. Rev. II 155. DISSENTING OPINIONS. Alex. Simpson Jr. Univ. of Pa. L. Rev. LXXI 205. THOUGHTS ON CONSTITUTION-MAKING. Henry P. Chandler. Univ. of Pa.
L. Rev. LXXI 218. STATUTORY PARTY WALLS. Nathan Isaacs. Univ. of Pa. L. Rev. LXXI
229. ARE NEGLIGENCE AND PROXIMATE CAUSE DETERMINABLE BY THE SAME Test.
Leon Green. Tex. L. Rev. I 243. ROGER BROOKE TANEY. F. Dumont Smith. Tex. L. Rev. I 261. CONTRACTUAL POWER OF MARRIED WOMEN IN TEXAS. D. F. Bobbit. Tex.
L. Rev. I 281. AN INQUIRY CONCERNING THE FUNCTIONS OF PROCEDURE IN LEGAL EDUCATION.
Edson R. Sunderland. W. Va. L. Q. XXIX 77.
ABOLISH THE JURY. J. C. McWhorter. W. Va. L. Q. XXIX 97.
Davis. W. Va. L. Q. XXIX 109.
L. Rev. II 129. THE PREROGATIVE WRITS IN ENGLISH LAW. Edward Jenks. Yale L. Jour.
XXXII 523. THE GROWTH OF INTENTION AS A RULE OF LAW. Albert Sidney Bolles.
Yale L. Jour. XXXII 535. LAW AND THE RAILROAD LABOR PROBLEM. Walter B. Kennedy. Yale L.
Jour. XXXII 553. A BRIEF HISTORY OF SPECIAL VERDICTS AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES.
Edmund M. Morgan. Yale L. Jour. XXXII 575. THE DUTY OF DISCLOSURE BY A DIRECTOR PURCHASING STOCK FROM His
STOCKHOLDERS. Roberts Walker. Yale L. Jour. XXXII 637. EQUITABLE DEFENSES. Walter Wheeler Cook. Yale L. Jour. XXXII 645. THREE YEARS OF THE TRANSPORTATION Act. E. G. Buckland. Yale L. Jour.
XXXII 658. RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE. Charles Wesley Dunn. Yale L. Jour. XXXII
676. LANDOWNER V. INTRUDER; INTRUDER V. LANDOWNER. Leon Green. Am. L.
Rev. LVII 321. SLAM MING THE DOOR TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN THE FACE OF BRAINS.
Am. L. Rev. LVII 352. UNUSUAL Facts ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION. Cleveland Cabler. Am. L. Rev.
LVII 371. LIBERTY OR LICENSE? George Washington Williams. Am. L. Rev. LVII
385. A TRUCE TO Railroad WAGE Wars. George Palmer Garrett. Am. L. Rev.
LVII 396. The MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE LAWS OF Mexico. R. B. Gaither. Am. L.
Rev. LVII 406. PERILS IN AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION. A. M. Holding. Am. L. Rev.
LVII 481. Advocacy. Albert S. Osborn. Am. L. Rev. LVII 498. RIGHTS OF FINDERS. Ralph W. Aigler. Am. L. Rev. LVII 510. JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION. George Rossman. Am. L. Rev. LVII 532. THE RULE IN RYLANDS v. FLETCHER AND ITS LIMITATIONS. Vincent C.
MacDonald. Am. L. Rev. LVII 549. MARSHALL ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE LITTORAL SOVEREIGN OVER TERRI
TORIAL WATERS. Joseph Whittla Stinson. Am. L. Rev. LVII 567. POLITICAL SCIENCE IN THE INTERNATIONAL FIELD. Pitman B. Potter. Am.
Pol. Sc. Rev. XVII 381. INTERNATIONAL POLITICS AND History. Henry R. Spencer. Am. Pol. Sc.
Rev. XVII 392. THE PROBLEM OF SOVEREIGNTY. Baron S. A. Korff. Am. Pol. Sc. Rev.
XVII 404. THE POLITICAL SYSTEM OF IMPERIAL CHINA. Harold S. Quigley. Am. Pol.
Sc, Rev. XVII 551. GROWTH OF PRESIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT IN EUROPE. Charles E. Martin.
Am. Pol. Sc. Rev. XVII 567. GUILD SOCIALISM AND PLURALISM, Ellen D. Ellis. Am. Pol. Sc. Rev.
XVII 584. EQUITY PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN MASSACHUSETTS. Henry E. Bellew.
Bost. U. L. Rev. III 139.
CONFISCATION OF Enemy PRIVATE PROPERTY. Edward A. Harriman. Bost.
U. L. Rev. III 156. PROBATIVE FORCE OF AUTHORITATIVE LAW Works. Borris M. Komar. Bost.
U. L. Rev. III 175. ADDRESS TO NEW YORK Bar AssoCIATION. Newton W. Rowell. Can. Bar
Rey. I 382. NOTES ON OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE. Justice Russell. Can. Bar Rev. I 392. Pour Avoir L'OREILLE De Les Juges. Pièrre Beullac. Can. Bar Rev. I
418. Rights OF STATES IN MODERN Law. Paul Vinogradoff. Can. Bar Rev.
I 455. AUTHORITY OF English DECISIONS. F. E. Hodgins. Can. Bar Rev. I 470. Some PHASES OF AMERICAN LEGAL EDUCATION. Harlan F. Stone. Can.
Bar Rev. I 646. LEGAL EDUCATION IN CANADA. Can. Bar Rev. I 671. LEGAL EDUCATION IN ONTARIO. Paul Home, Can. Bar Rev. I 685. OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE. A. R. MacLeod. Can. Bar Rev. I 694. REPRISALS AND THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS. Thomas H. Black. Can. Bar Rev.
I 729. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN THE UNITED STATES. John Lord O'Brian.
Can. Bar Rev. I 737. MORTMAIN LAWS OF QUEBEC. John A. Aylin. Can. Bar Rev. I 748. CASUAL EMPLOYMENT AND EMPLOYMENT OUTSIDE OF BUSINESS. Francis H.
Bohlen. Col. L. Rev. XI 221. STATE SOVEREIGNTY AND THE TREATY-MAKING POWER. L. L. Thompson.
Col. L. Rev. XI 242. THE DISCUSSION OF CHATTELS: THE TITLE OF A THIEF. Max Rodin. Col.
L. Rev. XI 259. GREEK LAW AND MODERN JURISPRUDENCE. Geoge Miller Calhoun. Col.
L. Rev. XI 215, THE POWER OF THE COURTS TO DECLARE Laws UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Warren
H. Pillsbury. Col. L. Rev. XI 313. Is THERE A LEGAL CYCLE? A. F. Albertsworth. Col. L. Rev. XI 381. Text BOOKS AS AUTHORITY IN ANGLE-AMERICAN LAW. Boris M. Komar,
Col. L. Rev. XI 397. The KANSAS INDUSTRIAL COURT Act. Herbert Rabinowictz. Col. L. Rev.
XII 1. State PRODUCTION TAXES AND THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, Thomas Reed
Powell. Col. L. Rev. XII 17. THE TREATIES WITH GERMANY AND COMPENSATION FOR WAR DAMAGE.
Hessel E. Yutema. Col. L. Rev. XXIII 511. THE EMERGENCY ORDINANCE: A NOTE ON EXECUTIVE POWER. James Hart.
Col. L. Rev. XXIII 528. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE LICENSING OF INSURANCE COMPANIES. Edwin W.
Patterson. Col. L. Rev. XXIII 536. How LAWYERS THINK. Nathan Isaacs. Col. L. Rev. XXIII 555. The EvoLUTION OF CONDITIONAL Sales LAW IN New York. George G.
Bogert. Corn. L. Q. VIII 303. FEDERAL AID LEGISLATION. Charles K. Burdick. Corn. L. Q. VIII 324. The CHILD LABOR CASES AND THE CONSTITUTION. William A. Sutherland.
Corn. L. Q. VIII 338. TWENTY Years of MR. JUSTICE Holmes's CONSTITUTIONAL OPINIONS. Felix
Frankfurter. Harv. L. Rev. XXXVI 909. THE THEORY OF JUDICIAL Decision. Roscoe Pound. Harv. L. Rev. XXXVI
In 1907, as part of the general revision of the Practice Act, Section 55 (the former Section 36) which, as regards the content of the affidavit of merits, had previously been satisfied by a general statement that the defendant had “a good defense upon the merits” to the whole or a part of the plaintiffs demand, was amended so as to require the affidavit to “specify the nature of such defense.” Since the existing method of pleading defenses was otherwise left unaltered, and the affidavit, as before, when called for by the plaintiff's attaching to his declaration an affidavit of claim, was to be filed as an accompaniment of the defendant's plea or pleas, the question has arisen as to whether the statements of the affidavit as well as the allegations of the pleas were intended to condition the proof, or, in other words, whether the defendant may introduce evidence of defenses which, although admissible under the pleas, are not noticed in an otherwise sufficient affidavit of merits. To put the case more concretely, suppose that, in an action of assumpsit, the defendant who is under the duty of filing the affidavit in question has two de
1. Professor of Law in Northwestern University.
2. “If the plaintiff in any suit upon a contract, express or implied, for the payment of money, shall file with his declaration an affidavit showing the nature of his demand, and the amount due him from the defendant, after allowing to the defendant all his just credits, deductions and set-offs, if any, he shall be entitled to judgment, as in case of default, unless the defendant, or his agent or attorney, shall file with his plea an affidavit, stating that he verily believes the defendant has a good defense to said suit upon the merits to the whole or a portion of the plaintiff's demand, and specifying the nature of such defense, and if a portion specifying the amount (according to the best of his judgment and belief); upon good cause shown, the time for filing such affidavit may be extended for such reasonable time as the court shall order; no affidavit of merits need be filed with a demurrer or motion Sec. 55 c. 110 Cahill's Rev. Stat. p. 2651.