and he said nothing. Held, that while the insurance agent would be presumed to have authority to waive the failure to pay the premium when due, he would not be to waive the forfeiture caused by residing in the prohibited district, and the receipt of the premium by him and issue of the renewal receipt would not operate as a waiver. Even for the purpose of making the waiver of the failure to pay effective, the insurance agent should have been informed of the state of the health of the insured. (Globe Mut. Life Ins. Co. vs. Wolff.) Opinion by Field, J.

DEFICIENCY.

The bankrupt

In estate of bankrupt; liability of bankrupt to make good. must give a satisfactory explanation of deficits which are shown in the assets of his estate, or pay over the amount thereof to the assignee. Where the bankrupt fails to account for a large amount of property, he will be ordered to pay over the value thereof, where it appears that his wife had property which is not known to have come from third parties, and it appears that since the bankruptcy he has carried on business as the agent of his wife. U. S. Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri. In re Peltasohn, 16 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 265.

PARTNERSHIP.

Bankrupt partner: rights of creditor of firm.—A joint creditor, in case of the separate bankruptcy of one member of the firm, has a right to prove his joint debt, and vote for assignee in the separate bankruptcy. U. S. District Court, Nevada. In re Webb, 16 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 258.

PRACTICE.

Summary petition by assignee.-An assignee may petition summarily to set aside a mortgage given after the commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy. Resort to a bill in equity is unnecessary. U. S. District Court, Michigan. In re Stephen Sims, 16 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 251.

PRIVILEGED DEBT.

What does not constitute: construction of contract. The bankrupts were a firm carrying on business under the firm name of the Middleborough Shovel Company. On June 28, 1877, Richardson, one of the partners, happened to meet in the cars Mr. Tobey, Treasurer of the Tremont Nail Company, and told him that he wanted to borrow about a thousand dollars to save him a journey to New York, where he could obtain it; that if the Tremont Nail Company would lend him the money it would be repaid out of the first money received from John Dunn, of New York, for whom they were filling a large order. The loan was made, and a note for thirty days given. A few days after Richardson went to New York, and found that the agents of his firm there were about to fail, or had failed. He received an advance of $1,700 from Mr. Dunn, and returned to Boston on July 4th. He saw Mr. Tobey on the 5th, and told him about the matter. On July 6th the money due was paid to Mr. Tobey and the same day the firm stopped payment. Negotiations were entered into for settlement with creditors, by which the petitioners were to stand in the same condition as if the sum of $994.92 had not been paid to the Tremont Nail Company. The Shovel Company afterward went into bankruptcy, and the Tremont Nail

Company claimed this as a privileged debt. The court held that the agreement between the parties did not give any lien or charge on Dunn's debt in favor of these petitioners, and their petition to stand as privileged creditors was denied. U. S. District Court, Massachusetts, Nov. 23, 1877. Ex parte Tremont Nail Company; Re Middleborough Shovel Company.

Supreme Court Proceedings.

SACRAMENTO, December 15, 1877.

Present: Hon. J. B. Crockett, J., Hon. A. L. Rhodes, J., Hon. A. C. Niles J., Hon. E. W. McKinstry, J.

5787-Rider et al. vs. Edgar.-Continued by stipulation for the term. 5592-Sutton vs. Fassett.-Argument concluded by Belcher for appellant and Freeman for respondent, and judgment and order affirmed.

5630-Wright vs. Roseberry.-Argued by Treadwell for appellant and Belcher for respondent, and judgment reversed and cause remanded, with directions.

5649-Wright vs. Roseberry.-Argued by Treadwell for respondent and Belcher for appellant, and judgment reversed and cause remanded, with directions.

5808-Wright vs. Roseberry.—Argued by Treadwell for respondent and Belcher for appellant, and judgment reversed and cause remanded, with directions.

5666-Estate of Henry Frey, deceased.-Argued by Dunlap for appellant ; no appearance for respondent, and cause submitted.

5786-Hallinan vs. Newington.-Argued by Spencer for appellant and Chapman for respondent, and judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.

5670-Schacht vs. Odell.-Argued by Taylor for appellant and Freeman for respondent, and cause submitted.

10,318-Ex parte Robert W. Black for habeas corpus.-Upon reading and filing the affidavit and petition herein, it is ordered that a writ of habeas corpus issue as prayed for, returnable before Hon. R. C. Clark, Judge of the County Court in and for the county of Sacramento, on Monday, December 17th, at the hour of 2 o'clock P. M., and that applicant notify the District Attorney of said county of the hearing of said writ.

Court adjourned until Monday, December 17th, at 10 A. M.

SACRAMENTO, November 38, 1877.

5523-Kraft vs. Driscoll-On motion of Brooks for appellant, and filing of a petition for rehearing, ordered that a stay of proceedings be granted until the same is determined. Petition filed November 27th.

5690-Wilkinson vs. Merrill-Judgment and order reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.

5691-Mace vs. Merrill-Judgment and order reversed and cause remanded for a new trial, on the authority of Wilkinson vs. Merrill—No. 5690-decided at the present term.

5617-Freeman et al. vs. Bouton-Judgment and order affirmed.

5875-Chester vs. Colby-Motion for a writ of prohibition, upon petition on file, argued by Otis for petitioner, and denied.

4150-Heinlen vs. Martin--Continued, and ordered to be set for hearing on the first day of civil causes in the January term, 1878.

5726-Clark vs. Malone-Passed.

5490-Dorn vs. Howe-Continued; no appearance. Subsequently, on motion of Swinnerton for appellant, continuance set aside and cause restored to calendar. Notice to be given to respondent's counsel.

5662-Meeks vs. Southern Pacific Railroad Company-Argument concluded by Rowell for respondent and Sanderson for appellant, and cause submitted. 5745-Hamilton vs. Tittle & Brodhurst-Argued by McConnell for appellant and Waters for respondent, and cause submitted.

5856-St. John vs. Meyerstein et al.-Continued, by consent, for the term. 4857-Burkhart vs. Meyerstein et al.-Continued, by consent, for the term. 5643-State of California ex rel. Jo Hamilton, Attorney-General, vs. San Buenaventura C. M. and M. Co., et al.-Argued by Pringle, Harmon and Fernald for respondents and Packard & Stratton for appellant, and judgment affirmed.

5680-Cowell vs. Buell-Submitted on points and authorities on file.

5685-Mahe et al. vs. Buell-Argued by Howe for appellant and Fernald for respondent, and submitted, with twenty days to appellant and ten days to respondent to file additional briefs.

JONATHAN COGSWELL PERKINS died at Salem, Mass., on the 12th ult., of heart disease. He was born at Ipswich, Mass., Nov. 21, 1809, was graduated from Amherst College, pursued his law studies at Harvard University, and was admitted to the bar in 1835. He held for some years the position of Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Massachusetts, and served in the State Senate. He was best known, however, as a law writer and commentator, the following works, among otherss having been edited and annotated by him : Chitty's Criminal Law," Chitty on Contracts," nine volumes of Massachusetts Reports, "Jarman on Wills,' ," "Abbot on Shipping," Daniell's Chancery Pratice," Dollyer on Partnership," "Chitty on Bills and Notes, Arnould on Insurance, Angell on Water Courses," Chitty on Pleadings,' Williams on Executors,' 'Sugden on Vendors," 'Benjamin on Sales," and several volumes of Chancery reports. His annotations were valuable, and were highly spoken of by Charles Sumner and others.

66

99 66

99 66

66

99 66

99.66

THE Prince of Wales is a lawyer, or rather, a barrister. He was called to the bar a few years ago at his own desire and with the usual formalities, and took the oath prescribed on admission. He was at the same time made a Master of the Bench, the Benchers being the governing body of the Society of the Middle Temple. His portrait has recently been painted in the Bencher's silken robe, and is to be placed in the noble old hall of the Middle Temple as a record of so noteworthy a circumstance as a Royal Prince's entrance upon the legal profession.

San Francisco Law Journal.

VOL. I.

DECEMBER 29, 1877.

No. 18

Current Topics.

WITH our next number we begin the publication of what might be termed the unwritten opinions of our Supreme Court. They are those decisions made from the bench or in chambers of which a mere entry is made affirming or reversing the judgment of the court below, as the case may be. These cases often involve issues of the utmost importance to the practitioner, and especially those of practice and pleadings. They are disposed of by the court without a single reference to the issues raised. Much complaint has been made by the profession at large at the course thus adopted by the court, and although much may be said in favor of the course, because it is within the scope of their discretion to adopt such a system as may seem to them judicious, alleging that the issues in such cases have often been adjudicated and reported, yet this complaint is made with reason and in much fairness. By the plan adopted they are forced to peruse closely fifty-one volumes of reports to familiarize themselves with these adjudicated issues, while a second or third report of them at a time when they may be watching with interest the doings of their highest court would be of the greatest convenience and aid. It is presumed that the decisions of the higher courts are made as much to settle all similar issues and questions that arise in business transactions as to determine those between the parties directly interested in the cases before them, therefore it seems that the better acquainted the public or the profession become with the determined questions the sooner will end much of the litigation that now crowds the dockets of our courts-suits brought in ignorance of settled questions. In reporting these decisions we shall refer to the transcripts on file, and make a full report of the issues raised by the pleadings and state accurately the judgments of the court below. We are inclined to believe by thus reporting these opinions we make our JOURNAL the only complete law publication on the coast, and one that every attorney will feel bound to have among his most valued books.

WE print, of this number of the JOURNAL, between one and two thousand extra copies, with the purpose of placing it in the hands of every attorney on the coast. We know the JOURNAL will be found a welcome visitor to every attorney. We are desirous of beginning the new year with an increased subscription-list, and we feel that to place a copy in the hands of the profession insures it. It will be readily seen that the JOURNAL is the only publication

through which the profession can know all the decisions of our State and the adjoining ones. Our manner of reporting these decisions, with head-notes and facts, as in the cases of Young vs. Hoglan and Babcock vs. Briggs, in this numper, places this publication far ahead of any other. The custom of clipping decisions from the newspapers and preserving them in scrap-books is passing away, and was only observed on account of the lack of something better. A report of the two cases above referred to, without a statement of facts, would be of no use to the profession. Yet such a report only could be had from the newspapers. It is not necessary, however, to point out this essential, as the practitioner is aware of it. The purpose of noting all the changes made in the Code by our Legislature will be considered of much interest and add greatly to the value of the JOURNAL.

THE bill introduced in our State Legislature to increase the salary of the County Judge of Mono county failed to pass. The present salary of the County Judge for that county is $800 per annum. It was fixed at a time when the population was sparse and litigation small, and inasmuch as the population and litigation have greatly increased it was thought just and proper that the judge of said county should have an increased salary. The reasons, perhaps, for the defeat of the bill were unconstitutionality and bad precedent. The Constitution declares that the salaries of the Judiciary “shall not be increased or diminished during the term for which they have been elected." If this is to be viewed in the nature of a contract between the judges elect and the State there could be much said against its constitutionality; but if it is a contract, by what right can the Legislature or the people in convention at any time declare an office abolished during the term for which the officer may be elected? Yet other State Legislatures have so abolished courts without regard to the rights of judges under this presumed contract; and it is now urged and believed by many that it will be the necessary and chief work of the constitutional convention to abolish or create courts as it shall in its wisdom think best. We think the Constitution does not prohibit the Legislature from exercising discretion in such matters, considering them the guardians of the people at large; and as to precedent, it ought never to be hinted that our legislators are selected with such carelessness of trickery that sufficient confidence to pass upon the merits of such a case can not be placed in them.

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE HARLAN was formally inducted into office on Monday, the 10th inst. The proceedings were of an impressive and interesting character. After he had taken what is known as the "iron-clad oath,” in the robingroom, the justices formed in procession and entered the Supreme Court Chamber, Judge Harlan following in the rear, clothed in the judicial gown. He halted at the clerk's desk while the others took their seats. The court was formally opened, when the Chief Justice announced that he had received the commission of Mr. Harlan as associate justice, which he directed the clerk to read. After such reading the Chief Justice said: "The oath will now be taken." Judge Harlan read it in an audible tone, holding the paper containing it in one hand, while the other was placed upon the Bible. After this ceremony was completed the new justice took the seat on the extreme left, formerly occu

1