RECENT CASES, 1 8/ CoN'STTTUTiONAL Law — INCRIMINATING TESTIMONY. — Held, that, where an ex- ecutive pardon is granted as a matter of practice to accomplices who give full evidence ia the prosecution of their fellows, the equitable right to this does not affect the con- stitutional privilege of a witness not to incriminate himself by his own testimony. Ex parte Irvine, 74 Fed. Rep. 954 (Ohio). This case proceeds on the reasoning of Coiinselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547, that the proffered pardon was not sufficiently broad in its scope to protect the wit- ness fully from the many consequences resulting from his testimony which the consti- tutional provision was intended to cover. No reference is made to the later case of Brcnun v. Walker, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 644 (see note, Harvard Law^ Review, June, 1896), which reaches a contrary decision on facts hard to be distinguished but more resem- bling the present case. Constitutional Law — Notaries Public — Appointment of Women. — Held, that under the 4th Amendment to the Constitution of Massachusetts, providing that notaries public shall be appointed by the Governor in the same manner as judicial officers are appointed, i. e. by and with the advice and consent of the Council, the legis- lature cannot confer power upon the Governor and Council to appoint women to that office. 43 N. E. Rep. 927 (Mass.). This is an extension of the doctrine laid down in the opinion of the judges in 150 Mass. 586, that under the same amendment a woman could not be appointed a notary public in the absence of any legislation upon that subject. In both instances the opinion is based upon the ground that, at the time of the adoption of the amendment (182 1 ), the nature of the office and custom of appointment to it were such that it could not have been intended that women should fill it. The question presented here is one of the construction of the Constitution in view of the common law at the time of its adoption, and a similar opinion prevails in some other States. Its grounds are purely historical, and not of the philosophic character of the arguments of Mr. Justice Bradley in Bradwell . The State, 16 Wall. 130. Had this amendment been adopted in these later days, it would seem doubtful if the court would hold that the common law was unchanged in view of the great numbers of women so generally appointed notaries in the Western States. The legislation in Massachusetts admitting women to the bar, and a later statute providing that such women as had qualified as attorneys might be ap- pointed special commissioners to take depositions, together with the repeated requests of the legislature for opinions as to the constitutionality of appointments of women to the office, indicate an inclination of the community to grant to women at least some of the most important powers attaching to the office. It would seem as if the other powers of a notary could be similarly conferred by other statutes without the necessity of a constitutional amendment for which as yet no vigorous demand has arisen. Contracts — Damages — Prospective Profits — Prevention. — Where, under a contract for the manufacture and delivery of bricks by the plaintiff, and payment therefor in instalments by the defendant, such part of the bricks as had been manu- factured having been delivered and partly paid for, the defendant refused to accept further deliveries, and plaintiff did not offer to complete performance upon his part. Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover only the amount of the unpaid instal- ments with interest, and not the profits which would have accrued to him had the con- tract been completed. Bethel v. Salem Imp. Co., 25 S. E. Rep. 304 ( Va ). The facts of this case are somewhat similar to those in Cort v. Ambers^ate Ry. Co., 17 Q. B. 127 ; but here the court lays down more clearly the measure of damages where there has been no offer of completion of performance by the plaintiff. One of the grounds relied upon by the plaintiff was, that, by the failure of defendant to pay for the bricks already delivered, plaintiff was unable to go on manufacturing. But the court distinctly held that the mere 'failure to pay money in pursuance of a contract cpuld not be considered a prevention of performance by the defendant. Burr v. Williams, 20 Ark. 185. The case is clearly right. Contracts — Right of a Third Party to Sue on a Contract for his Bene- fit. — Held (Ingraham, J., dissenting), that a promise made to the husband, in con- sideration of services rendered by him, to pay a sum of money to the wife, cannot be sued upon by the latter. Buchanan v. Tilden, 39 N. Y. Supp. 228. See Notes. Corporations — Stock — Life Tenant — Stock Dividends. — A testator be- queathed stock in a corporation to plaintiff for life, remainder to another. Stock dividends were declared from net earnings accrued since the testator's death. Held, a life tenant is entitled, as income, to stock dividends declared from net earnings accrued during his life tenancy. Pritchettv. Nashville Trust Co., 36 S. W. Rep. 1064 (Tenn.). The principal case adopts the Pennsylvania doctrine which, originating in Earp's Appeal^ 28 Pa. St. 368, now prevails in the great majority of American jurisdictions. 25
