RECENT CASES. 359 CONSTITUTIONAT, LAW — INTERSTATE COMMERCE — PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNI- TIES. — To protect the people of the State from false reprfesentations, a Statute of Min- nesota required every vendor of nursery stocks, grown outside the State, to file an affidavit, give bond, and comply with other restrictive regulations, none of which were imposed on the vendors of similar stock grown in the State. Held, — such restrictions upon the sale of a sound foreign product interfere with the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce (art. I, § 8, cl. 3), and deprives the dealer of his privileges and immunities under art. 4, § 2 of the Constitution. In re Scltechter, 63 Fed. Rep. 695. In holding the statute unconstitutional on the first ground, the court is simply following Wdton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275, and Cook v. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S. 566, and earlier cases to the effect that the power of Congress over the transportation of a commodity continues until the commodity has ceased to be the subject of discriminating legislation by reason of its foreign character ; but the second ground of the decision may be questioned, as the statute apparently made no discrimination between the citi- zens of Minnesota and those of other States, and the only explanation would seem to be that the court believed its position would be justified by the practical effect of such legislation. Constitutional Law — Objects of Taxation — Judicial Question. — In satisfaction of a claim by the relator against a township for a certain sum paid over to his successor in office by mistake, the legislature enacted that the respondent should levy upon the taxable property in said township for the purpose of refunding the said sum with interest. In error, upon the award of a writ of mandamus to compel the levy, it was held that the enactment was constitutional if sujjported by a sufficient moral or legal obligation; but when the facts out of which such obligation is claimed to arise, are disputed, the controversy falls within the province of the court. Board ef Education v. State ex rel. Lindsay, 38 N. E. Rep. 614 (Oh.). The limitations which the court here places upon the power of the legislature to bind a party a2;ainst whom it has allowed a claim, and the tests here adopted, are recognized as established principles. (Cooley's Con. Lim. 6th ed. pp. 286, 599; 25 Am. & Eng. Ency. 89, 90.) Yet the court will view the action of the legislature in as favorable light as possible, and be slow to declare that that body has passed the boundary of its power, unless the absence of all possible grounds is clear and palpable. Contracts — Joint Venture in Purchase and Sale of Lands — Action for Profits on Refusal to Sell. — Plaintiff entered into a contract with defendants in Juna, 1882, to purchase timber-lands for them. He was to receive for his services a certain percentage of the profits arising from the sale of the lands, after deducting the amount of the taxes and interest. The defendants expressly reserved the right of de- termining the time and terms of the sale. Plaintiff purchased accordingly. In August, 1883, defendants refused an offer for the lands which would have netted them a return of 300 per cent. Plaintiff demanded his share of the profits based upon such offer, but was refused, and action was brought, the verdict being in his favor. On error, Knovvles, J., held that, notwithstanding the express reservation, the contract was not to be so construed as to leave it to the option of the defendants whether or not a sale should ever take place. In such contract as the present, the law requires that a reasonable time for the sale be fixed, and that a reasonable price be decided upon. If the party having the discretion fails to conform to these requirements, he becomes liable. Nunez V. Dautel, 19 Wall. 560, which cites Hicks v. Shoiise, 17 B. Mon. 487; and Ubsdell v. Cunningham, 22 Mo. 124. The learned judge seemed to think that the price offered had been admitted to be the market value of the land, thus fixing the measure of plaintifTs damages as there was no question but that a reasonable time for making the sale had elapsed. He was for affirming the judgment. Gilbert, J. (dissenting), thought that the defendants were under no obligation to accept the offer. He admitted that the plaintiff might bring action if the lands remained unsold after a reasonable time, or if the profits had been ascertained as by accounting or admission, but thought that nothing of the kind had occurred. The two members of the court differing, the verdict stood. The learned judges seem to differ rather as to the construction to be placed upon the facts than in their views of the principle involved. Noyes v. Barnard, 63 Fed. Rep. 782. Contracts — Restraint of Trade — Unlimited as to Space. — A patentee and manufacturer of guns and ammunition for purposes of war covenanted with a com- pany to which his patents and business had been transferred that he would not for twenty-five years engage, either directly or indirectly, in the business of a manufacturer of guns or ammunition. Held, the covenant is not one in restraint of trade, and will be enforced by injunction. Nordettfelt v. Maxim- Nordenfelt Co., L. R. [1894] 5 App. Cas. 535- 48
