RECENT CASES. 15 1 road, or make a new location in whole or in part : Held, that this was not a contin- uing right, and that the power so granted could not be exercised after the road had once been fully completed and put in operation. And, further, under a general power to condemn land for a right of way, a railroad company cannot seize land occupied by the tracks of another company, though the land was ac- 3uired by the latter by purchase and not by the exercise of the power of eminent omain. In re Providence v. W. R. R. Co., 21 Atl. Rep. (R. I.) 965. Equity — No Relief to Wrong-doer — Limits of Principle. — The prin- ciple that he who comes into equity must come with clean hands does not apply to misconduct of complainant in no wise affecting the equitable relations between the parties, and not arising out of the transaction as to which relief is sought. Foster v. Winchester, 9 So. Rep. 83 ( Ala.). Husband and Wife — Husband's Authority. — Where a wife refuses to live with her husband, he is not entitled to keep her in confinement in order to enforce restitution of conjugal rights. The Queen v. Jackson [1891], Q. B. 671, Ct. of App. (Eng.). Insurance — A Trade. — A statute entitled "An Act to declare unlawful trusts and combinations in restraint of trade and commerce, and to provide pen- alties therefor," embraces the business of insurance, and its provisions as to in- surance are covered by the title of the act. In re Pinkney, 27 Pac. Rep. 179 (Kan.). Insurance — Accident. — " Sunstroke or heat prostration " contracted by the decedent in the course of his ordinary duty as a supervising architect is a disease, and does not come within the terms of a policy of insurance against bodily injuries sustained through "external, violent, and accidental means," but expressly excepting " any disease or bodily infirmity." Dozier v. Fidelity Co., 46 Fed. Rep. 446 (Mo.). Insurance — Insurable Interest — House-mover. — A person engaged in moving houses has an insurable interest in the houses which he is moving to the extent of the compensation which he is to receive. Planters' & Mer- chants' Ins. Co. v. Thurston, 9 So. Rep. 268 (Ala.). Quasi-Contract — Officiousness — No Recovery. — Defendants' agent, after being instructed not to purchase any more goods for defendants, agreed with plaintiffs, who had knowledge of his instructions, to purchase a quantity of goods from them for defendants, surreptitiously put them among the stock and sell them, and procure payment from defendants, as he might be able to do, without their knowledge. The goods were so furnished and sold, the pro- ceeds going to defendants. Held, that plaintiffs cannot recover for goods sold and delivered, as there was no valid sale. Shutz v. Jordan, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 906. Personal Property — War Premiums. — Act Cong. June 5, 1882, provid- ing for " the distribution of the unappropriated moneys of the Geneva award," directed the examination and allowance of claims for the " payment of premium for war risks . . . after the sailing of any Confederate cruiser." Held, that these claims, even before Congress had made any provision for their payment, were property, and as such passed, under Rev. St. U. S., § 5044, to the assignee in bankruptcy of the claimants, who accordingly is entitled to the amount ulti- mately awarded therein. Reversing 16 N. E. Rep. 437 (Mass.). Williams v. Heard, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 885. Personal Property — Gifts inter Vivos — Delivery. — A writing signed and delivered, recited: "I give to the trustees . . . the principal of a note for seven hundred dollars . . . said sum of seven hundred dollars to be given in trust to the said trustees when the said note falls due." The note was not delivered. Held, that there was no gift inter vivos, but merely an agreement to give when the note became due. Gammon Theological Seminary v. Robbins, 27 N. E. Rep. 341 (Ind.). This is in accord with Irons v. Smallpiece, 3 B. & Aid. 151 1, which has been somewhat questioned, but is now settled law in England, /'. e. that delivery is necessary to make a complete gift inter vivos. See Cochrane v. Moore, 25 Q. B. Div. 57. And see 4 Harv. L. Rev., p. 140. Real Property — Beds of Rivers. — The State, by virtue of her sover- eignty, is the owner of " the entire beds of all streams within her borders that
