REVIEWS. 243 SiANDER — Words Actionable per se. — A Catholic priest told his congre- gation that the plaintiff, a physiciai., had been excommunicated ; that therefore they should not employ him ; and if they did they could not have the ministra- tions of the priest while he was under their roof. Held, thr.t the words were actionable per se, as they affected the plaintiff in his capacity as a physician. Morasse . Brochu, 25 N. E. Rep. 74 (Mass.). Statute of Limitations — Offsetting Debts against Legacies. — The debts due testator by legatees cannot be set off against legacies, if the period of limitation has run before time of distribution. The allowance of a dividend on the debts, by the debtors' assignee, for benefit of creditors, does not arrest the statute after it has begun to run, for the assignee is not the agent of the debtor. In re Light's Estate, 20 Atl. Rep. 536 (Pa.). Trusts — Charitable Bequest — Certainty. — A bequest as follows : " And the rest, if there be any, [I give] to such charitable purposes as my said trustee may deem best," — is sufficiently definite, and will be carried into effect. Powell v. Hatch, 14 S. W. Rep. 49 (Mo.). Trusts — Statute of Limitations. — Where one having stock standing in his name sells it to another, and gives a receipt for the money, reciting that it is the first instalment on a certain number of shares of the stock, " standing in my name, but owned by him, and he remaining responsible for the balance of the instalments when called in," but containing no agreement as to thu future disposition of the stock or the dividends therefrom, the transaction raises an implied trust against which the Statute of Limitations will run. Cone et al. v. Dunham, 20 Atl. Rep. 311 (Conn.). Wills — Construction. — Where a will creates a valid trust and names a trustee, the trustee takes the legal title to the trust estate although there are no word of gifts to him. Toronto Co. v. R. Co., 25 N. E. Rep. 198 (N. Y.). Wills — Construction. — In the draft of the will the word " including " on page I was changed at the testator's direction to " excluding." In the copy which the testator executed the word "including" on page i was left standing, and "including" on page 12 changed to "excluding." Held, that '* excluding " on page 12 could be altered back, but that no alteration could be made on page I. Goods of Huddleston, 63 L. T. Rep. N. s. 255 (Eng.). This decision, it would seem, can only be supported on the theory of dependent relative revocation. This case seems an extreme application even of that doctrine. It was, however, an uncontested case. Wills — Construction. — A testator gave an annuity to A., and from and immediately after her death to such child or children of hers as should attain twenty-one. But if A. died "without leaving any such child," he gave the annuity to others. A. died without leaving any children, but had had a child who attained twenty-one in her lifetime. Held, that the representatives of the deceased child take nothing. Where there has been a vested interest in a capital sum, the court has construed " leaving " as if written " having had," to avoid taking away that vested interest. But an annuity is a personal provision, and this doctrine has never been applied to it. In re Hemingway, 63 L. T. Rep. N. s. 218 (Eng.). Wills — Construction — Remainders. — Testator divised his residuary estate to trustees " during the life of my son D.," in trust for said D., and "' after the death of said D. I give and bequeath all the property affected by the above trust to my own right heirs." Held, that an estate in remainder vested on testator's death in D., his only heir, so that on D.'s death the estate went to his heirs, and not to those who were then the testator's heirs. In re Kenyan et. al.^ 20 Atl. Rep. 294 (R. I.). REVIEWS. The Veto Power : Its Origin, Development, and Function IN the Government of the United States. By Edward Campbell Mason. Edited by Professor Albert Bushnell Hart. Boston, 1890 : Ginn & Co. 8vo. Pages 230.
