Search

The article presents recent decisions rendered by the U.S. Courts. In one of the cases, the owner of mortgaged property against which foreclosure proceedings had been pending for three years in the state courts formed a corporation and conveyed the property to it. The corporation assumed the indebtedness and immediately sought reorganization. The district court denied the application on the ground that it was not filed in good faith. The corporation appealed. It was held that the formation of the corporation solely to take over the property and to reorganize did not of itself show bad faith.

The article discusses that title owned by people by adverse possession. This sounds, at first blush, like title by theft or robbery, a primitive method of acquiring land without paying for it. When the novice is told that by the weight of authority not even good faith is a requisite, the doctrine apparently affords an anomalous instance of maturing a wrong into a right contrary to one of the most fundamental axioms of the law. The policy of statutes of limitation is something not always clearly appreciated.

This article illustrates that the basic political institutions in the U.S. are based on the assumption of bad faith. There is only one alternative to the assumption of bad faith, and that is the assumption of good faith. The former assumption is one of fear or cautiousness, the latter is one of confidence. The assumption of good faith expects much, and risks abuse of confidence. The basic political institutions may be regarded as being four in number. The first of these is the institution of federalism. The U.S. is the only one of the family of nations possessed of a government which is organized on the federal principle. In the second place, there is the presidential or non-parliamentary system of government. This system is based on a special interpretation of the doctrine of the separation of powers. The third basic institution of government is that of judicial supremacy. In respect of its peculiar character and effects, no other country approaches the U.S. Finally, a typically U.S. institution is known as constitutional limitations. Everyone with a knowledge of the conditions under which the constitution of the country was framed and ratified knows that the form of union which was established resulted from fear of a strong central government.

The article provides an ethical guidelines for public administrators. An experienced administrator learns in time that the most serious and difficult ethical problems arise out of conflicts of loyalty and conflicts of involvements, activities, and commitments outside of his job which would bias his judgment on the job, or reduce his motivation to do a good job in the public interest. Conflicts of loyalty tend to be more difficult to contain. They result from the growing size and complexity of governmental organizations, the wide range and interaction of governmental functions, and the necessary practice of vesting discretion in officials at various points and many levels of the governmental organization. This delegation of discretion is authorized by law on the assumption that it will be exercised wisely and in good faith, and it is done because it is necessary in order to secure high performance. The administrative system that has evolved thus rests equally on a foundation of professional competence and personal integrity. Where there is discretion, there is uncertainty, and there may be conflicting obligations and loyalties. In dealing with this situation, the administrator is subject to a double hierarchy of authority, one impersonal and one personal, which defines his obligations.

The article focuses on a recent statute related to landlord and tenant in which a liability has been imposed on landlords for bad faith evictions under federal housing legislation. Proof of the landlord's good faith intention to occupy the premises is one of the grounds for evicting a tenant under federal housing law. It is very difficult at the time of the eviction proceedings for the tenant to contest the state of mind of the landlord. Even if the landlord's subsequent failure to occupy the vacated premises suggests his original lack of good faith, events following a judgment do not furnish grounds for setting it aside.

The article discusses on judicial procedures and decisions in case of offenses. The article presents some examples of larceny. A finder of lost goods is not guilty of larceny thereof, where he had no felonious intent to withhold them from the owner at the time they were found, though he afterward appropriated them to his own use. A request to charge that if defendant found prosecutor's pocketbook, and either knew, or ascertained, to whom it belonged, and on demand of the owner denied having it, or did not voluntarily return it to him, he would be guilty of larceny, was erroneous as eliminating the idea of good faith in making inquiry for the owner, or the absence of a felonious intent at the time of the original taking. An instruction that if defendant found prosecutor's pocketbook, and contents, and within a reasonable time thereafter made inquiry as to the ownership thereof, defendant was not guilty of larceny as charged, unless he knew, or soon learned, who the owner was, and denied having it, was rendered erroneous by the addition of such quoted clause.

This article focuses on the judicial decision made against the case "Communication Workers of America v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co." concerning the laws related to the arbitrability of compulsory retirement of employees. The court granted summary judgment compelling arbitration of a dispute concerning the involuntary retirement with pension of an employee of over thirty years on the ground that the union's claim that the employee's seniority rights had been violated was arbitrable under the terms of the contract. Reversing the lower court, the tenth circuit found that compulsory retirement doubtless threatens an employee's continued tenure of employment, a right arguably protected by the seniority provisions of, the contract. The court rejected the argument that Article VII of the collective bargaining agreement which provided that a claim that benefits under the Employee's Pension Plan had been diminished or reduced discriminatorily or in bad faith was arbitrable, precluded submission of other issues relating to the Pension Plan to arbitration.