Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Evidence Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Evidence

Recent Important Decisions, Michigan Law Review Jun 1922

Recent Important Decisions, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

No abstract provided.


Recent Important Decisions, Michigan Law Review May 1922

Recent Important Decisions, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Assignments- Assignment of an Expectancy - Joseph and James were two of six children. A contract witnessed "that Joseph Snyder has sold to James Snyder one undivided sixth of the real estate owned by the mother, Susan Snyder; to secure said interest to James after her death, the mother unites in the conveyance of said interest The said Joseph warrants and defends the interest from all claims." The contract was signed by Joseph and by the mother. Held, Joseph had no estate which he could convey, and the contract, though made with the consent of the mother, was unenforceable either …


Note And Comment, Edwin C. Goddard, George Seletto, Edson R. Sunderland, Victor H. Lane, Burke Shartel, George E. Longstaff May 1922

Note And Comment, Edwin C. Goddard, George Seletto, Edson R. Sunderland, Victor H. Lane, Burke Shartel, George E. Longstaff

Michigan Law Review

Carriers - Second Cummins Amendment - It was seven years after the Carmack Amendment of the Hepburn Act of i9o6 before the Supreme Court began that series of decisions, extending from Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491 (1913), to George N. Pierce Co. v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 236 U. S. 278 (1915), which directly resulted in the First Cummins Amendment of March, 1915. One has only to read those cases, reviewed in 13 Micn. L. REv. 59o, and other notes referred to in 17 MICH. L. Rzv. 183, to see that the language of the Cummins …


Note And Comment, George E. Longstaff, George L. Clark, Edwin D. Dickinson Mar 1922

Note And Comment, George E. Longstaff, George L. Clark, Edwin D. Dickinson

Michigan Law Review

Constitutionality of the LA Follette Amendment to the Internal Revenue Law of 1921 - The United States Senate on November 5, 1921, inserted in the Revenue Act, then before the Senate, a provision that taxpayers in their income tax returns must specify what state and municipal bonds they hold, or else be subject to a penalty of five per cent. That provision was dropped out in conference, but it will come up again, and it is well to look at its constitutionality under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting unreasonable searches.