·v. City 01 Bridgetown,
(Dist. Ga.) 9 Cent. L. J. 206; The Civil Rights Bill, (W. Dist. N. Car.) 1 Hughes, 541. See note to U. S. v. Buntin, 10 FEP. REP. 730. They cannot classify their passengers on the basis of their morality. Brown v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 5 FED. REP. 499; 12 Cent. L. J. 442; 11 Rep. 424. The reasonableness of regulations is a mixed question of law and fact; to be found by the jury, under the instructions of the court. Dall v. Owen, 5 Mich. 520; Bass v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. 36 Wis. 450; Com. v. Powe?, 7 Mete. 596; Jencks v. Coleman, 2 Sumn. 221; Bnwn v. Memphis, etc., R. Co. 4 FED. REP. 37. It is a :pure question of fact. State v. Overton, 24 N. J. Eq. (4 Zab.) 435; Morris, etc., R. Co. v. Ayres, 29 N. J. Eq. 393; (but see Bass O. & N. W. Ry. Co. SUp1'a.) Contra, it is a question of law for the court. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. v Williams, 55 Ill. 185, 188. If there is no sitting room in the cars, and there is. in the ladies' car, g.entlemen passengers cannot be left standing without a breach of the contrlj.Ct of carriage; but the officers of the train may select those who are to entel'the ladies' car. Ba88 v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. 36 Wis. 450.-[REp.
MEYERSON t1. ALTER.·
(Oz'rcuit Court, E. D. Louisiana. January, 1882.)
M'LYCIOTTS PUOSECUTION-MARRIED WOMEN.
A suit for damages for the malicious progecutlon of a marrIed woman must be brought Ly her husband. Louisiana Code of .Practice, art. 107 i Louisiana Civil (Jode, art. 2404.
IIenry J. Lovy and E. B. Kmttschnidt, for plaintiff. A. G. Brice, for defendant. BILLINGS, D. J. This is a suit brought by a wife to recover damages for a malicious prosecution. Her husband has subsequently authorized her bringing the suit, but comes "solely to assist her in prosecuting this suit, and as husband does not claim any share in said damages, but joins her to claim the same in her behalf." The exception interposed by the defendant is that this action must be brought by the husband. It is evident that if the exception be well taken it has not been cured by the paper filed by the husband. So far as the right in law on the part of his wife to maintain the suit, he leaves the matter where he finds it. He does not even do anything which would make him liable for costs. He simply assents that she carryon the suit herself in her own beha.!f·
WERTHEIN V. CON'rINENTAL RAILWAY & TRUST 00.
The textual provisions of the law on this subject are found in the Code of Practice, art. 107, and Civil Code, art. 2404. A series of decisions by the supreme court of Louisana have comtrued these provisions to mean that where it does not appear that the wife is administering her own property, actions of this sort must be brought by the husband. The mere joinder of the wife has been treated as surplusage. But no case has held that the mere assent of the husband is sufficient. The action must be brought by the 'husband. Holmes v. Holmes, 9 La. 350; Cowand v. Pulley, 9 La. 12; Barton v.' K<1vanaugh, 12 La. Ann. 332; Cooper Cappel, 29 La. Ann. 213. Thi.s would be the law if the marriage had been contraded and the domicile of the parties to the marria.ge '1la4 been within this state. Civil Cod,e, art. 2400, subjects mar,ried persons" to the same provisions of law "as regul/l;te the cqm· munity of aequests and gains between citizens of this' state," so far as relates to "all property acquired in state." It is not necessary to give any technical meanjng to the word "property" as used by the legislature. The object of the legislature, namely, to subject nonresidents who acquire rights within this state to the same rules as those which govern resident is manifest, and leaves no doubt but that the word "property" included not only land and chattels, real and personal, but also all chases in action. The exception must be
GOMPERTZ 'V. CoNTINENTAL RULWAY
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Oonnecticut. May l8, 1882.)
PRACTICE-DILATORY PLEAS-WAIVER OF RIGHT.
Where the rule of practice of the state court, rigidly observed, Is that Cl all pleas in abatement in the superior court must be filed on or before the opening of the court on the day following the return-day of the writ," a failure to file such plea within the time specified is a waiver of his right to take advantage in that court of defective or insufficient service.
SAME-ON REMOVAL OF CAUSE.
Where a defendant in a state court has lost by his inaction t.he, right to object
to the defective service of the complaint, and thereafter removes the (:ause to
the circuit court of the Unitej States, he cannot be permitted in such circuit court to plead in abatement such defedive sel'Vice·