« PreviousContinue »
the negligence of one party does not excuse a third party from liability, also guilty of negligence, if the injury complained of would not have happened except for his negligence. McWilliams V. Kentucky Heating Co., 179 S. W. 24. (Ky.)
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS—ACCOMMODATION PARTY.-1. Under Negotiable Instruments Act (Rev. St., 1909, sec. 10000), defining an accommodation party as one who has signed the instrument as maker, drawer, acceptor or indorser, without receiving value, and section 10089, declaring that a negotiable instrument is discharged by payment in due course, by or on behalf of the principal debtor by the party accommodated, where the instrument is made or accepted for accommodation, etc., and section 10090, declaring that any person secondarily liable on an instrument is discharged by any agreement binding the holder to extend the time of pay. ment, unless made with the assent of the party secondarily liable, and section 10161, defining the person primarily liable as the one by the terms of the instrument is absolutely required to pay the same, and that all other parties are secondarily liable, an accommodation indorser of a note can be discharged only by the discharge of the note, since he is pri. marily liable thereon, and an agreement binding the holder to extend the time of payment, though made without the assent of the indorser, does not release him from liability. 2. The principal maker of a note executed a renewal note, but the payee retained the original note bearing an accommodation indorsement as collateral, pursuant to agreement with the principal maker, but without the knowledge of the accommodation indorser. Held that under Negotiable Instruments Act. (Rev. St., 1909, sec. 10089), defining when a negotiable instrument is discharged, the renewal note was not a payment of the original note, and did not discharge the accommodation indorser from liability on the original note on the failure of the principal maker to pay the renewal note. Night & Day Bank v. Rosenbaum, 177 S. W. 693. (Mo.)
PARTNERSHIP-PROPERTY-CLAIMS-FEDERAL COURTS-RULES OF DECISION. -1. Where at a time when a firm was solvent one of the members sold his interest to the other, who agreed to assume payment of the partnership debts, the seller partner lost his right to require partnership property to be devoted to the payment of partnership debts, and hence, on the subsequent bankruptcy of a corporation created by the purchasing partner, the seller cannot compel the application of partnership property to the payment of firm debts. 2. A decision of the California courts that partnership property, regardless of a sale by one partner of his interest to his copartner, must be applied to firm debts, though the firm was solvent at the time of the sale and the purchaser assumed payment of the firm debts, is not a rule of property, nor one involving the construction of a State statute, and so is not binding on the Federal Court, being a mere declaration of a principle of equity. Rapple v. Dutton, 226 F. 430.
TRADE-MARKS-LITERARY PROPERTY-RIGHT IN TITLE OF PLAY-INFRINGEMENT BY MOTION PICTURE.—Where plaintiffs produced a play under a certain title on the legitimate stage, large sums of money being spent for its production, and the presentation was a success, and defendant produced a dissimilar moving picture play under the same title, plaintiffs could restrain the use of such title, since the name by which a composition or theatrical production has become known to the public becomes a "property right,” which may not be infringed by any one for profit by using the name to the owner's injury. Klaw v. General Film Co., 154 N. Y. S. 988. (N. Y.)
Wills—DECLARATIONS OF TESTATOR.-Statements made by a testator after the execution of his will, to the effect that he intended to strike out the names of the defendants so that they would not share in his estate, were admissible on the question of partial revocation. Barfield v. Carr, 865 L. 498; 81 Cent. L. J. 351, note. (N. C.)
THE MOVEMENT in the United States evidenced by the names of the leaders in thought and action who are attending the Conferences of the World's Court, the League to Enforce Peace, the American Society of International Law and the other organizations looking to the creation of a strong public opinion for the creation of a Code of Laws for the World, to succeed the World Riot that is now flagrant on the Continent of Europe, has its counterpart today in England in the establishment of the Grotius Society. Under this name a number of men eminent in law and in public affairs have associated themselves for the purpose of discussing from a cosmopolitan point of view the acts both of the belligerent and neutral states in the present war and the problems to which the war is almost daily giving birth. The Grotius Society named of course after the father of modern International law, does not intend to discuss international questions from a purely British standpoint, or to support doctrines because they may be thought advantageous to British interests, but to treat all international questions in an absolutely independent spirit, endeavoring to discover the truth whatever it may be, to discuss all the doctrines of international law, to examine them in the light of the present war, and to suggest reforms based on humanity and justice wherever possible.
THE INTRODUCTORY lecture at the opening meeting of the Society was given by Dr. H. Goudy, Professor of Civil Law, Oxford, who pointed out that an era of perpetual peace among civilized nations is still a long way off, much further than pacifists too hastily suppose, but it is none the less the ideal goal of International Law. In the present frightful conflagration the goal may seem to have been thrown immeasurably back, but International Law, despite the manifold and flagrant disregard of its rules, will not be overthrown. It needs no great gift of prophecy, he says, to foretell that once peace is obtained there will be an immense change in the attitude of the peoples of Europe towards wars and the causes that lead to wars. For, good or evil, there will be a powerful trend towards Socialism. Immanuel Kant, in his essay on “Perpetual Peace among States," has said that the only form of government by which such peace can hope to be realized is the republican, i. e., one in which the people participate in the making of laws, and that International Law must be based on a federation of such free States. In this there is much truth. The peoples, if they are to escape destruction by wars, must have the control of foreign policy and the issues of war and peace entirely in their own hands. And if one result of the present war is the collapse of the autocratic or quasi-autocratic dynasties of Europe and the military castes to which they give birth, the blood of Englishmen will not have been shed wholly in vain. Purely dynastic wars are perhaps things of the past, but the influence of dynastic families may still check or override the wishes of a people to a lamentable extent. If any proof of this were needed it would be sufficient to point to the present position of Greece. The people of Greece obviously desire to ally themselves with the Entente Powers, but King Constantine, swayed by his family connections, prevents this.
WHAT strikes Dr. Gondy as one of its saddest features is the comparative indifference with which well-established rules of International Law have been violated by each and all of the belligerents, when they have run counter to their apparent material interests. The loss of moral force and self-respect by the wrong-doing State seems to be regarded as unimportant when set off against its material interests. Thus, the carefully-drafted rules of the Hague Conventions and the Declaration of London have been in large measure, to use a vulgarism, “scrapped;" even the time-sanctioned Declarations of the Treaty of Paris have not, in the matter of blockade, escaped violation. Excuses and defenses for such violations have, no doubt, been set up, but as a rule they are of a kind that International Law ought emphatically to reject. Two kinds of defense in particular have been constantly employed to justify the grossest illegalities. They are “military necessity” (or “necessities of war'') and “reprisals.” Neither of them have any definite meaning in International Law, and the former (though the term is sometimes met with in Treaties and Conventions in relation to particular belligerent acts) can hardly be said to be recognized by it in a general sense at all. By an act of military necessity seems to be meant an act which a belligerent holds to be necessary for the success of his military operations—he himself being the judge of the necessity. It may involve a violation of the rights of neutrals as well as of the laws of war between belligerents. In either case it can only be based on the maxim “necessity knows no law," and was frankly so based by the Chancellor Bethmann von Hollweg to justify the German invasion of Belgium.
The invasion of Belgium was doubly illegal; there was not merely the entry upon neutral territory against the will of the neutral (a clear breach of the Hague Conventions of 1907), but there was also shameless disregard of Prússia's own guarantee of Belgian neutrality. What defense do the Germans make? Simply, that their military staff declared it to be vital to the success of their operations against France that their army should march through Belgium to the attack (pretended self-preservation). But what Court of Arbiters would listen to such a plea? Or what would be the worth of a treaty of guarantee (or indeed of any treaty) into which a clause of reservation of military necessity was introduced as a limitation of obligation? The passage through Chinese territory by Japan, in her operations against Kiau-chau, is also perhaps open to animadversion, though here the gravamen of the charge is much less, as Japan was not a guarantor of China's neutrality. On the other hand, the landing of French and British troops at Salonika cannot be regarded as violation of neutral territory at all, for Greece (though protesting pro forma) encouraged de facto such landing and promised her benevolent neutrality.
Another case of military necessity being set up as a plea for objectionable action may be seen in the conduct of the war in Central Africa. Here the English Government seems to blame, though there was no positive breach of International Law. It was eminently desirable that the conventional basin of the Congo should be wholly neutralized in order to prevent the sad spectacle of the natives of Africa being armed and induced to fight against each other in a European quarrel. But for military reasons the English government declined to agree to the proposal of Belgium to this effect, made by Belgium before the war.
e the Germader Interjeaving the pass
· WE MEET AGAIN the plea of military necessity in the German attempts to justify the destruction of both belligerent and neutral merchantmen by submarines, without' provision being made for the safety of the passengers and crews. Because it was practically impossible to take them on board the submarines or land them otherwise in safety, the Germans have not hesitated to ignore the Hague Convention and the older International Law on the subject, and sink the merchantmen, while leaving the passengers and crews to the mercy of the waves in open boats. So, too, the destruction by Germans of merchant vessels, without warning given, because they happen to have come within certain so-called zones of operations-illegitimately declared to be blockaded—seems to be defended on the same plea of military necessity. England's seizure of neutral vessels without proof of contraband on search is open to the like objections. In some of these cases, however, the plea of reprisals has been pleaded alternatively by the separate Governments. Again, in the bombardment of open towns in order to destroy military works, munitions of war, and the like, the same excuse has been brought forward. Convention IX, Article 2, of the Hague Conference, 1907, lays down in the plainest terms that “the commander of a naval force may destroy them (i. e., military works, etc.) after a summons, followed by a reasonable time of waiting, if all other means are impossible, and where the local authorities have not themselves destroyed them within the time fixed." Yet in the bombardment of the non-fortified town of Scarborough last winter by the Germans no notice whatever was given to the local authorities; the only excuse apparently was military necessity, viz., the danger to the bombarding ships of being overtaken by British warships had there been any delay. If carried to an extreme, military necessity involves the negation of all International Law.
THE OTHER main excuse for violation of International Law is, reprisals. This is a plea which may be used to cover almost any enormity. To an uncertain extent reprisals have been at all times either suo nomine or by the name of retorsion recognized and justified by International writers. Usually they have taken place in circumstances not involving belligerency, as, for example, where courtesies or privileges commonly granted by one State to another or to the individual subjects of another have been unreasonably withheld in a particular instance, and this represents the strict or technical use of the term. In such cases the State injured may justifiably retaliate by a similar or analogous act. But the term reprisals is also applied to retaliation for illegitimate acts of war, and as such we find it employed in some military manuals. The two significations sometimes overlap. Thus, for example, so long ago as 1694, when British ships under Lord Berkeley bombarded and burned the towns of Dieppe and Havre, they did so professedly as reprisals for wrongful acts done by the Grand Monarque. But there is little authority bearing on reprisals, as acts of war, in International Law books, and by the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 they are wholly ignored. The plea of reprisals can rarely be set up to advantage as justifying a breach of International Law by a belligerent. In the present war they have been carried to great lengths. When the British Government last spring, yielding to foolish outcries in the newspapers, treated the officers and crews of certain captured submarines in a humiliating way by refusing to them the privileges of prisoners of war, it did so as reprisals for their conduct in illegally sinking merchant vessels. But what was the result? The Germans retaliated by placing a number of their British prisoners in solitary confinement. And so the British government was forced, for the sake of these prisoners, to recede from the position it had taken.
WITHOUT going so far as to say that reprisals are never justifiable, they should be avoided, says Dr. Goudy as much as possible. Hardly ever are they of military value.. There can be no glory in victory by such means. If we are to be beaten, says Dr. Goudy, let us fall with honor and clean hands. If we are victorious let us afterwards exact reparation from those in authority who have been responsible for brutalities. Unless this is done, International