246 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. children did not make defendant liable as upon an implied invitation or license to enter. R. R. Co. v. Stout, 17 Wall. 657, disapproved. Daniels v. N. Y. 6f N. E. R. R. Co., 28 N. E. Rep. 283 (Mass.). Negligence — Duty to Trespasser — Implied Invitation. — A railroad com- pany is liable for injuries received by a child while playing upon a turn-table upon its premises near a public street, the turn-table not being protected by any in- closure nor guarded by its employees, though it was provided with the customary fastenings to keep it from revolving. Barrett v. Southern Pac. Co., 27 Pac Rep. 666 (Cal). Partnership — Foreign Firm — Service of Process. — The plaintiff, an English firm, entered into a contract with the defendant, a foreign partnership. The contract was made in England. The writ was issued against the partnership, and was served in England on a member of it. Held (in the Court of Appeal, reversing the decision in the Queen's Bench Division), that the writ should be set aside because it was irregular. The rules of practice, allowing actions against a firm, in the firm name, are not intended to vary the rights of the parties. A plaintiff who sues partners in their firm name in truth sues them individually. This writ is of no avail against the partners resident abroad, and it is of no avail against the one in England, since it is taken out in such a form that judgment would have to be rendered against the assets of the firm and therefore of the partners who are with- out the jurisdiction of the court. Heineman 6r> Co. v. Hale dr* Co., [1891] 2 Q. B. 83 (Eng.). Real Property — Conveyance by Wife — Intimidation by Husband. — In the absence of any fraud or inadequacy of price or notice on the part of a grantee, he cannot be held responsible for the conduct of the husband of the grantor in intimidating her to execute the deed. Fighimaster v. Levi, 17 S. W. Rep. 195 (Ky.). Real Property — Deeds — Delivery. — Filing a deed for recording is a pre- sumptive delivery. Such presumption, however, may be rebutted by proof that the grantor did not thereby intend to pass title as of the date of the deed. Glaze v. Three Rivers Farmers' Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 49 N. W. Rep. 594 (Mich.). Real Property — Dower. — H., during her husband's lifetime, joined with him in executing a mortgage on a certain piece of land. After his death, this piece of land was assigned her for dower, together with certain scrip and bonds which de- ceased had pledged. Held, in action by H. against her husband's administrator, that the court would not direct the latter, out of the personal property left in his hands, to redeem from their incumbrances either the land or the bonds and scrip above men- tioned. Hewitt v. Cox, 15 S. W. Rep. 1026 (Ark.). By this decision the Arkansas court adopts the rule which is supported, on the whole, by the weight of American authority. Real Property — Highways — Dedication — Acceptance by User. — A road which has been opened to public travel by the land-owners, and worked and used for that purpose for more than ten years with their acquiescence, must be regarded as a highway established by dedication. Gerbernng v. Wunnenberg, 49 N. W. Rep. 861 (la.). Real Property — Highways. — Where a public highway extended across a tract of land and terminated at tide-water, and the State subsequently conveyed its rights below high-water mark to a corporation which artificially reclaimed the land ; Held, that the right of way did not thereafter extend to the new tide-water mark over the land so artificially reclaimed. Cent. R. R. Co. of New Jersey v. City of Elizabeth, 22 Atl. Rep. (N.J.) 47. Real Property — Prescription — Dissolution of Sale. — The action to dis- solve a sale for non-payment of the price is prescribed by ten years. Such prescription is suspended during minority of heirs. The prescription running against a father at the time of his death is added to the time which has run since the heir has become of age. Smith v. Escoubas, 9 So. Rep. 907 (La.). Stare Decisis — Married Women — Mortgage of Separate Estate. — Where at the time a married woman mortgaged certain property she had the power so to do under the decisions of the Supreme Court, the rights of the mortgagee are not affected by the subsequent overruling of such decisions. Farrior v. New England Mortgage Security Co., 9 So. Rep. 532 (Ala.).
