Albert Sidney Bolles, Ph.D., LL.D. (continued 5)

Where a party employs another to assist him in perfecting an invention the presumption is that the employer is the real inventor of the thing produced by their joint effort. On the other hand, where a person is employed to exercise his inventive skill, because he is known to be the possessor of it, Edison for example, the presumption is in favor of the employee. Government employees may secure patents on inventions made by them during their employment, after their relationship has ceased. The government may have an implied license to use the invention without any title thereto.

Patents may be issued and reissued to assignees on the application of inventors. On the death of an inventor before a patent has been issued to him, his executor or administrator may apply therefor, who takes the patent in trust for the heirs. A foreign executor or administrator may make a similar application. He must, however, present a proper certificate of his authority to act. Likewise, a legally appointed guardian or conservator of an insane inventor may apply for and obtain a patent in trust for him.

The inventor must apply to the commissioner of patents for letters patent which secure to him his invention. The application comprises a petition, specification, claims, oath, drawings if the nature of the invention may be thus shown, and a model, when this is required by the patent office. A fee of fifteen dollars also must be sent with the papers. The application must be signed by the inventor and two witnesses.

The specification is the written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making, constructing, compounding, and using the invention; whatever it may be. He must describe not merely the principle of the invention, but the mode of applying it in such a clear, intelligible manner that those who are "skilled in the art" can, without other aid, use the invention. Nothing should be left to experiment. The phrase "skilled in the art" means persons of ordinary skill. Whether a description is clear, exact and sufficient is a question for the jury whenever it is a matter of legal contention.

In describing an improvement the same rule is applied. The description should show clearly the nature of it. The description should distinguish between the old and the new. "A description in a patent for an improvement is sufficient if a practical mechanic acquainted with the construction of the old machine in which the improvement is made, can, with the aid of the patent and diagram, adopt the improvement." If an inventor intentionally conceals facts or misleads the public by an erroneous description, his patent is void.

Concerning the claim or claims with which the inventor concludes his specification many questions have arisen. First, the claim must be clearly stated so that the public may know what it is. The claim should not be too broad. Several claims may be made, but they should not be varying phraseology for the same thing. They should state the physical structure or elements of mechanism by which the end or result is produced.

The inventor must make oath that he believes himself to be the original and first inventor, that he does not believe that the thing was ever before known or used, and as to his citizenship. If dead or insane, the oath must be made by his executor, administrator, or other representative. After the application is granted another fee of twenty dollars must be paid.

The commissioner of patents must make an examination for the purpose of deciding whether a patent may be granted or allowed. This examination is made by an examiner, whose decision, however, is not conclusive and may be set aside by the commissioner. The patent office is not confined to technical evidence in rejecting applications, but may base its action on anything disclosing the facts relating to the matter.

When objection is made to the form of the application, an amendment may be made by the applicant or his attorney to correct the error; and this may be done at any time prior to the entry by the first examiner of a final order of rejection, and within one year from the date of the preceding action by the patent office.

When two parties apply for a patent for substantially the same thing an interference is declared and the respective parties must present proofs in support of their claims. The question between them is priority of invention. The proceeding then is much like an equity trial with perhaps a wider latitude in admitting evidence bearing on the inquiry.

The applicant, if dissatisfied with the rejection of his claim by the first examiner, or with the decision in an interference case, can appeal to the board of the examiners-in-chief, and if dissatisfied with their decision he may appeal to the commissioner in person, and if still dissatisfied he can appeal to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. All appeals must be taken from the patent office within a year, or a shorter period, if one has been fixed in a decision.

The decision of the commissioner of patents in granting a patent is not conclusive that the inventor is the first and original inventor, but only prima facie, that is, in the absence of other evidence to the contrary. Consequently, the question of patentability in every case may be reexamined in the courts. In the early days of administering the patent law an inventor often applied to a court for an injunction to prevent an infringer from continuing his work. The court, assuming that the patent had been properly granted, did not hesitate, on adequate proof of the infringement to grant the injunction. The courts were not slow in finding out that patents were sometimes granted that ought not to have been, and so the practice was changed and patentees were required to establish their right to a patent in a court of law before a court would enjoin an infringer, except in very clear cases. These hearings in the courts to decide the claims of patentees, are often prolonged, running through years to collect testimony, and are appealed from one court to another finally reaching the supreme federal tribunal. After a patent is thus judicially established injunctions are readily granted against all infringers.

Payment.—In making payment the parties to an agreement always have in mind cash, unless they otherwise agree. Not every kind of money can be used, nor only in limited amounts. Thus, if one owed another a thousand dollars he could not deliver to him, unless he were willing to accept them, one thousand silver dollar pieces, but only ten of them. Nor can a debtor compel his creditor to receive one cent and five cent pieces to a greater amount than twenty-five cents. National bank notes may be paid or tendered to the government, and by one bank to another, yet they may be refused by an individual in payment of his debt. It is important, when one owes another and there is a dispute over the amount, that the debtor should tender or offer to pay his creditor the proper kind of money, because should he offer him some other kind, national bank notes for example instead of United States notes, or those issued by the federal reserve bank, and he declined to take them and should afterwards sue his debtor for the amount, the latter's offer to pay in national bank notes would be regarded as no payment, or even offer of payment.

A note or check given for a bill of goods is not payment. In everyday affairs a check is thus given and received, in fact it is only a payment conditioned on payment of the check. Consequently if it is not paid, the creditor can sue to recover on the check, or for the original goods as he might elect. In most cases he would ignore the check and sue for the original bill. Suppose some one had endorsed the maker's check, then the creditor would probably sue on that in order to hold both parties.

Does a debtor who turns over a note to his creditor in payment, thereby cancel the debt? If he does not, of course the creditor can still sue the debtor; but if he turned the note over in actual payment, then his right to sue his debtor is gone. What was the intention of the two parties? This is a question of fact to be ascertained like any other.

How shall the money be applied of one who owes several debts to the same person and makes a general payment? The debtor can make the application, if he does not, the creditor can do so; if neither does this, then the law applies it, first to the payment of interest that may be due on any of the debts, and the balance left, should there be any, to the payment of the principal. Of several debts the law applies it to the oldest debt. Again, if there is a surety for any of the debts, he may insist on the application of the money in order to be relieved.

If a depositor in a bank has made a note payable there this is regarded very much like a check, it is a direction to the bank to pay it, especially by the Negotiable Instruments law. Unless the maker of a note is insolvent, a bank can never pay the unmatured note of a depositor. Nor can a bank apply a deposit, which is known to be trust money, or belonging to another person than the depositor to the payment of his note. Generally a bank declines to pay a note that is overdue though there is no law, except in a few states, against paying it should the bank decide to do so. In all cases a depositor may make any application of his deposit he desires, for it is his own and the bank cannot divert it in any way against his direction.

A receipt taken in payment of a debt is not conclusive evidence of payment and may be contradicted by other evidence, though it is regarded on its face as payment. When received, a receipt should be kept for at least six years, because it is such strong evidence of payment. After that period the statutes of limitation in most states have the effect of canceling a debt, on the theory or presumption that it has been paid. If the debtor afterward promises to pay, his new promise is valid though there is no consideration therefor, and he is legally required to pay the debt.

Should a receipt also contain any other statement or contract beside the payment of money, this would have the same effect as any other contract between the parties, and would be equally binding on them.

The effect of a seal after the receiptor's name may be explained in this connection. A sued B and C for a debt. Before trial he gave C a receipt stating that if he did not recover from B he would nevertheless not hold C liable. Having failed in his suit against B, he sought to hold C notwithstanding his receipt releasing him. And he succeeded for the reason that his release was given without consideration and therefore was worthless. Had A added after his name a seal this would have imported or implied a consideration and the receipt would have been an effective release.

Prescriptive rights.—A person may gain rights in the land of another by acting in such a way as to indicate that he clearly makes a claim to them. Thus, if a man goes over the land of another in the same direction to his own land for a period of fifteen years or longer, the period differing in the several states, he acquires the right to continue, in other words he acquires a permanent right of way by such action. As such a right is contrary to the interest of another, it cannot be gained against a person who is incapable of preventing the acquisition of such a right if he pleases. Such a right, therefore, cannot be gained against a minor, nor an insane person, nor any one who is incapable of defending his possessions.

Whether the right has been fully acquired is not always easily determined. Suppose one claims a right of way over another's land, and the right is disputed. How often has he traveled that way? Has the other person known of his going and said nothing? Again, suppose a man sells another a piece of his farm away from a road, the law presumes that he intended to grant or permit the buyer to have ingress and egress to his land, otherwise he would not have purchased. This is called a way of necessity. Can the purchaser choose any outlet he pleases? The law says he must exercise reasonable discretion in making his selection.

When a way has been acquired by such use, the law is strict in confining the gainer in the use of it. Thus A buys a piece of land of another for the purpose of erecting a house thereon. The use of the way thereto must be confined to A and his family, friends and those who come to see him on business. Suppose A should decide to divide it into building lots, which would require a greatly increased use of the way. This could not be done without a new agreement with the seller. Again, a tenant cannot by any use of the land acquire a right therein that will continue beyond his lease. If he had a long lease, say thirty years, and could gain a prescriptive right by an adverse use of fifteen or twenty years, he would, if gaining any prescriptive rights, be obliged to give them up at the end of his tenancy. In claiming a right of way the use need not be exclusive. Other persons may also use the way with the same claim of right.

The owner of land has no natural right to light or air and cannot complain that either has been cut off by the erection of buildings on adjoining land. He may, however, acquire, by grant or some other way, a right to have light and air enter a particular window, or other place, without interruption by the owner of adjacent land. Nor can he acquire a right to light and air across another's land for his own house by simply erecting it on the edge of his own land while the adjoining land is unoccupied. To erect windows on that side is not an adverse use of the land adjoining. But a person may gain a right to light and air by presumption, and if one has acquired the right to maintain a window in a specified place he loses his right by closing it up and opening another of a different size in another place. And the same thing happens to one who tears down his house and builds a new one with windows of the same size and in the same places as in the old one. A person cannot maintain an action against another for cutting off his view unless the right has been expressly acquired.

The general rule with respect to the use of water is, any person through whose land flows a stream may use it in a reasonable manner. What is such a use has occasioned many a legal dispute, especially among mill owners. Each one of them located on a stream may use the water, but can they hold it back for any length of time? As a general rule this can be done for a short time in order to get the use of the power, if they could not, the water could run to waste and no one would derive any benefit. Again, can any diversion be made of it? Any use, almost, is a diversion. If one used water even to supply his cattle, it would be a diversion, yet such a use ordinarily is lawful. Suppose one had a very large herd, then the use might be excessive especially in view of the needs of other users on the stream. A still more important question has arisen of late concerning the fouling of water. Has a factory the right of putting its dyestuffs into the water, impairing its quality and rendering it unfit for use by all below? This cannot be legally done. Can a stream be used as a sewer? Naturally all the water in a valley flows downward and at last reaches a stream running through it. As population increases the use of streams becomes greater, and questions concerning their use more difficult.

Suppose a land owner on the hillside wishes to use all the surplus water, can he gather it and thus prevent its flowing to the land below? He can. Can he build ditches or other obstructions whereby he can collect the water and pass it to the land below in other than the natural way? He cannot. On the other hand, the lower proprietor can, if he pleases, make an embankment that will prevent the water from coming upon his land. This, though, is not the law everywhere.

The owners of a well may prevent its overflow and thereby cut off water that formerly ran into a stream. But the owner of a spring that flows into the land of another cannot change its course, nor exhaust the water, nor pollute it to the injury of another. Nor can surface water be changed into a water course by impounding it. On the other hand this rule does not apply to water or springs beneath the surface. If in digging a well the source of supply to another is cut off, it is a loss for which there is no redress, unless the well has been dug maliciously. But where percolating water abounds and is obtained by artesian wells a land owner has no right to sink wells on his land and draw off the water supply of his neighbor. The right to cut ice is a natural one, and the owner of a lake or stream may cut a reasonable quantity, but not enough to diminish the water appreciably to the lower proprietor.

While a person has the natural right also to the lateral support of his land, yet he cannot use it to the injury of another. This is a legal maxim. If, therefore, he should excavate to the edge of his land and his neighbor's building should in consequence fall down, would he be without redress? The rule is, the excavation must be made in a reasonable manner. This is a question of fact in every controversy of the kind. The owner of land adjoining a highway has no right to the lateral support of the soil of the street. Therefore, if the grade of a street were lowered by proper authority and one's house located by the side of it should fall, he would have no redress against the city or other public body.

Quasi Contracts.—A quasi contract is a legal obligation arising without the assent of one from the receipt of a benefit which, if retained, would be unjust. The law therefore compels him to make restitution. He is required to do this, not because he has promised to make restitution, but because he has received a benefit which he cannot justly retain.

If one at the time of conferring a benefit on another confers it as a gift, it cannot afterward be claimed that the gift was conferred relying on a supposed contract. Consequently, though the donor's intention may be subsequently altered, no obligation to make restitution will arise. Nor does the failure of the donee to reciprocate the donor's generosity or indirectly reward him, create any right or claim on the donor's part to a return from the donee.

Where one, in the preservation of his own property or the promotion of his own interests, bestows some incidental advantage to another, there is no legal obligation to pay for the value of it. Thus the owner of the lower part of a house is not liable for the advantage resulting to him from the repair of the roof by the owner of the upper part and roof. Nor is one who has thickened and strengthened that part of an ancient party wall which is on his own land, in order to sustain the building he is erecting, entitled to recover from the adjoining owner who used the wall. Nor can anything be recovered from the owner of a vessel by the underwriters who had her docked for repairs though by such docking the owner gained an important benefit. Nor can one who in pumping out his quarry frees another quarry from water recover anything for the service. Nor can one who is benefited by experiments made by another to test the value of patented inventions, in which both are interested, be legally required to pay for the benefit he has received.

As no expectation of payment does presumptively arise when services are rendered by one member of a family to another member, one who claims payment for them must prove that they were not rendered as a gratuity, but on the legal supposition that he had a right to compensation.

One who knows or who has reason to believe that compensation is expected for goods or services tendered to him ought not to accept them unless he intends to pay for them. If he does his act of acceptance will be regarded as a promise of payment, and can be enforced. But if one accepts goods or services without knowledge or reason to believe that compensation will be expected, what then? Suppose A sends a barrel of apples to B supposing, from their previous course of dealing, that B will return them if he does not want them? B should either return them or pay. Suppose B is misinformed and learns that A is giving a barrel of apples to each of his customers? Then he would be justified in keeping them until he learned the truth.

If, in making a contract it is taken for granted by both parties that a certain fact exists, which, if not existing, would make the contract impossible of execution, the contract is void. Thus, in contracts for the sale of specific personal property, its existence at the time of the sale is generally assumed. If the property has perished or been destroyed, the contract is void. The same rule has been applied to the sale of non-existent reality, of the transfer of void or spurious securities, of the assignment of a void lease. In all these cases the money paid in misreliance on the void contract is recoverable.

Premiums paid on a policy of marine insurance by one who in reality had no goods on board, or for a voyage that was never begun, may be recovered. The existence of a risk is assumed by both parties, in fact there is no risk, consequently there was nothing to which the contract of insurance related.

"A promise," says Woodward, "which is so general or indefinite that it does not enable the courts to determine the nature and extent of the obligation assumed must be regarded as no promise at all. Such has been the fate of a promise to pay good wages; a promise to convey a hundred acres of land, the land not being described; a promise to divide profits, no rate of division being indicated. Instances might be multiplied. A benefit conferred, in the honest, though mistaken, belief that such a promise is binding ought in justice to be restored. Restitution is accordingly enforced."

The law requires some kinds of contracts to be executed in a particular manner. Thus, by statute, many municipalities can make contracts, or those of a particular kind, only on sealed bids or proposals and after proper advertising for bids, etc. If these things are not done, the contract made in disregard of them is invalid. The courts of this country have got into deep confusion in applying this rule to private corporations. Suppose a corporation makes a loan without proper authority and receives the money, can the lender recover it? The corporation had no right to borrow, of this the lender knew as well as the borrower. Both parties are in the wrong. The highest court in this country has been more consistent than many of the state courts, and holds that a contract it cannot make for lack of legal power is not made and cannot be ratified. "No performance on either side can give the unlawful contract any validity, or be the foundation of any right of action upon it." Nevertheless though a contract is unlawful and void because the corporation was unable to make it, a court strives to do justice between the parties by permitting property or money, parted with on faith of the unlawful contract, to be recovered back, or compensation to be made therefor.

The lack of another legal requirement in making contracts gives rise to serious consequences. We have learned that the Statute of Frauds requires for the validity of many contracts that a memorandum of them be made in writing and signed by one or both contracting parties. By English law the statute provides a rule of evidence, that a writing must be shown as proof of a contract before the courts will consider it as having been made; by some of the American courts a contract that does not meet the requirements of the statute is held to be void; by other courts they declare that though the contract is not void it cannot be enforced.

While the Statute of Frauds in some states is regarded as completely nullifying contracts not conforming to its requirements, they are not anywhere held to be illegal, that is, are not made in violation of law. "There appears," says Woodward, "to be no reason of policy, therefore, for denying to a party thereto in a proper case, the aid of the court in obtaining quasi contractual relief, or the right to establish the justice of his quasi contractual demand by proving the terms of the unenforceable agreement. True, the evidence of the agreement in such a case, must be oral; but since the evidence is for the purpose of proving, not a contract as such, but a transaction resulting in an unjust benefit to the defendant, its introduction would seem not to contravene the statute."

A purchaser of land under an oral contract, who is given possession and subsequently fails to pay, is liable for the use of the land to him while he has occupied it. Though the act of the seller in giving the purchaser possession without conveying the title may not be regarded as a part performance of the contract of sale, yet the benefit resulting to the purchaser creates an obligation to make restitution which the courts will enforce. The improvement of land by the purchaser under an oral contract is an act which enables him to enforce the contract in equity. Improvements made by a lessee under an oral lease within the statute are governed by the same rules as those of improvements made by a purchaser.

If no benefit has been derived from the contract, nothing can be recovered. Thus, a son worked for his father on his father's farm under an unenforceable contract with his uncle. The latter was under no quasi contractual obligation to pay the value of such service, since he had derived no benefit from them. Likewise one who, relying on an unenforceable contract, constructed a wood-chopping machine that was not accepted could not recover for the value of his labor and materials.

Again, where one party by his own act or default has prevented the other party from fully performing his contract, the party thus preventing performance cannot take advantage of his own act or default, and screen himself from payment for what has been done under the contract. Thus, if one party agrees with another to work on a house the law implies that the employee owns the building in which the work is to be done. This is a part of the contract whether the house is clearly specified or not. Therefore, an employer who does not own the house, or parts with it before the work is completed, is liable to the other party.

The destruction of a thing in the course of alteration or repair without the fault of the bailee is a case like that above mentioned. The labor and materials are expended in response to the desire of the owner of the property, and therefore it is just that he should pay for the property he destroyed. In one of the old cases a horse was sent to a farrier to be cured and was burnt before a cure was completely effected. Nevertheless, the farrier was entitled to payment for what he had done. Likewise, the owner of a ship that is destroyed by fire a few hours before the completion of repairs, cannot escape payment on the ground that he has reaped no advantage.

As the illness or death of a contractor does not, like fire or shipwreck, deprive the other party of the fruits of what has been already done, the benefit resulting to him is more obvious, and the element of hardship is wanting that appears in many of the cases. The value of his services or the materials he may have used may therefore be recovered. In one of the cases A agreed that he and his wife should live in B's house and maintain him for life. As A's wife died the contract could not be performed. Nevertheless, A recovered the value of the service he had rendered to B during the lifetime of his wife.

Wagering contracts either by statute or judicial decision are illegal and void in most or all the states. In many of them the statute permits the recovery of the money from the stakeholder or the winner. Payment over to the winner after notice or demand by the loser is not a good defense in an action against the stakeholder. Again, the winner is liable who, when receiving the money, knows that the stakeholder has been notified not to pay it over, or has received notice not to take it.

The legality of contracts made or to be performed on Sunday is determined generally by statute. Generally, when a contract is made on Sunday, or is fully performed on both sides, the money paid or other thing done in execution of it cannot be recovered. Again, one who is induced by fraudulent representations to enter into a contract which is in violation of a Sunday law is not so much in the wrong as the other, and consequently may recover a benefit he has conferred on the other party in performing the contract.

If a member of a firm gives a promissory note signed by the partnership name, for a debt of his own, which his partner is compelled to pay, he may recover the money from the other. So, if a carrier by mistake delivered goods to the wrong person who keeps them, and the carrier is obliged to pay for their value, he can recover the amount of the other person who thus wrongfully keeps them.

Whenever a person makes a payment to another under such a mistake of the material facts as to create a belief in the existence of a liability which does not really exist, the money may be recovered back. Such an obligation arises where money is paid as due on the basis of erroneous accounts, and on a true statement of account is found not to have been due. A voluntary payment with knowledge of all the facts cannot be recovered, even though there may have been no obligation to pay.

A person cannot recover money paid under a mistake of fact who has received the equivalent for which he bargained, because there is no failure of consideration. Nor is the fact immaterial that he need not, and would not have made the payment had he known the true state of things. A bank, for example, that pays the check of a depositor under the erroneous belief that it has sufficient funds, may not recover from the payee the excess to the depositor's credit. But if the purchaser of goods has paid the price, and the seller fails to deliver them, the purchaser may recover his money. And in any case, a person who has paid money under an agreement which he may rescind and does so, because there was a failure of consideration, may recover what he has paid. An action will lie against a person who sells goods as his own, but which do not belong to him, whenever the real owner claims them from the purchaser. In like manner an action will lie against a person who sells bills, notes, bonds, stock or other securities which prove to be worthless, or against a person who agrees to transfer the title to land which, for lack of title or other reason, cannot pass.

As a rule, the consideration of a contract must totally fail to entitle a person to recover back the money he has paid. If the consideration has only partly failed, the remedy, if there is any, is for a breach of the contract, and not to recover back the money he has paid. Thus, if an article is sold with a warranty of its quality, and it is not worthless, his remedy is an action to recover damages for a breach of the warranty, and not an action to recover back the money paid for the thing purchased.

A liability cannot be imposed on a person without his act or consent. One man cannot force a benefit on another without his knowledge or consent, and then compel him to pay for it. "If a person," says Clark, "intentionally and knowingly performs services for another or otherwise confers a benefit on him without his knowledge, so that he has no opportunity to refuse the benefit, the law will not create a liability to pay for it. So, where a person supplies another with goods, the latter supposing that he is being supplied by another person with whom he had contracted for the goods, the law will not even imply a promise to pay for the goods." Where benefits are conferred by one person on another under such circumstances as to raise no promise in fact or in law to pay for them, he may, nevertheless, become liable by retaining them. Thus, if a person were to receive goods from another reasonably but mistakenly believing them to be intended as a gift, and, after learning of his mistake, should retain them, when he might return them, or if he should receive part of the goods purchased from another, and retain them after failure of the latter to supply the rest of the goods, the law would compel him to pay for them. And the same rule applies where benefits are in any other way received under such circumstances as to create no contractual obligation, and are retained when they should in justice be returned. If, however, the benefits thus received are incapable of being returned, as where they consist of services, or of materials which have been used in repairing a house, no liability is created.

Sale.—By a contract to sell goods the seller agrees to transfer the property in them to the buyer for a consideration called the price. There is an important distinction between a contract to sell in the future and a present sale. The first is called an executory, the other an executed, sale. If the goods are to be transferred, there is an executed sale even though the price is not to be paid at the same time. But if the price is paid, and the goods are not then to pass, the transaction is a contract to sell, or an executory sale. Both kinds of sales may be by deed or sealed contract as well as by parol or orally.

Sales and contracts to sell are based on mutual assent, the intent, therefore, of the parties fixes the nature and terms of the bargain. If the offerer understood the transaction to differ from that which his words plainly expressed, it is immaterial, "as his obligation must be measured by his overt acts." Thus, if an offer to buy or sell is sent by telegraph, and is improperly transmitted by the telegraph company, an acceptance by the offeree creates a binding bargain. By using the telegraph as an agency of communication, the offerer makes himself responsible for the offer actually delivered. Of course the telegraph company would be responsible to the offerer for any damage he may have suffered unless relieved by some neglect or fault of the sender of the message.

A contract of sale may be conditional, for example, that the property shall not be transferred until the price is paid. Though the property is transferred by the sale, promises or obligations may still be unperformed by the seller. Or the transfer of the title may be conditional on payment of the price. In such sales the goods are delivered to the buyer, but the title is retained by the seller until payment.

The capacity to buy and sell is regulated by the general law concerning the capacity to contract, transfer and acquire property. When necessaries are sold and delivered to a minor, or to an insane or drunken person, or to a married woman, who is lacking in mental capacity to make a contract, he must, by the general Sales Act, pay a reasonable price therefor. Necessary goods by this act mean those suitable to the condition of the life of the minor or other persons above mentioned at the time of their purchase and delivery.

As we have seen (See Minor) a minor may avoid his contracts. The right to do this is given for his protection, and should not be stretched beyond his needs. Therefore the right is confined to himself or his legal representatives. Neither creditors, nor trustees, nor assignees in bankruptcy can do this, but his heirs can do this, and probably his guardian. By the common law a purchaser for value who did not know that the seller bought them of a minor could not retain them if the minor wished to reclaim them as his own. This rule has been changed by the Sales Act, and a bona fide purchaser is therefore safe in purchasing such goods even though the seller did buy them from a minor.

As a minor may disaffirm his contract, any act clearly showing this intent is sufficient. "It was early settled," says Williston, "that an infant's conveyance of realty could be avoided only after he attained his majority. In the case of personal property a sale may be avoided during his minority by an infant seller or buyer. Though an infant may thus avoid his sales, purchases or contracts during infancy, he can make no effective ratification until he becomes of age, for an infant's ratification clearly can be no more effective than his original bargain."

In the Sales Act the Statute of Frauds (See Statute of Frauds) has been reënacted, and provides that in a sale or contract to sell goods amounting to five hundred dollars or more, it cannot be enforced unless the buyer shall accept a part of the goods, or give something in earnest to bind the contract, or in part payment, or makes some note or memorandum in writing of the sale which is signed by the party or his agent against whom the other party seeks enforcement.

This statute applies to a contract for goods that may be intended for future delivery, but not to goods that are to be manufactured by the seller especially for the buyer and are not suitable for sale to others in the ordinary course of the seller's business.

The Sales Act contains an important section relating to the sale of an undivided share of goods. If the parties intend to effect a present sale, the buyer becomes an owner in common with the owner of the remaining shares. How important is this section may be easily learned. The grain of many owners is often mingled in an elevator. It is delivered to those who call for it, the kinds and quantities mentioned in the receipts given to them at the times of storing it. The grain in the elevator may be delivered many times before a particular depositor makes his demand. The elevator company must keep on hand enough grain to meet all outstanding receipts. Each depositor thus retains title to some portion of the grain in the elevator. The company is the bailee with the power to change the bailor's separate ownership into an ownership in common with others of a larger mass, and back again. At any given moment all the holders of receipts for the grain are tenants in common of the amount in store, each owning a share and all owning the entire amount, each having the right to sell his share and demand its separation and delivery in accordance with custom and the terms of the receipt.

When a party has specific goods which, without his knowledge, have perished partly or wholly, the buyer may treat the sale as avoided, or as transferring the property in all of the existing goods and as binding him to pay the full agreed price if the sale was indivisible, or if divisible the agreed price for the goods in which the property passes. One can readily imagine trouble when none of the goods have been destroyed but all are in a condition inferior to that supposed at the time of the bargain. In such a case the "only question is whether the article has been so far destroyed as no longer to answer the description of it given by the contract."

The price may be fixed by the contract or in such a manner as the parties may agree, and may be made payable in personal or real property. When the price is not determined in the way mentioned in the Sales Act, the buyer must pay a reasonable price. This is a question of fact in each case. Usually, the price, either in an executed sale or in a contract to sell, is fixed by the parties at the time of making the bargain. In the agreement to sell there must be a consideration on both sides to sustain it. Sometimes the parties agree that the amount of the price shall vary according to the happening, or failure to happen, of a future event. Such a contract may be a wager, which is forbidden by law, or it may be legal, as we shall soon learn. Whenever no price has been fixed the law has established a rule, a reasonable price. It is the intention and understanding of the parties that a buyer who orders a barrel of flour from his grocer will pay a reasonable price. Likewise a buyer who orders a carriage to be made for him and says nothing about the price.

What is a reasonable price? Generally the market price at the time and place fixed by the contract or by law for delivering the goods, but not always. Under unusual conditions the market price does not furnish the only test. Said the court in one of these cases: a reasonable price may or may not agree with the current price of the commodity at the place of shipment at the precise time of making it. The current price of the day may be highly unreasonable from accidental circumstances, by the action of the seller himself in purposely keeping back the supply.

With respect to warranties the Sales Act provides that when the sale is made on a condition which is not performed, the party for whose benefit the condition was made may refuse to proceed with the contract or sale, or may waive performance of the condition. The nonperformance may be treated as a breach of warranty. Thus time may be an important element in a contract, and an agreement to deliver goods by a specified time is a condition or warranty. And if there is a delay in delivering, unless it may be a trifling one, the buyer may refuse to accept the goods.

A common condition in more recent times qualifying the obligation of the buyer is that the goods shall be satisfactory to him. By this is meant the satisfaction of the buyer after the exercise of an honest judgment. In New York and some other states a somewhat different rule prevails. Unless the things covered by the contract involve personal taste, the contract imposes on the seller the requirement only that a reasonable man would be satisfied with performing it, thus not leaving the question of its satisfactory performance entirely to the buyer. This, Williston says, is an arbitrary refusal of the court to enforce the contract that the parties made and seems unwarranted.

Warranties may be express or implied. By the Sales Act any affirmation of fact or any promise by the seller relating to the goods is an express warranty if the natural tendency of such affirmation or promise is to induce the buyer to purchase the goods, and if the buyer purchases the goods relying thereon.

In a contract to sell or a sale, unless a contrary intention appears, there is an implied warranty on the part of the seller that in the case of a sale he has the right to sell the goods, also, in the case of a contract to sell them, he will have the right to do this at the time of passing the property. More briefly the seller warrants the title to the property which is the subject of sale. Whether the seller is in or out of possession of the property, he can by appropriate words sell such interest as he may have therein. But persons also sell property not owned by themselves by authority of others or of the law. Unless they expressly warrant the title they are not liable for lack of it. Sales of this nature are made by a sheriff, or other judicial officer, auctioneer or mortgagee, assignee in bankruptcy, executor or administrator, guardian, or simply an agent.

When there is a contract to sell, or a sale of goods by description, there is an implied warranty that they shall correspond with the description; and if the contract or sale is by sample, as well as by description, it is not sufficient that the bulk of the goods corresponds with the sample if these do not also correspond with the description. The Sales Act contains elaborate provisions relating to implied warranties of the quality of things sold. There is no implied warranty of the quality or fitness of goods for any particular purpose unless the buyer makes known to the seller the purpose for which they are required, and he also relies on the seller's judgment of their fitness for the use he intends to make of them. Again, if the buyer has examined the goods there is no implied warranty of the defects which such an examination ought to have revealed. An implied warranty as to quality or fitness for a particular purpose may also be annexed by the usage of trade. There is an implied warranty that the bulk shall correspond with the sample in quality, and that the buyer shall have a reasonable opportunity of comparing the bulk with the sample.

When does the transfer of ownership occur? When there is an unconditional contract to sell them the property therein passes to the buyer on the making of the contract, regardless of the time of payment or delivery or both. When goods are delivered to the buyer "on sale or return," giving the buyer an option to return them instead of paying the price, the property passes to the buyer on delivery, but the property may go back to the seller by returning or tendering the goods within the time specified in the contract. When the goods are delivered to the buyer on approval or on trial or other similar terms, the property passes to the buyer, (1) when he signifies his approval or acceptance of them, (2) or if he retains them beyond the time fixed for their return, or if none has been fixed, beyond a reasonable time.

It is the duty of the seller to deliver the goods, and of the buyer to accept and pay for them, in accordance with the terms of the contract of sale. Unless otherwise agreed, delivery of the goods and payment of the price are concurrent conditions, the seller, therefore, must be ready and willing to give possession of the goods to the buyer in exchange for the price, and the buyer must be willing and ready to pay the price in exchange for the possession of the goods.

Whether it is for the buyer to take possession of the goods or for the seller to send them to the buyer, is a question depending in each case on the contract, express or implied, between the parties. Apart from contract, or usage of trade to the contrary, the place of delivery is the seller's place of business, if he have one, and if not, his residence. Again, when by the contract of sale of goods no time for sending them has been fixed, the seller must send them within a reasonable time.

Vast quantities of goods are bought and sent forward to buyers, which are not to be delivered until payment. The Sales Act provides that where goods are shipped and by the bill of lading that is given for them they are to be delivered to the order of the buyer or of his agents, but possession of the bill of lading is to be retained by the seller or his agent, he thereby reserves his right to the possession of the goods as against the buyer. Very often a buyer of wheat, for example, will draw a bill of exchange on his principal or company living in the place where the goods are to be delivered and will have it discounted by a bank using the money to pay the seller. The wheat may be in an elevator, or it may be in transit. In either case the bank receives a document, elevator receipt, or bill of lading, and thus becomes the real owner of the wheat, and can control it afterward until it is actually delivered to the consignee, whoever he may be. This is the bank's security for making the loan. The bank sends forward the bill of exchange to its correspondent bank in the place where the consignee lives and the wheat is to be delivered with instructions to deliver it when the bill is paid.

With respect to speculative sales of stock, so well known by every one, a contract, says Williston, giving one party or the other an option to carry out the transaction or not at pleasure, is not a wager, unless forbidden, as in some states is done by statute. A contract to sell goods in the future, which the seller does not own at the time is, aside from the statute, not only legal but common. "The test," says Williston, "adopted in the absence of statute, distinguishes between contracts to buy and sell in which the actual delivery of the property is contemplated, and similar contracts in which it is contemplated merely that a settlement shall be made between the parties based on fluctuations in the market price. A contract of the former kind is legal; one of the latter kind is a wagering contract, and illegal."

Shipping.—The federal statutes require that every ship or vessel of the United States shall be registered or enrolled in the office of the collector of customs of the district that includes the home port of the vessel. None but citizens of the United States can have their vessels registered. Consequently the sale of a vessel to a foreigner denationalizes her. If sold to an American, she must be registered anew. On arriving at a foreign port masters of vessels must deposit their registers with the consul or commercial agent at that port.

Enrollment is the term used to describe the registry of a vessel engaged in coastwise or inland navigation or commerce. Registration is applied to vessels engaged in foreign commerce. License means the same as enrollment, but is applied to small vessels of twenty tons burden or less. The federal laws on this subject do not apply to vessels that are used on nonnavigable waters of the country.

The title to a vessel may be acquired by purchase or building. If a vessel is built for a party no title thereto passes until she is ready for delivery and has been approved and accepted by him. This, however, is no arbitrary rule, and is often modified especially when payment is made in installments and during the construction of the vessel.

Nowadays many vessels are owned by corporations, and the rules that apply to corporations of course determine the ownership of their property. In other cases the several owners of a vessel are tenants in common, and not co-partners, unless by agreement they have established other relations among themselves. They may, of course, become partners and be governed by the rules that apply to persons thus related. When they are related as tenants in common one part owner has no power to bind the others in any way beyond the necessary and regular use of the vessel. He cannot sell or mortgage the interests of the others, draw drafts or notes in their name, apply the freight money earned to pay his individual debt, or procure insurance for the other owners.

The majority rule governs in employing the vessel. The majority therefore have the right to control the use of the vessel on giving security to the minority, if required, to bring back and to restore to them the vessel, or if lost to pay them for the value of their shares. The minority owners in like manner may use the vessel if the majority are unwilling to employ her. A court of admiralty will in such a case act for the parties.

Each part owner is entitled to his share of the profits, and is also liable for the expenses of the vessel unless he has dissented from the voyage. But part owners who dissent from the voyage and take security for the safe return of the vessel are not entitled to share in the profits, nor are they liable for the expenses.

A part owner may bind the others for necessary supplies and repairs required that are procured on credit, unless his general authority to do this has been restricted. The ship's husband or managing owner has authority to do whatever is necessary for the prosecution of the voyage and earning the freight money. For such purposes he is the agent of the owners and can bind them by his contracts, unless his authority is revoked or modified.

Any owner can sell his interest whenever he pleases, and all of them may authorize the sale of the entire vessel. A writing is required to pass the title, but as between the parties an oral sale and delivery will suffice, at common law. In many cases a bill of sale is required by statute. The writing should describe what things are transferred, but general terms such as appurtenances and necessaries have a fixed meaning which are understood. Intention is the guide to determine what passes in such a sale, as in cases of fixtures already considered.

When the bill of sale is executed the purchaser becomes entitled to all the benefits of ownership, and incurs all the liabilities. If the sale is unconditional, the purchaser is liable for supplies though he may never have taken possession of the vessel, and neither the master nor the merchant furnishing the supplies knew of the sale. The purchaser is not liable for repairs made and supplies furnished before the sale, unless he has agreed to pay for them, or the vessel was at sea at the time. If she was, the purchaser takes her subject to all encumbrances on her, and to all lawful contracts made by the master before learning of the purchase.

A vessel may be mortgaged, and the federal statutes state how this shall be done. A shipbuilder may make a contract whereby he mortgages the vessel to be built in advance of its construction, and a lien attaches as it comes into existence. Such a mortgage is postponed or comes after a maritime lien, that will soon be explained, but comes before the debts of general creditors.

The mortgagor, so long as he retains possession, has all the rights of ownership, and all contracts made by him are valid which do not impair the security of the mortgage. When the mortgagee takes possession of the vessel he is entitled to all the earnings that accrue, but not to those which the mortgagor has reserved, even though they are for the current voyage. Furthermore, his interest may be attached by his creditors. The discharge and foreclosure of mortgages on vessels are governed for the most part by the rules that apply to chattel mortgages. A mortgage on a vessel should be recorded, and many of the rules and usages that apply to the recording of deeds apply also to such mortgages.

A contract may be made for a loan of money on the bottom of a vessel at a rate much greater than the usual rate of interest. Such a loan is sanctioned to enable the master to obtain money for supplies or repairs at some foreign port where they could not be otherwise obtained. The loan is on the security of the vessel and if she never arrives, the lender loses his money. If she does arrive at the port of her destination, the borrower personally, as well as the vessel, is liable for the repayment of the loan with the agreed interest thereon. This maritime loan is highly regarded in legal tribunals, and is liberally construed by them to carry into effect the intention of the parties.

Such a loan or bond can be given by the master of the vessel only in case of necessity and great distress in a foreign port, where the owner is not present and has no representative with funds, and where the master has no other means of getting money. The master has a large discretion. "The necessity must be such as would induce a prudent owner to provide funds for the cost of them on the security of the ship, and that if the master did not take the money the voyage would be defeated or at least retarded." The general purpose of the loan is to effectuate the objects of the voyage and the safety of the ship.

The appointment and employment of a master is wholly within the discretion of the owners. On his death or removal in a foreign port a successor may be appointed by the consul resident there of the country to which the vessel belongs, or by an agent of the owners, or by the consignees of the cargo who have advanced money for repairing the vessel. The registry acts of the United States require the putting of the master's name in the register, but if this is not done his authority is not impaired; and the one to whom the navigation and control of a vessel is entrusted is considered her master, although the name of another appears on the register. His contract may contain any stipulation to which the parties may agree. The right of a master to command his vessel is personal to him; and a sale by a master who is part owner of the vessel of his interest therein transfers no right to the command of the vessel which the other owners are bound to respect. Whenever he becomes incapable of commanding by reason of sickness, insanity, or other reason, the command with the duties pertaining thereto devolves on the first mate until the appointment of another master; should he be absent or incapable of acting, then the second mate and so on down the rank of officers.

The master must do all things for the protection and preservation of the several interests entrusted to him, the owners, charterers, cargo owners, underwriters. He must render a full and satisfactory account to the owners of the vessel of moneys secured and his disbursements before demanding any wages. At sea he is the supreme officer, has sole authority over both officers and crew to do justice to all persons under his command, and to protect passengers and seamen from bad treatment while they are on board. It is said that in respect to passengers he owes a higher and more delicate duty than he owes to the crew, but at the same time he has the necessary control over his passengers and may make proper regulations for their government to ensure their safety, promote their comfort and preserve decent order.

He has authority to bind the owners when they are not present for expenditures needful in the way of repairs, supplies and other necessaries reasonably fit and proper for the safety of the vessel and the completion of the voyage.

As the seamen who serve on a vessel are generally ignorant and improvident, the execution of shipping articles are required by federal statute where the vessel is bound on a foreign voyage, or from a port in one state to a port in another. If these articles are not made seamen have the right to leave the vessel at any time, and may recover the highest rate of wages paid at their shipping port. The articles must be signed by the seaman and by the master, and the contract must be executed before the vessel proceeds on its voyage. The seaman is not bound by any new or unusual stipulation put into the articles affecting his rights without full knowledge of it, and especially when he cannot read and the stipulation is not read and explained to him. Once executed, the articles cannot be varied by a verbal agreement between master and seaman.

The articles must specify clearly and definitely the nature of the intended voyage, the port at which it is to end and its duration. Indefinite articles, leaving to the option of the master whether the voyage shall be long or to one or more foreign ports, or short to nearby domestic ports, are void. The articles must also state the amount of wages each seaman is to receive. Articles are void that fix a forfeiture of wages in excess of the amount named in the statute, or restrict the time in which seamen must sue for their wages. The contract may be dissolved by cruel treatment by the master and by an abandonment of the vessel without the master's consent, but not by the death, disability, removal or resignation of the master and the substitution of another. Besides the wages a seaman may recover, should the master break the contract, are his expenses in returning to the port of shipment including also general damages.

Claims for wages are "highly favored in admiralty courts," and discharges are not justified for trivial causes, nor for a single offense unless it is an aggravated one. Such causes are continued disobedience or insubordination, rebellious conduct, gross dishonesty, embezzlement or theft, habitual drunkenness, habitually stirring up quarrels, or by his own fault rendering himself incapable of performing duty. The master must receive back a seaman when he has thus been discharged who repents and offers to return to his duty and make satisfaction, unless the offense was of an aggravated character. This is the general rule, though from its nature there is much room for its application.

Statute of Frauds.—Some contracts must be in writing to comply with a statute called the Statute of Frauds, which has been enacted with variations in all the states. One of the most important sections relates to the conveyance of real estate. This requires that the agreement for its sale must be in writing. (See Agreement for Sale of Land.)

Another section relates to the sale of goods, wares and merchandise. This has not been enacted in every state. If the amount is above that mentioned in the statute, thirty to one hundred dollars, there must be a written contract or delivery and acceptance of the goods to constitute a contract. If A sells a bill of goods to B, who declines to receive them, and the contract is wholly verbal, he can shield himself behind this statute wherever it prevails. Many questions therefore arise, what is a delivery and acceptance? A delivery of a key of a building containing the property is sufficient. The delivery of a bill of lading of goods properly indorsed, making entries of the goods sold, pointing them out or identifying them is enough to comply with the statute. Whenever there has been a transfer of possession and control by the seller to the purchaser to which the latter has assented there has been a sale. Or, more broadly, whenever there has been such action as to show clearly an intention to sell and accept the property the sale is complete. Part payment of the purchase money for personal property is generally regarded as showing such intention.

To a contract for the manufacture of a thing the statute does not apply. Simple as this answer may be, the law soon gets into difficulties in deciding whether a contract is for the making of a thing, or for the thing itself; whether the important element is the skill or labor that is to be expended, or the thing without regard to the process of making. Thus, if a contract is with one to paint a portrait, the statute would not apply, for the skill of the artist is the important thing purchased, and not the canvas, paint, etc., he must use. To a contract for a locomotive the statute would apply. "If the contract states or implies that the thing is to be made by the seller, and also blends together the price of the thing and compensation for work, labor, skill and material, so that they cannot be discriminated, it is not a contract of purchase and sale, but a contract of hiring and service, or a bargain by which one party undertakes to labor in a certain way for the other party," and the statute does not apply to it.

Statutes of Limitation.—In all the states statutes have been enacted which provide that if the rights of parties to legal redress are not enforced within a specified period, the courts are closed to them. Thus, in most states a statute provides that a holder or owner of a promissory note who neglects to sue the debtor within six years from its maturity cannot do so afterwards. The note is not absolutely void, though the law presumes it has been paid. As the note is not void, payment may be effected as we shall soon learn.

Suppose one is indebted to a merchant, if the debt is not paid within six years in most states and nothing has happened, the debt in popular language is outlawed, in other words cannot be collected by resort to law. The time begins to run as soon as the debt has accrued; if it be a debt to a merchant, as soon as one has stopped trading with him. To the operation of this rule are some important exceptions. It does not run in favor of a minor, married woman or insane or imprisoned person; or not whenever or wherever they are not capable of contracting. But a disability arising after the statute has begun to run in his favor will not prevent it from running.

The Statute of Limitations generally bars the remedy or right to pursue the debtor in a court of law, it does not extinguish the right or debt, and therefore the right to pursue a debtor may be revived by a new promise to pay. One may ask, is not a debtor a foolish man to acknowledge that he is a debtor after the law has released him from his debt? Yes, from a purely selfish point of view. Nevertheless, the moral obligation remains, and happily all morality has not yet fled from the world. One may ask, is not such a promise void because there is no consideration received for it? No, for the reason that there was a consideration for the original obligation, and this is sufficient to sustain the renewed promise to pay it. In some states the statutes provide that such an acknowledgment to pay a debt after the statute has barred it, must be in writing, and signed by the debtor or his agent. The most general rule is, to remove the bar of the statute, there must be either an express promise to pay, or an acknowledgment of the debt accompanied by an expression of willingness to pay it. To simply acknowledge the existence of a debt is not enough, there must be indicated or expressed a willingness to pay.

A debt may also be revived by part payment. Payment on account of the principal, or payment of interest on the debt will prevent the statute from running against it. Payment to have that effect must be made with reference to the original debt and in such a way as to effect an acknowledgment of it.

While a debtor may always apply a payment to any one or more of different debts he owes his creditor, if he fails to do so the creditor can make the application even to a debt which is already barred by the statute, but his application will not remove the bar to the remainder of the debt. To have that effect the appropriation must be made by the debtor himself.

Statutes of limitation apply to many obligations, and the times or dates at which they become outlawed or outside the scope of legal redress, vary in the different states. In many of them an ordinary book account or negotiable note is outlawed after six years, and cannot be enforced after that time unless the debtor has revived it by a new promise or part payment. A judgment against one usually runs twenty years.

Telegraph and Telephone.—Though the business of a telegraph company is public in its nature, it is not a common carrier, and it may therefore set up reasonable regulations for the reception, transmission and delivery of messages. As it is a quasi public corporation, it must extend its services to all that apply therefor and offer to pay the charges. And if refusing it may be compelled to do these things. The company may charge more to one person than to another when the service is unlike, though not enough to amount to an unjust discrimination. The difference in charges must bear some relation to the different services rendered.

A telephone company cannot legally discriminate between two competing telegraph companies by giving one the telephone call word "Telegram" and thereby depriving the other telegraph company of business. Nor can a telephone company legally charge a higher rental for a telephone to a telegraph company than to any other patron. Nor can a telegraph company discriminate against another in refusing credit which is given to other responsible parties.

A strike may be a sufficient excuse for failure to have sent messages promptly, though not excusing a railroad company for failure to deliver freight as if no strike had happened. A state may impose a penalty on a telegraph company for failure to deliver promptly in the state messages coming from other states. And a state may impose a penalty on a telegraph company for failure to perform its clear common law duty to transmit messages without unreasonable delay, and this statute applies to messages to points outside the state if it relates to delay within the state. A state statute prohibiting telegraph companies from limiting their liability for the transmission of telegrams within the state is constitutional. The state may prohibit a telegraph company from transmitting racetrack news. A telegraph company must transmit a message unless it contains indecent language. Nor is it liable for libel in transmitting a telegram stating that a person had been bought up.

It is reasonable for a telegraph company to close its office on holidays, except two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon, and therefore is not liable for delay in transmitting a message because of this delay. The unauthorized writing out and sending of a telegram in another person's name is a forgery.

When a telegram must pass over two connecting lines the receiving company may require the sender to designate what route the message is to take, and to pay an extra charge for the words indicating such route. A telegraph company is not privileged in transmitting messages, but they should not be made public, except to produce them when legally required in court. Under the New York statutes it is a criminal offense for a telegraph employee to divulge the contents of a telegram to any other person than the addressee, except when it relates to unlawful business. In that case the employee may give information to the public officer who is prosecuting the unlawful sender. It is a criminal offense to open or read a sealed telegram, or to tap a telegraph wire in order to read messages in course of transmission.

In regulating the receipt, transmission and delivery of telegraph messages, the rules differ from those that are to be transmitted within the state from the rules for interstate messages. The rules with respect to the latter are governed by the Interstate Commerce Act of 1910, state messages are governed by the laws of their respective states. By the federal law, therefore, a telegraph company providing one rate for unrepeated messages, and another and higher rate for those repeated, may stipulate for a reasonable limitation of its responsibility when the lower rate is paid. And if the contract provides that for any damage resulting from sending the telegram, the sender must give notice within sixty days, he is bound by this stipulation, and is without redress if he delays to act beyond the time.

Torts or Wrongs.—"A tort is an act or omission which unlawfully violates a person's right created by the law, and for which the appropriate remedy is a common law action for damages by the injured person." The right that is violated is private and not public, which marks off a tort from a crime. Again, the wrongful act may be a violation of both a private and public right, in which case both the individual and the state have a remedy against the wrongdoer. Thus A without excuse attacks B and bruises his nose. B has an action to recover damages against him for despoiling his countenance; the state also may proceed against him in a criminal action for his breach of the public peace. Another illustration may be given. A clerk embezzles money from his bank. It sues him and perhaps his bondsmen and recovers the money. Embezzlement, however, is a criminal offense, and the recovery of the money taken does not affect in any way the right of the state to proceed against the embezzler. Indeed, an individual who has been wronged cannot by any restitution or settlement that he may make with the wrongdoer impair the right of the state to punish him.

Torts or wrongs are very numerous for which the wrongdoer may be held liable. The first to be mentioned is false imprisonment. The law punishes false imprisonment as a crime; the person unlawfully imprisoned also has a civil action for damages. A person is said to be imprisoned "in any case where he is arrested by force and against his will, although it be on the high street or elsewhere and not in a house." Mere words are not an arrest. If an officer says, "I arrest you," and you run away, there is no arrest. But if an officer touches you and takes you into custody there is an arrest even though you run away afterward.

A malicious prosecution is another wrong. A person who brings his action for this wrong must prove four things: first, that the prosecution has terminated in the complainant's favor; second, that it was instituted maliciously; third, that it was brought without probable cause; fourth, that it damaged or injured the complainant. The term malice means something more than "the intentional doing of a wrongful act to the injury of another without legal excuse." It means that the original prosecutor was actuated by some "improper or sinister motive." The term "probable cause" requires explanation. Nothing is better settled, says one of the courts, than this, that when the person who brings such an action against another "submits his facts to his attorney, who advises they are sufficient, and he acts thereon in good faith, such advice is a defense to an action for malicious prosecution." That such advice may be a good defense a full and honest disclosure of all the facts must be made to him. Such advice will not serve as a screen if based on a fragmentary, incomplete statement of facts.

A very common tort is an assault and battery. A person who threatens another with immediate personal violence, having the means and opportunity for executing the threat, commits an assault for which damages may be recovered in a proper action. To raise a club over the head of another and threaten to strike if he speaks, would be an assault. "Absence of intent," says Burdick, "on the part of the defendant to put the plaintiff in fear of bodily harm, is pertinent to the defense that the injury was accidental, or due to a practical joke."

A battery, as distinguished from an assault, is the inflicting of actual violence on a person, though the degree of violence is immaterial. The least touching of another in anger, or as a trespasser, is a battery. Forcibly cutting the hair of a person without legal authority, or injuring the clothing on a person, or snatching an article from his hand, or cutting a rope or belt attached to him, or striking a horse on which one is riding, or that is attached to his carriage, or overturning a chair in which he is seated, is a battery; likewise, if the assailant throws a stone or missile which hits the other, or spits in his face.

There may be a justifiable assault, the law has long recognized this. A public officer is justified in using force in performing his duty, so is a private individual in defending himself, his family or his property, or in enforcing lawful discipline at home, in school, on board a ship, or other public conveyance, or in restraining one mentally or physically incapacitated.

Another injury for which the law furnishes redress is that affecting reputation and character. It is true that the damages one may recover, however great, may be an inadequate redress, yet it is the best the law can do. The party injured by a libel or slander brings his action and wins his victory over his enemy, yet the battlefield remains and the scar of the wound inflicted. The issue in an action for defamation is not the character of the plaintiff, but the wrongfulness of the particular statement. Therefore "it is not a defense to a libel or slander that the plaintiff has been guilty of offenses other than those imputed to him, or of offenses of a similar character; and such facts are not competent in mitigation of damages."

As the gist of the tort consists of the injury done to one's reputation, the defamatory statement must have been published. A person has no cause of action against another for defamatory words spoken to him; they must have been heard by a third person. The plaintiff may make out a case by showing that the libel was contained on the back of a postal card, or by other evidence that makes it a matter of reasonable inference that the libelous matter was brought to the actual knowledge of a third person.

A person who voluntarily engages in the interchange of opprobrious epithets and mutual vituperation and abuse has been held to license his antagonist to reply in like manner. "The right to answer a libel by libel is analogous to the right to defend one's self against an assault upon his person. The resistance may be carried to a successful termination, but the means used must be reasonable." Common carriers, news-vendors, proprietors of circulating libraries and others who are merely unconscious vehicles for carrying defamation generally escape liability for its publication.

If the publication of a libel is the result of the joint efforts of several persons, each is responsible for the wrong done to the plaintiff. If A writes a libel, and B prints it and C publishes it, the person wronged may sue all jointly, or either one of them separately. The publication of the same slander by different persons is not a joint tort, it is a distinct wrong done by each slanderer.

There are distinctions between libel and slander that must be now stated. Slander is applied to oral speech or its equivalent, libel to matters expressed in writing or print, pictures, effigies or other visible and permanent forms. Libel is a criminal offense as well as a tort, while the slander of private persons is not a common law crime; but some forms of slander are crimes by statute. Falsely and maliciously to charge one with committing a felony or other indictable offense involving moral turpitude is in some states a crime. Scandalous matter is not necessary to make a libel. "It is enough if the defendant induces an ill opinion to be held of the plaintiff, or to make him contemptible or ridiculous." Says Burdick: "Any censorious or ridiculing writing, picture or sign made intentionally and without just cause and excuse is a libel upon its victim. The degree of censure or ridicule is not material. If the language is such that others, knowing the circumstances, would reasonably think it defamatory of the person complaining of and injured by it, then it is actionable."

In many cases of libels which affect the victim chiefly or solely in his office or vocation their tendency to cause injury is so clear that proof may be unnecessary. Thus, to import insanity or incompetency to a professional man, or that a public official is dishonest and corrupt is actionable. And when a libelous publication is directed against a class or body of persons, for example, the medical staff of a public hospital, any member of the body may maintain an action for the wrong.

A corporation has no character like a natural person to defend, but a defamatory charge which directly affects its credit and injures its business reputation is an actionable one. On the other hand as a corporation must transact its business and perform its duties through natural persons it is now well settled that a corporation is liable in damages for slander, as it is for other torts.

Slanderous words that are actionable have been thus classified by the United States Supreme Court: "(1) words falsely spoken of a person which impute to the party the commission of some criminal offense involving moral turpitude, for which the party, if the charge be true, may be indicted and punished; (2) words falsely spoken of a person which impute that the party is infected with some infectious disease, where, if the charge is true, it would exclude him from society; (3) defamatory words falsely spoken of a person which impute to the party unfitness to perform the duties of an office or employment of profit or the want of integrity in the discharge of his duties of such office or employment; (4) defamatory words falsely spoken of a party which prejudice such party in his or her profession or trade."

The damages may be either nominal, one dollar is often given in such cases, or compensatory, larger damages, as a punishment. The amount rendered is within the province of the jury, but courts do not hesitate to modify or set aside verdicts which are deemed excessive or too meager.

The defenses in such actions may be briefly described. The truth of the charge is a complete defense to a civil action for slander or libel, because "the law will not permit a man to recover damages in respect to an injury to a character which he either does not or ought not to possess." A privileged communication is another defense. The heads of the executive departments of government are absolutely privileged for defamatory statements made by them while acting within the limits of their authority. Their motives do not become the subject of inquiry in a civil suit for damages. Judicial officers are shielded by this rule while discharging their duties. The publication of judicial proceedings is conditionally privileged. The condition is that the proceedings are public, are decent and fit for publication, that the reports are full and fair, and that their publication is not inspired by malice. Says Burdick: "The reports of such proceedings are usually made without reference to the individuals concerned, and for the information and benefit of the public. The law, therefore, presumes that they are made in good faith." The full and fair reports of parliamentary and legislative proceedings are also conditionally privileged as well as the reports of judicial proceedings, and for the same reasons. The publication of the proceedings of quasi public bodies, like state, medical, and ecclesiastical societies has been deemed conditionally privileged. But "professional publishers of news are not exempt, or a privileged class, from the consequences of damage done by false news. Their communications are not privileged merely because made in public journals." Statements rendered by mercantile or collection agencies to inquirers for business purposes are clearly privileged. But whether the circulation among all their subscribers of a sheet containing such statements is privileged is a disputed question among the courts. Again, every statement made with the object of protecting some interest of the writer or speaker and which is reasonably necessary for such purpose is conditionally privileged. Fair comment is another defense. The most frequent subjects of fair comment from which spring actions for defamations are the character and conduct of public men or candidates for office; and literary, artistic, or commercial productions offered to the public. Whether a particular statement is an unfair aspersion of one's personal character, or a fair comment on his public conduct, is a question usually for the jury.

At common law a defamer could not insist on an opportunity to retract or apologize, but he could give in evidence any apology or retraction to lessen the damages. This rule has formed the basis of a statute in some of the states. Though attacked on constitutional grounds, it has been sustained in Minnesota, North Carolina and perhaps in other commonwealths. Where it can be made, the apology and retraction must be full, fair, prompt.

Passing to private nuisances, a wrong or tort consists in wrongfully disturbing one in the reasonably comfortable use and enjoyment of his property. Ordinarily the motive of the wrongdoer is not material in determining his maintenance of a nuisance. Some things and trades are considered as nuisances of themselves, for example, a slaughter house in a large town, a pigsty near a dwelling house, a house of ill fame, the fouling of a spring, well or stream; keeping a large quantity of explosives near a public dwelling, or animals or other property dangerous to human life. Likewise, a hospital that operates to destroy the peace, quiet and comfort of those in adjoining residences, affects their health and value of their property is a private nuisance, against which action may be taken for its removal or abatement. Public cemeteries come under the same ban. They will not be adjudged a nuisance simply because they offend the fancy, delicacy, or fastidiousness of neighbors, or even depreciate the value of adjoining property.

When a business is carried on, structures are erected, or excavations are made which are nuisances, the actor is liable in damages for them whether he exercised due care in constructing and maintaining them or not. The same rule applies to the owner or keeper of a savage and dangerous animal.

Acts of discomfort that amount to a nuisance are such as produce this effect to persons of ordinary sensibility who live in the locality where the nuisance exists. Noises, odors, smoke, or dust may constitute an actionable nuisance in one locality and not in another. If the nuisances are from ordinary musical instruments in the dwelling of a neighbor, or from his children, yet are only of a kind that may be expected in such a neighborhood, they must be borne, unless prohibited by law. On the other hand, the same amount of noise caused by horses in the basement of an adjoining house is an actionable nuisance.

A temporary annoyance is quite another thing. The erection of an iron building near a dwelling might, during the period of construction, cause great noise and discomfort, yet the occupier of the dwelling would have no remedy. But there is a limit to the conduct of the annoyer. He must act reasonably. He cannot blast rock, or hammer metal, or operate noisy steam drills at all hours of the day and night. He must conform to the habits of the community, and not unreasonably disturb his neighbors, during ordinary working hours. There is a distinction also between acts that annoy and those that injure adjoining property. Generally acts of the latter kind are actionable. If one fixes his residence near a nuisance, formerly he had no remedy. This is no longer the law. When, however, a court is asked to enjoin or stop a useful and lawful business in a place, the court will inquire whether the business has long existed and the place has grown up by reason of its existence. If this prove to be the case a court will reluctantly interfere. Yet, if the business is actually harmful to health or injurious to property, it will be enjoined however great the loss may be to the owner.

While a land owner is not liable for a nuisance created on his land by a stranger, whose acts cannot in any way be attributed to him, he is liable for a nuisance resulting from a licensee's use of his property. Thus, if a licensee by attaching a wire to a chimney converts it into a nuisance to passers-by, the land owner who knowingly permits the nuisance to continue will be liable for the damages that result. Nor can one who has fouled a stream or the air, or who indulges in disturbing noises, defend himself for doing these things by showing that others did them before he began.

As a person acts at his peril in maintaining a nuisance, so is the owner of trespassing cattle liable for all the harm done by them, whether he knows of their disposition to do harm or not. But he is not liable for harm done by them while they are driven along the highway without negligence on the driver's part; nor is he liable for mischief done by them to the person or personal property of one at other times without knowledge of their viciousness or other proof of negligence. Nor is he liable by the common law as an insurer against all damage done by them when they escape from his land.

When vicious animals are kept for any purpose and are a menace to human beings they are a nuisance. Hence, they may be killed without incurring liability, and should they do damage their owner or responsible keeper must answer for it. If the animal be a vicious dog, the owner must exercise a degree of care commensurate with the danger to others following his escape from custody, and must secure it from injuring anyone who does not unlawfully provoke or intermeddle with the animal.

By the early common law a person who started a fire, even for a needful and lawful purpose, was responsible for the consequences. This rule has been modified with time. "A person," says Burdick, "does not start a fire on his land at his peril. If it spreads beyond his premises and harms others his liability for the harm must be grounded on his negligence. The same is true of his liability for electricity escaping from his control. In both cases the care he must exercise in guarding the dangerous element varies with the hazard to which it exposes others."

The liability of a person who keeps explosives is not absolute, unless he is maintaining a nuisance. Otherwise he is liable only when negligent. If he is ignorant of the character of the explosive, and without fault in not knowing, his duty of care is fixed by the apparent character of the article. Suppose a carrier was carrying a trunk containing an explosive of which he had no knowledge or reason for supposing was there, surely he would not be held liable if it exploded and caused injury.

The liability of a manufacturer, seller, lender, or user of things is not that of an insurer in making, selling, lending or using them. But he does incur liability whenever he fails to exercise such care as is fairly needful to protect others against the hazard in buying and using them. A druggist, therefore, who affixes a wrong label to a bottle of medicine and thereby injures a person who uses it is responsible. And the rule would apply whether the taker was the purchaser or some other person.

When persons are invited on one's premises for mutual advantage, the inviter owes the duty of ordinary care. He is not an insurer of their safety, nor need he exercise extraordinary care in guarding them from harm, unless there was unusual danger. Suppose a man had a way which persons used in going to and from his business, and he began to dig a well near the way and left the place unprotected during its construction, undoubtedly the owner would be liable. Suppose the well was a considerable distance from the way where persons did not usually go and had no occasion for going. Then he would not be liable. How far away from the road could he dig without thought of the public? The answer would depend on the facts in the case.

A somewhat different rule has been applied to children. Although a child of tender years who meets with an injury on the premises of a private owner may be a technical trespasser, yet the owner may be liable, if the things causing the injury have been left exposed and unguarded, and are of such a nature as to be attractive to children, appealing to their childish curiosity and instincts. Unguarded premises, which are thus supplied with dangerous attractions, are regarded as holding out implied invitations to children. There has been a great deal of controversy over this important rule. Those opposed say, if everywhere applied, it would render the owner of a fruit tree, for example, liable for damages to a trespassing boy who, in attempting to get the fruit, should fall from the tree and be injured. Professor Burdick, after a full review of the cases, says that the tide of judicial opinion is setting the other way. Children, therefore, who invade the premises of a person without any right are trespassers like older people. The duty of caring for children remains with their parents and guardians; and if they are injured while unlawfully going on the land of others their parents cannot visit the consequences of their neglect on the owners of the land where the injuries happened.