144 HARVARD LAW REVIEW electric railway on account of the serious injury to their business caused by the escape of electricity from its rails. Cumberland Telephone Co. v. United Electric R. Co., 42 Fed. Rep. 273. Insolvency — After- Acquired Property. — Transactions of an undis- charged bankrupt in respect to after-acquired property with a person acting bona fide and for value, whether with or without knowledge of the bankruptcy, are valid against the trustee until he intervenes. Cohen v. Mitchell, 25 Q. B. Div. 262 (Eng.). Insolvency — Rights of Creditors. — A creditor of an insolvent estate can prove and receive a dividend on the full amount of his debt irrespective of any collateral securities he may hold. In re lion Nat. Bank, 24 N. E. Rep. 793 (N. Y.). See also In re Souther, 2 Lowell, 320, and i Ames, Cases on Bills and Notes, 880, note. Insurance — Right of Beneficiary in Substituted Policy. — A wife named as beneficiary in an insurance policy acquires a right therein which cannot be defeated by a surrender thereof and substitution of a new policy without her consent. Putnam v. New York Life Ins. Co., 7 So. Rep. 602 (La.). Property — Confusion — Intention of Tortious Taker. — Where the de- fendant tortiously mixes his goods with those of the plaintiff so that they cannot be distinguished and each owner given his identical property, the goods being of unequal value, the plaintiff will not be entitled to the whole mixture unless the defendant acted fraudulently, wilfully, or with some improper motive or purpose. Claflin v. Continental Jersey Works, ii S. E. Rep. 721 (Ga.). Property — Gift Inter Vivos. — A gift inter vivos is not complete without de- livery. Cochrane v. Moore, 25 Q. B. Div. 57 (Eng.). This case follows Irons v. Smallpiece, 2 B. & Aid. 551, lately so often doubted. Quasi Contracts — Waiver of Tort — Election of Remedies. — Three persons were concerned in the conversion of the plaintiff's goods. He brought an action for goods sold and delivered, and recovered judgment against two of them, and then brought this action for conversion against the third. Held, that by beginning an action for goods sold, the plaintiffs passed the title to the property. They gave up to the wrong-doers all their interest in the specific goods and relied on their right to payment. Therefore the defendant can defeat this action for conversion by showing the former judgment, although he was not a party to it; for the passing of the title is absolute, and any one can show it. Terry v. Munger, 24 N. E. Kep. 272 (N. Y.). Real Property — Dedication — Rights of Reverter in Burying-Ground. - — The donor of land dedicated to a city for a grave-yard has a right of reverter therein upon abandonment for this purpose, and use as a public park. The doctrine of cy pres is inapplicable to such a case. Campbell et al. v. City of Kansas, 13 S. W. Rep. 897 (Mo.). Real Property — Estoppel in Pais. — Where A., the owner of a strip of land along the highway, stood by in silence knowing that B. was making valuable improve- ments on his adjoining tract, which improvements could not be enjoyed without the strip of A.'s land, and knowing that B. was acting in the erroneous belief that such strip was his, held, that A. was estopped to set up his title, and would be perpetually enjoined. Sumner v. Seaton, 19 Atl. Rep. 884 (N. J.). Real Property — Forcible Entry. — The owner of land making a forcible entry upon his own land, the land being in the actual possession of another who is not a recent trespasser or intruder, will be liable to the latter for the entry in an action of trespass q.c.f Mosseller v. Deaver, 11 S. E. Rep. 529 (N. C). Real Property — Increase of Easement — Constitutional Law — Tak- ing of Property. — Where the fee of a highway is in the original owner of the soil, the public having acquired a right of way only, a telegraph company has no right to use the highway for erecting and maintaining a telegraph line without compen- sating the owner of the fee, although authorized to do so by statute, — such statute being unconstitutional. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Williams, 11 S. E. Rep. 106 (Va.). See Pierce v. Drew, 136 Mass. 75, and Julia Building Ass. v. Bell Tel. Co., 88 Mo. 258, contra.
