Rights of Holder of Bill of Exchange against the Drawee

“If the question were put to the average layman whether the holder of a check...had any effective rights against the drawee bank, it is believed that the almost universal response would be to the effect that of course the holder may insist upon payment by the bank, if there are funds on deposit to cover the amount. And if the same question were propounded to the average lawyer, the reply generally would be--at least if the lawyer had in mind the provisions of the Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law--that the holder had no rights against the bank. It is the purpose of this paper to inquire into the accuracy of these two views.

Reletting on Abandonment by Tenant as Surrender by Operation of Law

Among the very many difficult problems arising under the STATUTE OF FRAUDS not the least troublesome has been that of surrender of estates by operation of law. The Statute (29 Car. II, c.3,§3,) provided that no leases * * * shall * * * be assigned, granted, or surrendered, unless it be by deed or note in writing, * * * or by act and operation of law. Under a number of varying situations it has been held that a surrender by operation of law had been accomplished. See 2 TIFFANY, LANDLORD AND TENANT, §190. In Lyon v. Reed, 13 M. & W. 285, Baron PARKE, after referring to a number of such situations, said: It is needless to multiply examnples; all the old cases will be found to depend on the principle to which we have adverted, namely, an act done by or to the owner of a particular estate, the validity of which he is estopped from disputing, and which could not have been done if the particular estate continued to exist. The law there says, that the act itself amounts to a surrender. In such case it will be observed there can be no question of intention. It takes place independently, and even in spite of intention

Depositors\u27 Checks in Payment of Matured Obligations Held by Drawee Bank as Preferences

Since the case of New York County Bank I. Massey, 192 U. S. 138, there has been no doubt as to the right of a debtor of a bankrupt\u27s estate to exercise the right of set-off as preserved by § 68a of the Bankruptcy Act. In that case it was laid down dearly that such right of set-off may be exercised despite the provisions of § 60a, which covers the matter of preferences. The question very frequently arises when bankers apply deposit balances upon matured obligations of customers. If such application is made within four months of the time when the customer goes into bankruptcy, the contention that a preference has resulted is almost inevitable. The Massey case decided that under such circumstances there was not a voidable preference. There the deposits were made in the ordinary course of business, and the court carefully guards against expressing an opinion as to what the result would be in case of fraud or collusion between the depositor and bank

Interstate Commerce and State Control of Foreign Corporations

Corporations are the creatures of their parent state and outside the borders of the state creating them they have no existence except such as is granted them by comity. Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 519; Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168; Ducat v. Chicago, 10 Wall. 410; Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 10 Wall, 566; Home Ins. Co. v. Morse, 20 Wall. 445; Horn Silver Mining Co. v. New York, 143 U. S. 305; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 177 U. S. 28; Security Mut. L. I. Co. v. Prewitt, 202 U. S. 246. A state may prohibit a foreign corporation from doing business within its borders or allow it to do business there upon such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. Same cases. The power of the states to prescribe such conditions, however, is qualified to the extent that the foreign corporation cannot be required to give up a right or privilege held under the federal constitution or statutes. For example, a condition that the corporation shall not remove any case to the federal courts is invalid and the corporation may remove cases despite the condition. Home Ins. Co. v. Morse, supra. But for breach of such condition the state may revoke the permit to do business within its borders. Doyle v. Insurance Co., 94 U. S. 535; Security Mut. L. L Co. v. Prewitt, supra. Thus it is admitted that a state has power to prevent a company from coming into its domain, and that it has power to take away its right to remain after having been permitted once to enter, and that right may be exercised from good or bad motives. Prewitt case, supra, page 257

Training for a Profession--Law

So long as human conduct and relations must accord with pre-established and determinable rules, the study of law, and the practice thereof, will be of absorbing interest. When we consider futher that our government is one of law, and the the positisions of highest responsibility therein are such that training in law is peculiarly desirable, it is not at all surprising that many young men have taken to the legal profession

Legislation in Vague or General Terms

FOR some reason, probably in part the increasing complexity of our life and relationships, but more largely, perhaps, the growing tendency to regulate everybody and everything by positive law, the courts have been called upon with increasing frequency to pass upon the effectiveness of statutes and ordinances phrased in indefinite terms. In a very interesting and valuable paper, Professor Freund has pointed out the weakness and strength, on the one hand, of legislation in general terms, and on the other hand, legislation in which the rule of conduct is attempted to be laid down with precision. His interest apparently lay in the effect of the legislation from the point of view of its administration. It may be not without interest to consider how far legislative bodies may go in the direction of generality without impairing the validity of their product

Is a Contract Necessary to Create an Effective Escrow?

WHERE land has been sold and both parties are desirous of protecting themselves pending full payment of the purchase price, there are two common ways of accomplishing their purpose without any change in legal ownership. There may be (1) a contract of sale properly evidenced so as to be enforceable, and (2) a deed executed by the vendor and placed in escrow. Sometimes one method is preferred, sometimes the other. If the former is adopted, it is, of course, vitally important that the contract comply with the formal requirements of the law; in the latter there has been some difference of opinion as to the necessity for such contract. Quite a number of courts and text writers in this country have held or said that a binding, effective escrow necessitates a contract pursuant to which the instrument is deposited. A few courts have held that not only must there be a contract but it must be enforceable. It is the purpose of this paper to examine into the soundness of these doctrines

The Right of Fishing

While the man engaged in fishing is ordinarily more concerned with the supply of fish and their susceptibility than with his right to be doing what he is, not infrequently the latter question is thrust upon his attention. Popular notions on this matter are not to be relied upon. In country life a multitude of acts are habitually committed that are technically trespasses. Persons walk, catch fish, pick berries, and gather nuts in alieno solo, without strict right. Good natured owners tolerate these practices until they become annoying or injurious, and then put a stop to them, ADAMS, J., in Albright v. Cortright, 64 N. J. L. 330