« PreviousContinue »
well done, in fact there was a good deal of dissatisfaction at the method in which the learned writer's memorandum hooks and scrap drawers had been emptied, nndigestedly, into his work. A dissatisfaction which would have expressed itself more strongly but for the respect felt for the abilities and character of the author. Judge Redfield seems to have become sensible of the defect, and has hastened to publish a fourth edition, which should in reality be called the "author's third edition." Things are now put into their proper place, and cases are properly cited.
But what shall we say of his book on " Carriers and other Bailments?" Part of it is good and part of it is new, but the part that is good is not new, and the part that is new is not good.
It contains five hundred and sixty pages. There is nowhere a suggestion that it is not a new and independent work of the author. He speaks in the Preface of "the large amount of labor bestowed upon it." There is nowhere a hint that the pages of this book have ever before seen the light. Now what will our reader say when we assure him that the first four hundred and thirty pages, nearly four-fifths of the book are, with the exception of about a dozen pages, copied literatim et verbatim from the author's work on Railways. The chapters are placed in different order, but with this exception there is absolute verbal identity. Of course, Judge Redfield has a perfect right to publish his books, or any part of his books, under as many different titles as he pleases, but is it fair to the profession not to tell them, not in any way to indicate to them, that the offered book is nothing but an old one with a new title?
After this reprint of that part of his book on Railways, which relates to carriers and telegraphs, there follows a discussion on the Law of Innkeepers, occupying about fifty pages. This part of the work we desire to exclude from our general condemnation: it is both new and good and worthy of the author.
The remainder of the book is devoted to a consideration of all other bailments than those to carriers and innkeepers, and they are dismissed in eighty pages of large print. The author speaks with contempt of the use of the Civil and Continental Law, and says, "We shall content ourselves by giving the English and American Law upon the subject, and by bringing the decisions, as nearly as practicable, down to the present time." It would be all very well for the author to confine himself to the English and American law, if he gave that, but he has not given it or begun to give it. Having looked for one recent case after another in vain, we had the curiosity to examine the cases cited in these pages, by no means a long task, and we found that of the numerous English cases decided during the last twenty years, Judge Redfield has referred to four, while of those decided during the last ten years he has given but one. Comment would be superfluous.
The American Law of Real Property. By Francis Hilliard. Fourth Edition. Revised and improved. 2 vols. Albany: Weare C. Little & Company. _ 1869.
The Law of Injunctions. By Francis Hiixiard. Second Edition. Revised and greatly enlarged. Philadelphia: Kay & Brother. 1869.
Mr. Hilliard is a well known and voluminous law writer. Besides the above works he has published books on Torts, on Remedies for Torts, on Mortgages, on Vendors and Purchasers, on New Trials, on Bankruptcy, and, we dare say, on other topies.
We have before had occasion to notice several of these works, and while we have acknowledged their useful character, we have been able to speak of their execution with only moderate praise.
We feel that it is duo to the learned author to point out more specifically what we regard as his short-comings. Mr. Hilliard, we ought to say, makes no pretension, as he has no claim, to originality or to historical research. The book first above named professes to give the American Law of Real Property as it at present is. To see how this is done wo take a topic at random, and open at the subject of Lights, to which are devoted nine sections, covering seven pages in the 67th chapter. Now here is a subject, the common law doctrines concerning which have been largely modified in the United States, both by judicial decision and by statute, and therefore one which in a treatise on the American Law ought to receive special consideration. Mr. Hilliard cites ouly nineteen American cases, and of these four are from Louisiana, which are of course of no value as precedents in States whore the common law prevails, and six of the remainder are from the single State of Massachusetts. We take down the nearest volume on the Law of Real Property on our shelves, and we find eighteen American cases on this subject which Mr. Hilliard has not given, and among those omitted by him is Parker v. Foote, 19 Wend. 309, the leading American case on the question of lights. Mr. Hilliard might be supposed well acquainted with the law of his own State, and we have said that a third of his cases are taken from Massachusetts, yet of the five latest cases in the Massachusetts Reports on the subject, he has given but one, Rogers v. Sawin, 10 Gray, 876, which he also cites from " Law Rep., June, 1858, p. 105, Mass. S. J. C." He has no reference to Fifty Associates v. Tudor, 6 Gray, 255, or to Collier v. Pierce, 7 Gray, 18; or to Carrig v. Dee, 14 Gray, 583; or to Paine v. Boston, 4 All. 168: some of which, at least, are cases of importance.
Mr. Hilliard states positively that "where a house has lights which have existed twenty years, or ancient lights; the erection of another which obstructs them is ground for an action on the case or an injunction in chancery." The only limitations of this broad proposition are given in a statement in the text, "that Chancellor Kent remarks that the English doctrine as to ancient rights can hardly be regarded as applicable to narrow lots in the new and growing cities of this country; TM and in a note which gives a Maine decision against the right of action, a statement that "itis doubted" whether the right exists in New York, citing Banks v. American Tract Society, 4 Sandf. Ch. 438, under the extraordinary style of Bank, Ifc. v. Americans; and a reference to a Connecticut and to a Massachusetts statute, the latter incorrect.
Who would suppose from this that the common-law doctrine of casements of light- and air by prescription had been recognized in but two or three of the States, and had been exploded distinctly in some eight or nine? Further, Mr. Halliard nowhere states the reason on which the American courts have condemned the doctrine; viz., that the enjoyment of the easement in no way injures or affects the servient estate, and is therefore not adverse.
The English cases fare no better. We have, to be sure, a case, Wale v. Westminster, 8 C. li. N. S. 276, which decides the point, invaluable to an American lawyer, that section 68 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, is not incorporated into a certain private act of Parliament for the erection of a hotel, and there aro several other almost equally useful discussions on the interpretation of English statutes; but the presence of these hardly make up for the grave omissions of the learned author. The question of light has lately been much discussed in the Court of Chancery, and the law examined with great thoroughness; in the Law Reports for 1867, 1868, and 1869, there are no less than ten cases in the equity courts touching this matter. Mr. Halliard has only two, Yates v. Jack, Law Rep. 1 Ch. 295 (cited by Mr. Halliard, Law Rep. (Eng.), Equ. 1866, Apr. & May, p. 295), and Clarke v. Clark, Law Rep. 1 Ch. 16 (cited by Mr. Hilliard Law Rep. (Eng.) Equ. Jan. 1866, p. 15). We will only refer to Dent v. Auction Mart Co., Law Rep. 2 Eq. 238, Martin v. Headon, Law Rep. 2 Eq. 425, Lan/ranchi v. Mackenzie, Law Rep. 4 Eq. 421: all cases of value, in which the decisions of Yales v. Jack and Clarke v. Clark are discussed, but of which no trace appears in the volume before us.
We pass to the next book, the Treatise on Injunctions. The Preface says, "The present work is designed to be thoroughly American'' (the italies are the author's), '' while the English cases have been cited sufficiently to give a correct view of the English law, as the original foundation, and an existing constituent part of our own jurisprudence; the process of selection has been more largely applied to them than to the decisions of the American courts, which last are designed to be fully and exhaustively stated." We confess we do not know what is meant by " thoroughly American ; " the English practice is not more unlike that of the United States than that of one State is from that of another, and if there is one topic in the law which is incapable of local treatment, it is that of injunctions. The author goes onto say that "it is perhaps hardly necessary to remark, that, in citing the American cases, no distinction is made between the Northern and Southern States," and then follows a page of which the best that can be said is, that it is utterly irrelevant. As before, wo will take a topic for illustration, say Copyrights. This subject occupies nine pages in Mr. Hilliard's book. The " full and exhaustive statement" of the American Law on the subject of copyright comprises a notice of seven cases, while there are more than thirty American cases on the subject passed over in silence, as any one may see on looking at as common a book as Brightly's Digest. To any one in the least conversant with the American law of copyright, it is enough to say that Mr. Hilliard betrays not the slightest token of ever having heard of Wheaton v. Peters, or of Gray v. Russell, or of Story v. Ho/combe, or of Folsom v. Marsh. In the English Treatise on Injunctions, by Mr. Kerr, though he only professes to give American cases by way of illustration, there are actually a greater number of important American cases given than in this book of Mr. Hilliard's. After this, it is of course unnecessary to say that, of the scores of English cases on copyright which Mr. Kerr's diligence has collected, and the majority of which are as valuable here as in England, Mr Hilliard has not a tithe. We will not go further into detail. Wo have examined sixteen pages, and we know no reason to suppose that we might not examine any other sixteen pages in the three volumes with a like result. We have not taken unfamiliar topies, nor have we made curious research, but have compared these volumes with the reports and text-books nearest at hand. We have avoided expressions of opinion, and have endeavored to confme ourselves to facts and figures which any one can easily test for themselves. We hope we have made obvious wherein Mr. Hilliard's weakness as a law writer lies. His works are in the nature of digests; we have no fault to find with this, but they should have the merits of digests; and while we do not charge him with sins of commission, his sins of omission are too grave to be passed over in silence. If he will pardon the suggestion, he has attempted to cover too much ground; let him take one of his books, this book on injunctions, for instance, and work it up to an exhaustive treatise — such a one is much needed — which shall be an honor to him, and a benefit to the profession.
Principles of the Law of Stoppage in Transitu, Retention, and Delivery. By John Houston. London: Stevens & Haynes. 1866.
Mr. Houston, as we learn from the Preface, writes with the usual charitable desire to satisfy a want which is, or ought to be, felt by the legal and mercantile public, for a "distinct compilation and digest of the leading decisions of English law upon the subject of Stoppage in Transitu." There can be no doubt that this work of Mr. Houston's meets this want in a thorough and satisfactory manner. It is intended for the edification and usXi of both lawyers and merchants, and it is so carefully executed, and the points of law are so clearly and amply expressed, and yet so simply withal, that it seems fully able to supply to the lawyer that accurate information of the fact and critical treatment of (he principle which he looks for in a really useful text-book, and at the same time to enable a merchant to gain sufficient acquaintance with the law upon the subject, to render himself fully competent to deal with the ordinary emergencies of trade.
We have, indeed, met with few works which so successfully surmount the difficulties in the way of this arduous undertaking as the one before us; for the language is well chosen, it is exhaustive of the law, and is systematized with great method. The subject, too, is one unusually suited to publication as a separate treatise, for its lines of demarcation and separation are as clearly defined, and the entire topic stands out by itself among the many cloudy theories and practices of business law, as distinctly as a fly in amber.
Mr. Houston modestly disclaims originality, but his division and arrangement are masterly and complete. The book is divided into six chapters, and an introduction on the " nature and history of the right;" and each of these chapters is devoted to the consideration of the right from a different standpoint. In them, also, arc skilfully arranged the leading cases with the principles under which they fall, stated with clearness and decision. The only criticism which we can fairly make upon this arrangement, is, that it sometimes narrowly escapes being too diffuse.
The only subject in the treatment of which he betrays indecision and feebleness • is the question of the degree of insolvency in the vendee which will justify the vendor in exercising his right of stoppage. On page 35, he says that actual insolvency is requisite, but elsewhere he qualifies this statement very much, and thinks that such embarrassment as to render payment doubtful on the part of vendee, is quite sufficient. In this country, a man must be sufficiently insolvent to be unable to pay bis debts, and not merely "embarrassed," and we think the majority of the English cases, notwithstanding Mr. Houston's hesitation, have decided that mere danger of failure to pay his debts on part of the vendee is not enough, and that the '' embarrassment, or failure, or insolvency " must be evidenced by some overt act; and Blackburn on Contract of Sale, page 130, fully substantiates this view.
On the whole, we think Mr. Houston has been successful, though we think the use of his work among merchants will be limited; and will finish by quoting Judge Redfield's parting advice to his readers in his work on Carriers, that the best thing which his non-professional reader can do in cases of difficulty, is to consult a professional man.
A Trealise on Admiralty and Prize: together with some Suggestions for the Guide and Government of United States Naval Commanders in Maritime Wars. By David Roberts. New York: Published by Hurd & Houghton. 1869.
We believe that this is the first attempt of Mr. Roberts as a law writer, and some allowance should, perhaps, be made for the want of that experience in the art of writing a law book which can only be acquired by practice. But when every allowance of this sort is made, we can only wonder that a lawyer should be found willing to risk his reputation by publishing such a book.
A work on Admiralty should properly treat separately of the jurisdiction of the court of Admiralty, of the practice, and of the different subjects which come before such court. This distinction is utterly ignored by Mr. Roberts. For instance, the chapter on collision treats of the jurisdiction of the Admiralty over marine torts, the limitation of the liability of ship-owners, rules of navigation, and matters of pleading and practice. These are matters about which it is highly important for a lawyer, who has a collision case, to know; but they are all entirely distinct subjects, having but an incidental connection with each other. If each chapter on any given subject should embrace every thing important for a lawyer to know on that subject, each chapter would make a volume of itself. The author has, indeed, not attempted to carry out such a plan, and the result is that the only reference we have been able to find to the important subject of the limitation of the liability of ship-owners is in the chapter on collision.
Mr. Roberts has also discovered a new way of writing a law book, which is certainly ingenious, and which is admirably adapted to save the author the labor which writers of law books generally have to undergo. This plan is to give the general views of the writer covering several pages, and then to cite one or two hundred cases, as having more or less bearing on the one or two hundred points previously considered; — an arrangement which is similar to that of the