Introduction to Codebusters

Spelling is an ignored wound in American education. It is so ignored that university teacher-preparation programs do not even include a single course on how to teach spelling. Lacking professional guidance, teachers concoct a variety of approaches. Some present a list of words and tell their students to memorize them for Friday’s test. Others have their students finger-paint the words. Others dwell on complex rules, such as: “In monosyllabic words ending in a terminal consonant, double the terminal consonant before adding –ed or -ing.” Spelling is so ignored that California’s entire content standards for eighth grade spelling instruction is four words long: Use correct spelling conventions. That’s it. One sentence. Four words. No wonder students cannot spell

RES JUDICATA---STATE COURT\u27S DISMISSAL AS A BAR TO A NEW SUIT ON THE SAME CAUSE IN A FEDERAL COURT EXERCISING DIVERSITY JURISDICTION

A citizen of Virginia brought suit in a North Carolina court against a citizen of North Carolina for a deficiency judgment on a note executed in Virginia ·for the purchase of land in Virginia. Defendant\u27s demurrer to the complaint on the ground that a North Carolina statute precluded recovery was - overruled; defendant appealed. In spite of plaintiff\u27s contention that the statute was an invalid abridgment of the full faith and credit clause of Article IV of the Constitution of the United States, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that the statute effectively barred the action from the state courts and dismissed the case. Plaintiff then brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on the same cause of action invoking diversity jurisdiction; defendant pleaded the state judgment in bar. The district court gave judgment for plaintiff on the ground that the state could not limit federal jurisdiction by procedural legislation; the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. On certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, held, reversed. The North Carolina Supreme Court\u27s adjudication barred the action in the federal court; plaintiff could contest the correctness of the decision only by appeal from the state court. Angel v. Bullington, (U.S. 1947) 67 S. Ct. 657

COMMUNITY PROPERTY-CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA COMMUNITY PROPERTY ACT

After the effective date of the Pennsylvania Community Property Act the husband used income from his separate property to pay part of an advance installment on a life insurance policy acquired before the act. He afterward assigned the policy to the plaintiff. The insurance company refused to recognize the validity of the assignment without the wife\u27s consent on the basis that the income from separate property became community property so as to give the wife an interest in the policy. The Pennsylvania Community Property Act provided, inter alia, that: (1) the separate property of each spouse shall consist of that property held before marriage or before the effective date of the act, whichever is later, and property acquired afterward by gift, devise, or bequest; (2) that all property acquired during marriage shall be community property except that which is separate property; (3) that each spouse shall have management and control of his or her separate property as well as that portion of community property consisting of fruits of his or her separate property. The act also gave extensive rights of control over other community property to the husband, and an earlier statute denied suits by one spouse against the other except in proceedings to obtain separate property or for divorce. In a friendly suit to contest the validity of the Community Property Act the plaintiff sought an injunction requiring the insurance company to recognize his ownership. Held, the entire act is unconstitutional, and the injunction should be granted. Willcox v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co., (Pa. 1947) 55 A. (2d) 521

CORPORATIONS-CLASS ACTIONS UNDER SECTION 16(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934-FEDERAL RULE 23

Pursuant to section 16 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 an action was commenced by a shareholder to recover for the corporation profits realized by another shareholder through short swing transactions in securities of the corporation, the estimated profits being $50,770. Plaintiff\u27s attorney filed an affidavit stating the reasons why recovery of the full amount was doubtful and made application for , leave to settle and compromise for$5,000. The corporation\u27s attorney agreed to this proposal. Held, the merits of the compromise cannot be considered until in conformance with Rule 23 ( c), actual notice of the compromise and its terms is given to \u27the Securities and Exchange Commission and each of the directors, and notice by publication is given to all the shareholders. Pottish v. Divak, (D.C. N.Y. 1947) 71 F. Supp. 737

ATTORNEY AND CLIENT--STRIKING ATTORNEY FROM ROLL OF FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT

For twelve years gambling had been carried on in a wide open manner in the district; more than three thousand hand books on race horses were operated in cafes, restaurants, and night clubs. Newspapers had published the names of those paying the federal taxes, and a poll of school children indicated that they were familiar with gambling devices in the community. Responsibility for law enforcement rested with the Commonwealth\u27s Attorney, an elective official who had held the position for twenty years; an attempt to remove him from office by quo warranto proceedings, and an attempt to investigate the situation by grand jury had failed. A group of ministers and other residents filed a formal complaint alleging that by allowing these open violations of the gambling laws, the Commonwealth\u27s Attorney had become unfit to be an attorney at law, and asking the issuance of a rule to show cause why the attorney should not be stricken from the rolls of the federal district court. Rule issued and after hearing, held, an order striking the attorney from the roll should be entered. Wilbur v. Howard, (D.C. Ky. 1947) 70 F. Supp. 930

STATUTE OF FRAUDS-EXTINGUISHMENT OF BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST IN LAND

In order to increase borrowing capacity the husband conveyed several parcels of land to his wife so as to establish a separate credit for her; parol evidence indicated that the conveyance was for the use of the husband. Subsequently their relations became estranged, and the husband attempted a parol surrender of the parcels to his wife. The New Jersey Statute of Frauds is the counterpart of the English Statute requiring the creation of an express trust to be manifested and proved by writing but excluding from the requirement of writing creations, transfers, or extinguishments by operation of law. In a suit by the husband to recover the land, held, a constructive trust was created by parol, but the beneficial interest could not be released, and the husband recovered. Moses v. Moses, (N.J. Eq. 1947) 53 A. (2d) 805

Change in Working Length at Different Stages of Instrumentation as a Function of Canal Curvature

The aim of this study was to determine the change in working length (∆WL) before and after coronal flaring and after complete rotary instrumentation as a function of canal curvature. One mesiobuccal or mesiolingual canal from each of 43 extracted molars had coronal standardization and access performed. Once the access was completed, canal preparation was accomplished using Gates Glidden drills for coronal flaring and EndoSequence files for rotary instrumentation. WLs were obtained at 3 time points: pre-instrumentation (unflared), mid-instrumentation (flared) and post-instrumentation (concluded). Measurements were made via direct visualization (DV) and the CanalPro apex locator (EM) in triplicate by a single operator with blinding within the time points. Root curvature was measured using Schneider’s technique. The change in working length was assessed using repeated-measures ANCOVA. The direct visualization measurements were statistically larger than the electronic measurements (paired t-test difference = 0.20 mm, SE = 0.037, P \u3c .0001), although a difference this large may not be clinically important. Overall, a greater change in working length was observed in straight canals than in curved canals, and this trend was more pronounced when measured electronically than via direct visualization, especially in the unflared-concluded time points compared with unflared-flared time points. A greater change in working length was also observed in longer canals than in shorter canals.https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/gradposters/1032/thumbnail.jp

CONTRACTS-REMEDIES FOR MISREPRESENTATION-MEASURE OF RECOVERY

In a preceding comment in this series, the various remedies affording relief for misrepresentation were examined for the purpose of determining what remedies are available in case of an innocent misrepresentation. Discussion was directed toward actions for damages for deceit, actions at law and in equity for restitution, the recovery of damages for breach of warranty, and the action based on the enforcement of representations on a theory of estoppel. The purpose of the present comment is to re-examine these remedies to determine what relief can be obtained by each of them, assuming for this purpose that all of the remedies will be available in each case. Another remedy, reformation of a written instrument, will also be considered