RECENT CASES. 435 on the doctrine that the implied covenant of a life tenant ceases with his life, which is undoubted law on both sides of the Atlantic. McClowry v. Crogan, i Grant, (Pa.) 311. But where the lessor's estate has determined through an act of his own doing, it has been held, both in this country and in England, that the lessee can recover against him. Price v. Williams, i M. & W. 6; Dtincklee v. Hebber, 151 Mass. 408. It seems a harsh doctrine that, when the tenant has got less than he bargained for through his landlord's negligence, the landlord cannot be held accountable. Property — Purchase of Outstanding Title by Tenant in Common. — Held, that the general rule that a tenant in common may not acquire an outstanding title as against his cotenant, does not apply where the original interests of such cotenants were acquired under different instruments, from different sources, and at different times. Stevens v. Reynolds, 41 N. E. Rep. 931 (Ind.). See Notes. Property — Statute of Limitations — Permanent and Transient Injury Done by a Nuisance. — The defendant diverted the course of a stream in 1885, so that it ran against the pier of the plaintiff's. No substantial injury was done until 1890. Plaintiff brings this action for the actual damages suffered. Held, the statute of limitations did not commence to run until actual damage resulted. Howard County v. Railroad, 32 S. W. Rep. 651 (Mo.). The case proceeds on the ground that when a nuisance is of such a character that the resulting damage cannot be measured once for all at the time of its creation, but depends upon future events, then the statute of limitation does not apply, for a new cause of action arises with every new encroachment ; but when the nuisance has be- come permanent in its nature, so that the amount of injury can be estimated, then a cause of action arises to which the statute is applicable, i Wood on Limitations (2d ed.J, § 180. It is to be observed that the decision is not in conflict with cases which hold that the period of prescription begins to run before there is actual damage. Dana V. Valentine, 5 Met. 8. See Wells v. New Haven Co., 151 Mass. 49. Sales — Action for Price — Damages. — Defendant contracted with plaintiff for an article as follows. " In consideration of its delivery for me ... at the express office specified below, I promise to pay $35, $ro on delivery at the express office, and the balance in monthly instalments," etc. Plaintiff delivered to express company and defendant refused to accept. The company then returned to the plaintiff, who held subject to defendant's order. Held, plaintiff could sue for the contract price, and was not limited to suing for damages for breach of contract. (Field, C. J., Allen and Norton, J J., dissenting.) White v. Solomon, 42 N. E. 104 (Mass.). The majority of the court assume, and the minority hold, that title did not pass. The question of title is therefore largely eliminated. The decision rests on the con- struction that delivery to the express company was the consideration for defendant's promise. On that construction, the plaintiff, having performed, could sue for the con- tract price, and the decision is clearly correct. See Martineau v. Kitchiug, L. R. 7 Q. B. 436, 455 ; Tufts V. Griffin, 12 S. E. Rep. 68 (N. C). The minority of the court construed the contract as conditional, as an ordinary instalment contract, and correctly hold on this construction, that the vendor, having both title and possession, has simply an action for damages for breach of contract. See Morse v. Sherman, 106 Mass. 430-434- Taxation — Liability on Bonds of Another State. — An insurance company holding bonds of the State of Georgia, which are deposited with the treasurer of that State, is liable to taxation upon them in Louisiana. State v. Board of Assessors, 18 So. Rep. 519 (La.). The actual situs of personal property, having a visible existence, and of State and municipal bonds and circulating notes of a bank generally, determines the place where such property is taxable. But personal property, such as bonds, mortgages, and debts, in general, have no situs except the domicil of their owner. State Tax on Foreign held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300. As the bonds in the principal case were not in circulation, but bought by the company from the State of Georgia, and then deposited there probably as indemnity for payment of its risks, they formed the avails of the company, as the court said, and would seem to be taxable at the domicil of their owner. Torts — Deceit r— Inability to Perform a Promise. — Defendant contracted with plaintiff to do a certain thing without revealing the fact that, by a contract with a third party, he had put it out of his power to perform. Held, that an action for deceit lay. Trader v. Hicks, 32 S. W. Rep. 1145 (Mo.). See Notes. Torts — Negligent Misrepresentation. — Declaration alleged that defendant prepared an abstract of title for a landowner; that defendant knew this abstrnct was to be used in effecting a mortgage loan ; that the mortgage loan was effected ; that 57
