Books Received

A List of Books Received by Michigan Law Revie

Recent Important Decisions

Following the decision of the United States Supreme Court that the Wilson Act did not affect interstate shipments of liquor until final delivery by the carrier, Rhodes v. Iowa, 170 U. S. 412, (898), Congress passed the Webb-Kenyon Act, 37 Stat. at L. 699 (1913). Meantime, in 1913, 35 Stat. at L. 1136, Sec. 239, it was enacted that it should be a penal offense for any carier or other agent, in connection with the interstate carriage of intoxicating liquors, to collect the purchase price from the consignee, or in any manner act as agent of buyer or seller, except in the actual transportation or delivery thereof. After this act carriers and banks refused to act as collection agents in such sales, and dealers resorted to the plan of consigning liquor which had been ordered from prohibition states, to their own order, mailing the bill of lading to an agent, with instructions to deliver the same upon payment of the accompanying draft by the purchaser. In Danciger v. Cooley, U. S. Supreme Court, Adv. 0. 139, Jan. 7, i919, it was held that this was ih violation of Sec. 239, supra, and of course illegal. The shipment was made before 1913, and so did not involve the Webb-Kenyon Act

Periodical Index

Subject Index of Articles, Comments, Notes, and Recent Developments Appearing in Leading Law Review

Front Matter

Front matter for Volume 17, Issue 3 of Michigan Law Review

Recent Important Decisions

Acknowledgement - Liability of Notary - Where the defendant, a notary, certified that certain impersonators of the grantors were known to him, and that they were the persons who executed the deeds, and the plaintiff who accepted the deeds as security for a loan in reliance upon the certificate of the notary was defrauded, held, the defendant was guilty of negligence and must respond in damages for not fulfilling the requirements of Sec. i185 of the Civil Code: that the acknowledgment of an instrument must not be taken, unless the officer taking it knows or has satisfactory evidence, on the oath or affirmation of a credible witness, that the person making such acknowledgment is the individual who is described in and who executed the instrument. Something affirmative in the nature of evidence of the grantor\u27s identity must appear, as an association with him in his relation to other people. Informal introductions and occasional meetings are not enough. Anderson v. Aronsohn (Cal., ig9g), 184 Pac. 12

Recent Important Decisions

Adverse Possession - Tacking - To a suit in ejectment, defendant pleaded, (z) the statute of limitations of seven years, claiming adverse possession for that length of time; (2) also twenty years\u27 adverse possession as a basis for the presumption of a grant. The possession relied upon is partially that of defendant\u27s predecessor, between whom and defendant there was no privity. Held, (I) the defense of the statute of limitations is without merit. Successive possessions cannot be tacked to make up the period of that statute unless connected by privity; (2) but no privity is necessary to raise the presumption of a grant where the possession relied upon is continuous for twenty years, and this defense must prevail. Ferguson v. Prince, (Tenn. i916) i9o S. W. 548

Front Matter

Front matter for Volume 16, Issue 2 of Michigan Law Review