RECENT CASES. 483 to bearer, and perhaps as a question of construction the decision above is correct. The case of Bank 0/ Enj^land . Vagliatio Bros., [1891] App, Cas. 107, on which the court rely chiefly, should be distinguished, however. It is the intention of the drawer, and not that of the acceptor, which governs, and hence, apart from the statute, the Vagliano c se would seem to be right and the principal case wrong. The correct result was reached in Shipman v. Bank., 126 N. Y. 318, and in Armstrojig v. Bank, 46 Oh. St. 512. See Kohn v. Watkins, 26 Kan. 691, contra; and so in the case of the making of a note ; Orl v. Fowler, 31 Kan. 478, and Bank v. Rowan, 14 N. S. W. L. R. 127. Bills and Notes — Forged Indorsement. — The innocent indorsee of a bill bearing a forged indorsement received the amount of the bill at maturity from the drawee, who, having paid the bill again to the true owner, seeks to recover back the money paid to the bona fide holder. Held, the drawee caimot recover. The London ^ River Plate Bank v. The Bank of Liverpool, [1896] i Q. B. 7. See Notes. Bills and Notes — Vendor's Lien — Payment by Indorser. — Held, where A. held two notes of the same date secured by a vendor's lien, and the one first due was dishonored and taken up by an endorser, and then transferred without A.'s knowledge, the lien on this note was postponed to that on the one still held by A. Goddard v. Teeples, 33 S. W. Rep. 314 (Tex.). The two liens should have been held co-ordinate. If the maker oi the note had paid it and then sent it out again, the decision of the court would of course be sound. Union Trust Co. v. R. R. Co., 63 N. Y. 311. Carriers — Liability on Bill of Lading. — The defendant company, on receipt of certain grain, issued a bill of lading in one part, and also two duplicates of this ori*;inal. On the original there was no mention of any other bill, nor any clause " this being accomplished the others to stand void." The plaintiffs were pledgees of the original bill of lading. The defendants delivered the grain to the original shipper on his presenting one of the duplicate bills. The plaintiffs then brought this action against the defendant company. Held, that the railway company was liable on its bill of lading. Midland Nat. Bank v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., -^^t^ S. V. Rep. 521 (Mo.). This is an admirable decision. A carrier issuing bills of lading in this form binds himself to deliver to its holder, and any other delivery is made at the risk of being unable to fulfil his contract and becoming liable therefor. Bills of lading in this form do not seem to have been the subject of litigation before this case. In Forbes v. Boston «Sr» Lowell Ry. Co., 133 Mass. 154, the carrier was held liable to the holder of a bill of lading for the mis-delivery of certain corn. On the other hand, local custom was held sufiicient excuse for givnig up certain wheat without presentation of the bill. This is not so clear. In the principal case the court rightly held the duplicates to be mere memoranda, and of no more effect than memoranda. Constitutional Law — Eminent Domain — Public Servitude. — A citizen of Mississippi sought to enjoin the construction of a levee across his plantation, situated upon a navigable river in Louisiana. Defendants justified under a legislative act. Held, by the substantive law of Louisiana, plaintiff's land, and all similarly situated, is held subject to a right in the State to take any part needed for levees, without com- pensation. Eldridge v. Trezevant, 16 Sup. Ct. 345. The Supreme Court of Louisiana has frequently followed this rule, although the Constitution of that State (Art. 156) forbids a public taking of private property without comjjensation. The Supreme Court of the United States thought that plaintiff could not invoke the Fourteenth Amendment, which is satisfied if the State law is impartially administered, — here admittedly the fact. Previous cases have arisen under grants by France and Spain ; the present case concerned land granted by the United States, but the rule was applied, the court thinking the matter settled by the decisions that the extent of riparic-n titles to land upon navigable non-tidal rivers, though granted by the United States, depended upon the law of the State in which such land is situated. It thought that the same cases decided that land granted by the United States is subject to local regulations applicable to land held under State grant ; also that the Fourteenth Amendment does not ajjply to servitudes, held by the State courts to be valid. It is doiibtful whether any of the cases cited go, in terms, to the extent of the part of the proposition last stated, though the decision seems correct. For a full discussion of the general subject, see Shively v. Boivlby, 152 U. S. i. Peart v. Meeker, 45 La. Ann. 421, is a recent case under the Louisiana rule. Constitutional Law — Licenses — Peddlers. — A statute providing that city and town authorities " may issue a license to such persons as they find proper persons to engage in a temporary or transient business . . . for the sale of goods, wares, and merchandise," for certain fees, and making it a misdemeanor to engage in such business
