40 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. tion that a party has a right to sue when he believes that he has a good cause of action. It is enough if the plaintiff can establish that at the defendant's request he forbore to prosecute a claim which he believed was well founded. And it is no answer to show that the claim was not well founded, or was not even reasonably doubtful. Probably the second view is nearer the law in America.^ It would be safest in this country for the plaintiff to allege that he forbore the prosecu- tion of a claim which was reasonably doubtful. The second view is also the most convenient from the standpoint of public policy. RECENT CASES. [These cases are selected from the corrent English and American decisions not yet regularly reported, for the purpose of giving the latest and most progressive work of the courts. No pains are spared in selecting all the cases, comparatively few in number, which disclose the general progress and tenden- cies of the law. When such cases are particularly suggestive, comments and references are added, if practicable.] Common Carriers — Contributory Negligence. — A man desiring to ship stock, knew that the only platform provided by the railroad company for that pur- pose was defective. Held, that he was not guilty of contributory negligence in using it, provided there was no carelessness on his own part. A public duty rests upon the company to provide suitable platforms, and it cannot evade its liability because of the knowledge of the plaintiff. White v. Cincinnati Railway Co., 12 S. W. Rep. 936 (Ky.). Common Carriers — Limiting Liability. — The plaintiff shipped horses under an agreement limiting the liability of the carrier to cases of negligence, and restrict- ing the damages to one hundred dollars for each horse. By so doing he obtained reduced rates. Held, the contract was valid, and the plaintiff should not have been allowed to show that the horses were in fact worth more. Richmond <5r» Danville R. Co. v. Payne, 10 S. E. Rep. 749 (Va.). Common Carriers — Limiting Liability — Free Passes. — An agreement, by one accepting as a gratuity a free pass upon a railroad, to assume all risk of acci- dent which may happen to him while on the train, by which his person may be injured, is valid. The accident was due to the negligence of the servants of the company. The pass was a mere gratuity, and therefore the case does not con- flict with Railroad Co. v. Lockivood, 17 Wall. 367, in which it was held that a sim- ilar limitation on a pass given to a drover, who was to accompany his cattle, was invalid ; for there the court say the pass was not gratuitous, for it was given as one of the terms upon which the cattle were carried. Quimby v. B. <Sr» M. Railroad Co., 23 N. E. Rep. 205 (Mass.). There are only two cases on this subject exactly in point, — Griswold v. Railway Co., 53 Conn. 371, in which it was held that the limitation was valid, and Railway Co. V. McGown, 65 Tex. 643, contra. Constitutional Law — Equal Protection of the Laws. — The defendant iras indicted for non-payment of license fee, under a law exacting a fee of one dollar from a physician who had resided for four years in the town where he took out his license, and five dollars from one who had resided a less time. Held, that the law was unconstitutional as imposing unequal burdens on citizens. "Class legislation, discriminating against some and favoring others, is prohibited ; but leg- islation which in carrying out a public purpose is limited in its application, if, within the sphere of its operation, it affects alike all persons similarly situated, is not within the amendment." The present case was not within the exception, because the dis- tinction as regards length of residence had no connection with the public purpose of a license law, namely, the protection of the public against charlatans. State v. Pennoyer, 18 AtL Rep. 878 (N. H.). » ClUu &* Co. V. Templeton, 78 Ky. 550,
