RECENT CASES. 243 RECENT CASES. [These cases are selected from the current English and American decisions not yet regularly reported, for the purpose of giving the latest and most progressive work of the court. No pains are spared in selecting all the cases, comparatively few in number, which disclose the general prog- ress and tendencies of the law. When such cases are particularly suggestive, comments and refer- ences are added, if practicable.] Admiralty — Jurisdiction. — A contract with the owners to supply their ves- sels, for the period of a year, with all the provisions they might require, while in the port where the supplies are to be furnished, is not a maritime contract, and a court of admiralty has no jurisdiction of a suit for damages for its breach by the ship- owners. Diefenthal v. Hamburg-American Co., 46 Fed. Rep. 397. Agency — Fellow-Servant — Common Master. — In an action against the defendant to recover for an injury caused by the negligence of his servant, it is no defence that the plaintiff was employed in a common employment with that of the negligent servant, unless the servants had a common master also. The facts were that the plaintiff and the negligent servant were both engaged in work upon a house, but had different masters who were independent contractors. Johnson v. Lindsay 6° Co., [1891] A. C. 371. The English law upon this point has heretofore been somewhat doubtful, owing to the language of Lord Cairns in Wilson v. Merry (L. R. 1 H. L. 326, 331, 332), and to the case of Wiggett v. Fox (11 Ex. 832). The court disapprove the recent Scotch decision of Woodhead v. Gartness Mineral Company (4 Sc. Sess. Cas. 4th Series, 469). Agency — Master and Servant — Ratification of Tort. — Coal ordered by plaintiff from defendant was delivered at plaintiff's house by a third person not in defendant's employ, acting without defendant's knowledge. While unloading the coal the volunteer negligently broke a plate-glass window. Afterwards, with knowledge of the accident, defendant demanded from plaintiff payment for the coal. Held, in an action for breaking the window, that by ratifying the delivery of the coal, defendant became responsible for the tort of the volunteer. Dempsey v. Chambers, 28 N. E. Rep. 279 (Mass.). Agency — Ratification — When Implied. — The plaintiff intrusted a certain deed to his agent, the defendant. The defendant made an unauthorized disposition of the deed. The question raised was whether the plaintiff by his acquiescence had rati- fied the defendant's unauthorized act, and so relieved him from liability. Held, that he had not ratified, that " mere passive inaction or silence, which would amount to an implied ratification in favor of third parties, might not amount to that in favor of the agent." Triggs v. Jones, 48 N. W. Rep. 11 12 (Minn.). Agency — Volenti Non Fit Injuria. — The fact that a person with full knowledge of the risk voluntarily continues without remonstrance in a danger- ous employment does not preclude his recovery for an injury caused by defective machinery, although the defects may have been an element of danger which he contemplated. Whether in such circumstances he voluntarily assumed the risk is a question of fact for the jury. Smith v. Baker &* Sons, [1891] A. C. 325. This case effectually disables the Latin maxim which was brought upon the field with much parade in Thomas v. Quartermaine (18 Q. B. D. 685). To be sure, only one of the lords expressly disapproves the decision of that case. But each of the majority opinions discusses the maxim volenti non fit injuria in a way which shows that the formula in question has little value in determining cases of the class of Thomas v. Quartermaine. Carriers — Railroad — Refusal to accept Ticket. — It is the duty of a pas- senger, if he has not the required ticket or token evidencing his right to travel on that train, to pay his fare or quietly leave the train when requested, and resort to the appropriate remedy for the damages he has sustained. Here he had not had his ticket properly stamped, he was ejected, and the court held that he could not recover for the expulsion. Peabody v. Oregon Ry. 6° Nav. Co., 26 Pac. Rep. 1053 (Ore.).
