even though it was consummated on Sunday, unless the fact that it was made on Sunday, and consequently was unlawful of itself, took it out of the scope of the agent's authority to make it. And here lies the stress of the case." The agent's authority was general and unrestricted, and the court says that the mere fact that an agent in the course of exercising a delegated authority himself violates a prohibitive statute, does not liberate or discharge the principal from the obligation of the contract, if it be one within the scope of the agent's authority. Hamlyn v. Houston & Co., L. R. (1903) I K. B. 81, is quoted at length on this point, and the court also relies on Evans v. Davidson, 53 Md. 249, 36 Am. Rep. 400.

TENANT. (QUIET ENJOYment-DestrUCTION OF BUILDING INJUNCTION-MODIFICATION.)

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT.

In Benedict . International Banking Corporation, 85 New York Supplement 188, the appeal was from an order modifying an injunction so as to permit the purchaser of a building to tear down that portion of it above the room of which plaintiff was a tenant in such a way as not to interfere unreasonably with plaintiff's quiet enjoyment, and so that plaintiff's roof would not be removed until another was placed over him. The injunction had previously been modified so as to permit defendant to tear down the rear of the building after securing plaintiff with the facilities which might be thus interfered with. The present order marked a subsequent modification. The court held that the first order had gone far enough, and that it was improper to permit defendant to proceed to any extent that it might think would be

proper and would not unreasonably interfere with the plaintiff.

X-RAY. (NEGLIGENT USE BY

PHYSICIAN-NONTHERAPEUTIC EMPLOYMENT ELECTRICIAN EXPERT WITNESS.)

AS

MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT.

In Henslin v. Wheaton, 97 Northwestern Reporter 882, occurs one of the earliest cases determining the liability of a physician in the use of the X-ray. Plaintiff, in the belief that a gold crown from his tooth had lodged in his lungs, went to defendant, a firm of physicians, to have the foreign body located. The X-ray was employed for the purpose, and plaintiff claimed to have sustained an "X-ray burn," resulting from its negligent application. The court says this. is the first case of its kind to come before it, and no rule of care in such cases has been laid down; but there can be no doubt that the degree of care and skill required of physicians toward their patients in other cases applies, which is merely the exercise of such reasonable care and skill as is usually given. by practitioners in good standing. The court then holds that as the X-ray was employed merely mechanically to disclose the presence of a foreign substance in the body, and not as a therapeutic agent, the defendants were not entitled to have testimony bearing on their use of it proceed only from physicians, but that the testimony of an expert in electrical matters was competent though he was not a doctor. The case is thus taken out of the rule announced in Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255, 77 Northwestern 813, in which a physician sued for malpractice was he'd entitled to have the propriety of his treatment tested by physicians of his own school of practice.

even though it was consummated on Sunday, unless the fact that it was made on Sunday, and consequently was unlawful of itself, took it out of the scope of the agent's authority to make it.. And here lies the stress of the case." The agent's authority was general and unrestricted, and the court says that the mere fact that an agent in the course of exercising a delegated authority himself violates a prohibitive statute, does not liberate or discharge the principal from the obligation of the contract, if it be one within the scope of the agent's authority. Hamlyn v. Houston & Co., L. R. (1903) I K. B. 81, is quoted at length on this point, and the court also relies on Evans v. Davidson, 53 Md. 249, 36 Am. Rep. 400.

TENANT. (QUIET ENJOYMENT-DESTRUCTION OF BUILDING

INJUNCTION-MODIFICATION.)

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT.

In Benedict v. International Banking Corporation, 85 New York Supplement 188, the appeal was from an order modifying an injunction so as to permit the purchaser of a building to tear down that portion of it above the room of which plaintiff was a tenant in such a way as not to interfere unreasonably with plaintiff's quiet enjoyment, and so that plaintiff's roof would not be removed until another was placed over him. The injunction had previously been modified so as to permit defendant to tear down the rear of the building after securing plaintiff with the facilities which might be thus interfered with. The present order marked a subsequent modification. The court held that the first order had gone far enough, and that it was improper to permit defendant to proceed to any extent that it might think would be

MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT.

In Henslin . Wheaton, 97 Northwestern Reporter 882, occurs one of the earliest cases determining the liability of a physician in the use of the X-ray. Plaintiff, in the belief that a gold crown from his tooth had lodged in his lungs, went to defendant, a firm of physicians, to have the foreign body. located. The X-ray was employed for the purpose, and plaintiff claimed to have sustained an "X-ray burn," resulting from its negligent application. The court says this is the first case of its kind to come before it, and no rule of care in such cases has been laid down; but there can be no doubt that the degree of care and skill required of physicians toward their patients in other cases applies, which is merely the exercise of such reasonable care and skill as is usually given by practitioners in good standing. The court then holds that as the X-ray was employed merely mechanically to disclose the presence of a foreign substance in the body, and not as a therapeutic agent, the defendants were not entitled to have testimony bearing on their use of it proceed only from physicians, but that the testimony of an expert in electrical matters was competent. though he was not a doctor. The case is thus taken out of the rule announced in Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255, 77 Northwestern 813, in which a physician sued for malpractice was he'd entitled to have the propriety of his treatment tested by physicians of his own school of practice.