« PreviousContinue »
only blessings in disguise; and such, we believe, will turn out to be the fact in the present instance. For though it was very pleasant for us to feel, in 1864, that we had an able, accurate, and comprehensive text-book on the law of real property as it existed in this country, all in two volumes; yet it must be confessed that we congratulated ourselves a little more than the facts warranted. It is no more than the truth to say that such a treatise cannot be contained in two volumes; and when we open the present edition of Professor Washburn's work, we are surprised that we ever thought that it could. And this we say, having regard not only to the growth of the law on these various topics, since the publication of the last edition, and the increased number of important cases bearing upon these topics during the last four years; but also to the necessity, in order to make the work complete, of treating more thoroughly some matters too lightly passed over in the former editions. But especially, when we consider the importance of having these recent adjudications duly incorporated in the text, and of stating fully the points, hitherto unnoticed, perhaps, on which they turn, we are confident that the profession will welcome the three volumes of Professor Washburn's new edition as an old friend laden with another serviceable contribution.
We find the recent cases and statutes systematically, carefully, and clearly embodied in this new edition. The law is brought down to the present day, as it should be. And notwithstanding the quantity of new statute law, and of new cases thereon, requiring laborious analysis and careful compression in order to present the results without prolixity, repetition, or obscurity, we can honestly say, not only that we have found nothing to criticise, but that we have found much to admire. For it must be remembered that, to write a work of this kind, so various and comprehensive in its scope as to embrace the diverse statute laws, and the decisions thereon of thirty-six distinct States, is a very much more difficult task, in many respects, and certainly a much less inviting one, than to trace the thread of adjudications on a question of common law. For in the latter case the writer is not embarrassed by technical constructions of the statute, nor is he obliged to separate so entirely the decisions of one bench from those of another bench, because of a difference in the meaning or the words of the law which is passed upon. He can use all the cases to discover his principles ; while the writer in Professor Washburn's position can enjoy this pleasure only when treating of some of the oldest and most common incidents of real property; in regard to many of the topics of his work he is forced to separate his cases from regard to the interpretation of a multitude of statutes.
It is undoubtedly from the fact that Professor Washburn is seen to have executed his difficult task as well as it could be done, that the wide-spread popularity of his work on Real Property has sprung. He has composed an admirable summary of the law of Real Estate as it exists in the United States. Such is the constant communication between the different States, that lawyers in one State are in constant need of acquainting themselves with the laws of other States ; while the recent radical changes in the common law, especially as respects the rights of married women, and the right of homestead, make it absolutely necessary that a work of this kind, to be really useful, should be brought down to the present time.
There is in this edition an entirely new section on the Right of Homestead,
at all events, none will deny the necessity for the present edition who remember the importance of the cases relating to this subject which have been decided in this country and England during the last ten years.
It is of course impossible to speak with certainty upon such a matter; but, so far as we have noticed, all the decisions of interest upon this subject to the present time have been cited in this edition.
We can, however, speak with certainty in regard to the notes which have been added by the present editor, and which greatly increase the value of the work, and we unhesitatingly praise them for their point and brevity attained without the sacrifice of clearness and comprehensiveness.
The note to section forty-nine discusses the very important question what constitutes a partnership, and comes to the conclusion that the fact that a person has a lien on the profits, or that he is entitled to an account, though strong evidence that he is a partner, is not entirely satisfactory as an ultimate test to be applied in all cases.
We cannot do more than call attention to a note to section ninety-four, upon “Real Estate of a Partnership,” although it well deserves careful study. In conclusion, we heartily recommend this work to the profession.
Reports of Cases decided in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. By
PEACHY R. Grattan. Vol. XVII. From April 1, 1866, to July 1, 1867. Richmond: V. L. Fore, Printer. 1867.
We are glad to observe, in this continuation of Mr. Grattan's able series of reports, that there is no evidence of falling off in the legal learning and ability which have always characterized the decisions of the highest court of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Nor has there been any lack of opportunity for the court to display its powers in the nature of the cases to be adjudicated. Unlike some of the Southern States, in which litigation has, since the war, been restricted to comparatively few and uninteresting channels, Virginia has apparently no want of important and intricate law-suits. We are sorry that we have not been able to include cases from Mr. Grattan's recent volumes in our Selected Digest of State Reports; but we will call attention to a few of those in the present volume that have seemed most to deserve study.
In The Merchants’ Ins. Co. v. Edmond, Davenport, & Co., p. 138, the appellees insured their vessel, the Sally Magee, with the appellant corporation, on the twenty-fourth day of December, 1860. By the policy the company undertook to insure inter alia against men of war,"
," “enemies,” “takings at sea," and “arrests,” which terms the court in the very clear opinion of Rives, J., considered equivalent to the common term “ capture.” The ship was captured on the 27th of June, 1861, by the United States, and was subsequently condemned and confiscated by a prize court. The case is reported in 3 Wallace, 451, The Sally Magee. Judge Rives, in giving the judgment of the court in favor of the appellees, follows the law as laid down in that case by the Supreme Court of the United States, and also by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, in 1863, in Dole v. N.E. Mutual Marine Ins. Co., 6 Allen, 373.
In Sawyer v. Corse, p. 230, the appellant was the contractor for carrying the mails between Alexandria and Washington, and a letter containing several hundred dollars handed to him by the appellee was lost, owing, as was alleged, to