Note and Comment

The Effect of the Carmack Amendment to the Hepburn Act Upon Limitation by Common Carrier of the Amount of their Liability - Two cases, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on March 10, 1913, may be considered together. They are developments of the cases reviewed in II MICH. L. Rev. 460. Plaintiff shipped two boxes and a barrel of \u27household goods under an agreement that the goods, in case of loss, should be valued at $5 per hundred-weight. One box, weighing not over 200 pounds and actually worth$75, was lost. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed a judgment against the carrier for the full value. On error the Supreme Court of the United States reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. In the other oase the plaintiff shipped four bulls and thirteen cows, show cattle, worth $10,640. The finding of the Texas Court of Civil Appeals, was reversed on the ground that the recovery should have been limited to$30 for each bull and $20 for each cow

A critical review of the evidence for M32 being a compact dwarf satellite of M31 rather than a more distant normal galaxy

Since Baade's photographic study of M32 in the mid 1940s, it has been accepted as an established fact that M32 is a compact dwarf satellite of M31. The purpose of this paper is to report on the findings of our investigation into the nature of the existing evidence. We find that the case for M32 being a satellite of M31 rests upon Hubble Space Telescope (HST) based stellar population studies which have resolved red-giant branch (RGB) and red clump stars in M32 as well as other nearby galaxies. Taken in isolation, this recent evidence could be considered to be conclusive in favour of the existing view. However, the conventional scenario does not explain M32's anomalously high central velocity dispersion for a dwarf galaxy (several times that of either NGC 147, NGC 185 or NGC 205) or existing planetary nebula observations (which suggest that M32 is more than twice as distant as M31) and also requires an elaborate physical explanation for M32's inferred compactness. Conversely, we find that the case for M32 being a normal galaxy, of the order of three times as distant as M31, is supported by: (1) a central velocity dispersion typical of intermediate galaxies, (2) the published planetary nebula observations, and (3) known scaling relationships for normal early-type galaxies. However, this novel scenario cannot account for the high apparent luminosities of the RGB stars resolved in the M32 direction by HST observations. We are therefore left with two apparently irreconcilable scenarios, only one of which can be correct, but both of which suffer from potentially fatal evidence to the contrary. This suggests that current understanding of some relevant fields is still very far from adequate.Comment: 17 pages, 3 Postscript figures, uses cjaa.cls and natbib.sty (published version has 16 pages

Report from the Annual Conference of the British Society of Echocardiography, November 2017, Edinburgh International Conference Centre, Edinburgh

No abstract available

Note and Comment

The Law School; Possession Under Mistake, as Adverse Possession; Limitation of Carrier\u27s Common-Law Liability; The Force and Effect of State Insolvency Laws Under the Bankruptcy Act of 1898

Note and Comment

The Law School; Possession Under Mistake, as Adverse Possession; Limitation of Carrier\u27s Common-Law Liability; The Force and Effect of State Insolvency Laws Under the Bankruptcy Act of 1898

Note and Comment

The Character of User In Prescription - As the possession of the claimant in a case of adverse possession must be shown to have been adverse in order to ripen into title, so also must the user in prescription be shown to have been adverse during -the endure prescriptive period. As to the burden of proving the adverse character of the possession in the first case there seems to be doubt whether there is a presumption of adverseness by showing open possession and acts of ownership, or whether there is a burden upon the claimant to go further. See 2 Am. & ENG. ENcY. L. & P. 392, and cases there cited. The usual doctrine would seem to be that it is sufficient for the claimant to prove the fact of -possession together with acts of ownership, as for instance, the taking of the profits of the land. Of course in order to acquire title he must show that ,his -possession had the further characteristics of openness, continuity, exclusiveness, etc. But generally speaking, facts of the nature above indicated are sufficient to show the \u27hostile or adverse character of his possession. As to -the situation when the possession \u27has been due to a mistaken belief as to ownership see ii MICH. L. R1. 57

Note and Comment

The Character of User In Prescription - As the possession of the claimant in a case of adverse possession must be shown to have been adverse in order to ripen into title, so also must the user in prescription be shown to have been adverse during -the endure prescriptive period. As to the burden of proving the adverse character of the possession in the first case there seems to be doubt whether there is a presumption of adverseness by showing open possession and acts of ownership, or whether there is a burden upon the claimant to go further. See 2 Am. & ENG. ENcY. L. & P. 392, and cases there cited. The usual doctrine would seem to be that it is sufficient for the claimant to prove the fact of -possession together with acts of ownership, as for instance, the taking of the profits of the land. Of course in order to acquire title he must show that ,his -possession had the further characteristics of openness, continuity, exclusiveness, etc. But generally speaking, facts of the nature above indicated are sufficient to show the \u27hostile or adverse character of his possession. As to -the situation when the possession \u27has been due to a mistaken belief as to ownership see ii MICH. L. R1. 57

Note and Comment

The Effect of the Carmack Amendment to the Hepburn Act Upon Limitation by Common Carrier of the Amount of their Liability - Two cases, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on March 10, 1913, may be considered together. They are developments of the cases reviewed in II MICH. L. Rev. 460. Plaintiff shipped two boxes and a barrel of \u27household goods under an agreement that the goods, in case of loss, should be valued at $5 per hundred-weight. One box, weighing not over 200 pounds and actually worth$75, was lost. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed a judgment against the carrier for the full value. On error the Supreme Court of the United States reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. In the other oase the plaintiff shipped four bulls and thirteen cows, show cattle, worth $10,640. The finding of the Texas Court of Civil Appeals, was reversed on the ground that the recovery should have been limited to$30 for each bull and $20 for each cow