« PreviousContinue »
has been saved for the novel features above mentioned. Treatises are described by the short title or the substance of the subject discussed, without superfluous words; but all details necessary to identify the work or the edition are retained. The titles of reports of cases are still more concise. The date and place of their publication are seldom given, and the period covered by them is only found in the proper chronological list in another part of the volume.
The Subject Index is elaborate in its classification, and abounds in cross references; while the adoption of devices for indicating recent works or editions, and the nationality and language of all, will save many a fruitless reference to the catalogue or the shelves. This feature will prove especially convenient in libraries where the books are arranged alphabetically, instead of being grouped by subjects.
For all but members of the Institute — perhaps for them — the voluminous lists and tables, comprising nearly one-fourth of the volume, will possess the most interest. They have evidently been prepared with great care and labor, and their value can hardly be overstated.
The printing is, on the whole, well done, though we have noticed occasional errors which another revise would probably have corrected. The most obvious test of accuracy in details is to examine the spelling of names, especially of those whose peculiarities are liable to be overlooked, and which are not infrequently misspelled in citation and even in catalogues. By way of examples, if Daveis, Macnaghten, and Waterhous are found to be correct, and if the distinction is preserved between such names as Drewry and Drury, Giffard and Gifford, Thompson with and Thomson without, a strong presumption of general accuracy is raised. This catalogue bears this test very creditably. The errors which we have noted are not numerous enough to impair confidence; and we congratulate the profession upon a really valuable addition to their books of reference.
Reports of Cases argued and determined in the District Courts of the United
States within the Second Circuit. By ROBERT D. BENEDICT. Vol. V. New York: Baker, Voorhis, & Co. 1874.
This volume contains cases from February, 1871, to March, 1872; and the latest decisions are thus two years old. That there might be more promptness in getting out these reports is obvious, but we are not sure that any complaint which we might make on this ground might not fairly be met with the tu quoque argument; and we will therefore content ourselves with noticing some of the many important cases decided.
In the Matter of Brown, p. 1, decides that a debt on which a judgment has been entered against the bankrupt after the commencement of the bankruptcy proceedings, may be proved in such proceedings. See 6 Am. Law Rev. 540..
United States v. Baker, p. 25, is the charge of Judge Blatchford to the jury in the noted sugar case of William F. Weld & Co.
The G. H. Starbuck, p. 53, is a case of novel impression. The owners of a ship filed a libel in rem against a tug, alleging that, while their ship was lying at anchor ready for sea, the tug came alongside and took off eight seamen; and they sought to recover damages for the delay caused thereby,
and the advance wages paid to the seamen. The principal point involved was not decided, the court finding that the libellants had not shown knowledge on the part of those in charge of the tug that they were committing an unlawful act.
In The Kate Tremaine, p. 60, it is held that a wharfinger is not a materialman within the 12th admiralty rule, and that he has a maritime lien upon a domestic vessel for wharfage. Judge Benedict expresses the opinion that the results which have attended the case of The General Smith have not been sufficiently beneficial to call for any extension of the rule of that case.
Weaver v. McLellan, p. 79, is an interesting case at the present time. The pilotage law of New York requires “foreign vessels and vessels under register" to take pilots or to pay half-pilotage. Held, that a vessel of another state of this country, sailing under a fishing license, did not come within the act.
In The J. F. Spencer, p. 151, on the subject of appropriation of payments, the court followed The Antarctic, 1 Sprague, 209. But this case was held not to apply to a running account in The A. R. Dunlap, 1 Lowell, 361; and this case Judge Benedict does not appear to have known.
The Surplus and Remnants of the Ship Edith, p. 432, brings up the vexed question whether a hien given by a state statute can be enforced against proceeds in the registry in admiralty. We think Judge Blatchford's views are rather narrow, and not in accordance with the modern cases. • The Steamship Aleppo, p. 554, is a collision case growing out of the running down of the bark Merrimac off Boston harbor in April, 1871. The steamer was held in fault in running at a too great rate of speed and in porting instead of starboarding.
Reports of Cases arising under Letters Patent for Inventions, determined in the
Courts of the United States. By SAMUEL S. FISHER, Counsellor-at-law. Vol. V. Cincinnati: Robert Clark & Co. 1874.
This volume is printed and bound in the admirable style which has distinguished its predecessors in this series; and the only fault which we can find with it is that its label, “ U. S. Circuit Courts," is inaccurate.
It contains the reports of more than eighty cases decided between April, 1869, and October, 1872, in the first eight circuits and the Supreme Court.
As usual with the author, his statements of the cases and his head-notes are clear and brief; and the illustrations of the mechanisms in controversy add greatly to the value of the book.
Among the cases of interest reported we note the following:
In Graham v. Mason, 1, it is said by the court (Clifford and Lowell, JJ.), that where an answer to a bill in equity for infringement sets up want of norelty, but does not allege the names and places of residence of those who have possessed prior knowledge of the thiny patented, nor where the same had been used, objection to these defects must, in general, be taken by exception to the answer, as they are the proper subjects of amendment. This decision was before the Act of 1870, which, as it seems by the late case of U. P. B. M. Co. v. Newell (Pat. Off. Gaz., April 21, 1874), has altered the law in this respect.
In Dubois v. P. W. & B. R.R., 208, it is held, by Giles, J., that, in an
action at law for infringement, a defendant may not avail himself of want of novelty as a defence, if, in another suit against him by the same plain- .. tiff, this defence has been set up, and the issue found for the plaintiff, notwithstanding the defendant sets up, in the second action, foreign patents, not set up in the first, to sustain this defence.
In Chambers v. Smith, 12 (June, 1870), Judge McKennan holds that the assignee of all the right in a patent, except the right to make the patented article, may sue for an unlawful use of it in his own name; and Judge Shepley holds the contrary in Sanford v. Messer, 411, as he also does in the late case of Hill v. Whitcomb (Pat. Off. Gaz., April 14, 1874).
In Earth Closet Co. v. Fenner, 15, it is said, by Knowles, J., that a judge is not bound by precedents upon a motion for a preliminary injunction, but that “ the largest liberty imaginable is his, with no rules to restrain, - no after-reckonings to dread,'” which might well alarm those desiring the salutary remedy of a preliminary injunction in Rhode Island, were it not for the fact that Judge Knowles, after this assertion of independence, goes on to base his opinion upon a previous one by Judge Nelson.
In Jenkins v. Walker (Shepley, J.), 348, the doctrine of the English case of Newton v. Vaucher, 6 Exch. 859, that an old material may be patented for a new use, is mentioned approvingly.
Where the patentable novelty of packing cakes of potash or caustic soda in air-tight wrappings, in packages of uniform weight, and of such convenient size that the whole package may be used when opened, was not otherwise apparent, the court in Penn. Salt M. Co. v. Thomas, 148, held that the utility of this method, which had enabled the potash to be widely used by families, proved its patentability.
We also note the late case of Wallace et al. v. Holmes, Booth, 8 Hayden, which has been much discussed, in which the defendants were held to infringe the combination of a burner and lamp-chimney, by making and selling the burner alone to be used with the chimney by purchasers; and also the case of Nicholson Pavement Co. v. Jenkins (Supreme Court, 1872), relating to the title of an assignee of a patented invention to the extension of the patent, and several other cases founded upon or distinguished from it.
These and other cases render the volume valuable to the profession.
The Statutes of Illinois. An Analytical Compilation of all the General Laws
of the State in Force at the Present Time. Official and Standard, by act of the Legislature. 1818 to 1874. Edited by WILLIAM L. Gross, Counsellor-at-law. Second edition. Vol. III. Acts of 1873–74. Springfield: William L. Gross. 1874.
This volume and its predecessor, Vol. II., contain all the general laws now in force in Illinois. On the first day of July, 1874, the laws herein contained go into force, and the general repealing act, wiping out all general legislation prior to 1870, also takes effect. The only provision made by the legislature for the publication of its laws was through the public printer, and the agency of an editor, and that publication cannot be issued before the late fall. Therefore, were it not for the activity and enterprise of Mr. Gross, the public would be for many months without a knowledge of existing laws, and
the courts and business of the state considerably impeded. We hope that this edition will be the accepted one, as of necessity it must be for some months. It seems to be carefully and thoroughly revised and printed, and has a full table of contents and index.
Select Titles from the Digest of Justinian. Edited by THOMAS ERSKINE Hol
LAND, B.C.L., &c., and Charles LANCELOT SHADWELL, B.C.L., &c. Part I. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. MDCCLXXIV.
Tuis pamphlet, one of a series of selected titles from the Digest, to be published separately, but so arranged as together to form a complete work, was received by us too late for extended notice. It is intended to meet the grow. ing want of expositions of the Roman law, which of late has been making itself felt in England.
The Bench and Bar Review. Vol. I. No. 1. January, 1874. Baltimore:
Atkinson Schaumburg. 1874.
This addition to the many law periodicals now published in this country came unheralded, unprefaced, and mysterious to our desk. Of its origin, of the demand for it, of its aims, we know literally nothing. Its history is contained between its covers. It opens with a portrait of Caleb Cushing, and further on we find a sort of obituary biography of that gentleman. A selected essay on the bar in England and France, an uufinished one on the civil law, its nature and genius, an interesting and timely statement of the responsibility of life-insurance companies for the acts and representations of their soliciting agents, and a reminiscence of William Pinkney, in questionable taste, with an address delivered before the law school of the University of Maryland, by S. Teackle Wallis, Esq., a prominent member of the Baltimore bar, furnish the principal matter of this number. It also contains memoranda of recent decisions in the United States, grouped by states and not by subjects, an abstract of the English reports for December, 1873, and January, 1874, and a collection of tolerably flat jokes and anecdotes at the end. We understand that the name has been changed to The Forum, since the issue of this first number, on account of the existence of our contemporary Bench and Bar. The mechanical execution of this magazine is excellent, and it presents a very creditable appearance.
The Canadian Monthly and National Review. Toronto.
The Chicago Legal News. Chicago, Ill.
ing for England and Wales. London, Eng.