RECENT CASES. 523 RECENT CASES. Bills and Notes — Check — Right of Holder against Drawee. — A check, duly indorsed, was passed through several hands, and then deposited with the plaintiff bank, who gave the depositor credit therefor, and presented it to the defendant bank, the drawee, for certification. Defendant refused to certify the check, having been notified by the drawer to stop payment. Held, that plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the amount of the check, and that defendant could not set up as a defence that the several transfers of the check had been without consideration, there being no proof that plaintiff was aware of any infirmity in the check. Nat. Bank of America v. Nat. Bank of Illinois, 45 N. E. Rep. 968 (III.). The decision is based upon the ground that the drawing of a check upon a fund de- posited in a bank amounts to an assignment of such fund to the amount of the check, and gives the holder a direct cause of action against the drawee after demand made while the drawee has sufficient funds of the drawer on hand. This doctrine has also been adopted in Iowa. Roberts v. Corbin, 26 Iowa, 315. The better view is that taken in Hopkinson v. Forster, L. R. 19 Eq. 74, holding that the drawing of a check gives the holder thereof no right of action against the drawee, and that the drawer is the only one who can sue the drawee for failure to pay to his order. Bills and Notes — Insane Maker. — Where an insane person gave a note for legal services in securing an inquest of his condition, held that there can be no recovery on the note, though reasonable remuneration may be obtained for the services. McKee's Adm'r V. Purnell, 38 S. W. Rep. ,70 5 (Ky.). The better view would seem to be that there can be no recovery on the note of an insane person, i Daniel on Neg. Inst., 4th ed., § 210. But the decisions are by no means in accord. There is authority that those contracting in ignorance of the in- sanity may enforce the instrument. Lancaster Bank v. Moore, 78 Pa. St. 407. And there is another view that recovery may be had on the note if it were given for neces- saries, or it would seem for value. McCormick v. Littler, 85 111. 62. The proper way to do justice is to allow a claim, as in the principal case, for a reasonable sum, without reference to the note. Bills and Notes — Note payable to Trustee. — A trustee obtained notes for a consideration which wholly failed. He transferred the notes, by consent of his cestuis, to a purchaser for value, without notice of the failure of consideration. Held, that the fact that the notes were made payable on their face to him as trustee did not destroy the negotiability, nor subject the purchaser to the maker's equitable claim against the payee. Fox v. Citizens' Bank &> Trust Co., jj S. W. Rep. 1 102 (Tenp.). See Notes. Carriers — Right of Consignor to Sue for ILoss. — Held, that a consignor cannot maintain an action against a common carrier for loss of goods without averring ownership, or some special interest in the property. Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Metcalf 69 N. W. Rep. 961 (Neb.). Carriers were originally liable to the bailor only. It was a duty to answer to him from whom they had gotten possession. The owner's right to obtain the property from the bailees, without leaving him still responsible to the bailor, was a later develop- ment. Jones on Bailment, 53, note. This liabihty to the bailor was always ex delicto. The right of the bailor in contract originated in Dale v. Hall, i Wils. 281. In time there was a tendency to confine the consignor to his action on the contract ; and now there is considerable authority to deny him even that. See cases in Hutchinson on Carriers, 2d ed., § 731. But as the weight of authority is that the consignor can sue on the contract, and can recover full value of the goods, either for himself or for the owner, whom he is supposed to represent (Id., § 727), there seems to be a recognition of his right of control over the goods which would properly give him an action on the possession in tort. Blanchard v. Page, 8 Gray, 281. Conflict of Laws — Contracts relating to Land. — Bill by the represent- ative of a wife to enforce a covenant of the husband to surrender all his marriage interest in the wife's lands situated in Massachusetts. In that State husband and wife cannot contract ; in South Carolina, where the covenant was made, the law is otherwise. Demurrer, on the ground of incapacity, overruled. Poison v. Stewart, 45 N. E. Rep. 757 (Mass.). It was admitted that a deed surrendering the husband's rights would have been in- valid, for the law of the situs governs such instruments. Field, C. J., dissenting, held
