ANNOUNCEMENT. THIS is the initial volume of a series of reports which commence at the period where the American Reports were discontinued, and are designed to extend into the future without limit. The scope of these reports, and the plan upon which they will be edited and published, will be substantially the same as those of the American Decisions. The number of volumes will be limited to six each year. This number will admit of the selection and insertion of a higher percentage of the original decisions than was possible in the publication of either the American Reports or the American Decisions, while it will not require the publication of anything which is not of permanent and general importance. The plan which it is proposed to pursue in this series of reports may be considered with respect, first, to the reporting, and second, to the matter to be reported. In the reporting, an effort will be made,-1. To educe from each opinion all the legal principles therein asserted as necessary grounds of the decision; and to formulate those principles into syllabi as clear and terse as possible; 2. To state those facts which, though not disclosed by the court, are necessary to enable the reader the better to comprehend the opinion, and to determine whether any portion thereof was unnecessary to the decision of the cause; 3. To embody in cross-references, at the close of the opinion, citations of parallel and analogous cases reported in the present series or in the American Reports or the American Decisions; 4. To write full and accurate notes to such cases as involve topics which, either from their novelty or importance, are thought worthy of especial consideration. The matter to be reported will consist of opinions of the courts of last resort in the several states, selected because of their general value to the legal profession in every part of the United States. Decisions which involve local or statutory questions will not be reported, except when those questions are blended with others too important to be excluded. In that event, no point of the opinion will be omitted. It is true, this may occasionally result in the publication of matter of local value only; but this evil will be more than compensated by the obvious advantages of a complete report. Persons seeing a case cited as reported in the original as well as in this series will naturally and rightfully expect that either citation may be safely cited in support of the same propositions. Furthermore, an opinion from which something is known to be omitted is always viewed with a suspicion which seriously impairs its force as an authority. Doubts will surely arise whether the part omitted may not limit or enlarge that which is inserted, or may not show that the portion published is a mere extrajudicial opinion, not entitled to the rank and credit of a matter necessarily decided. While, as has been indicated, decisions involving statutory questions will rarely be reported, yet when reported, if the statute is not sufficiently disclosed in the opinion of the court, the clauses under consideration will be set forth, either substantially or in full, in the statement of facts. By this means, the decision can be clearly understood by persons not having access to the original statute, and can be properly applied and conceded the force of authority in every state having similar statutes. SAN FRANCISCO, July 27, 1888. A. C. F. AMERICAN STATE REPORTS. showing the original volumes of reports in which the CALIFORNIA REPORTS. CONNECTICUT REPORTS. HOUSTON'S DELAWARE REPORTS. PAGE. 17- 91 Allen v. Maine Central R. R. Co.. Common carriers... 79 Me. 327. Allison v. Thomas.... Anderson v. Goff.... ..Deeds process.. SUBJECT. REPORT. PAGE. ...... 67 Md. 53...... 379 22 Fla. 250....... 191 Anderson v. Peterson.. Ayer v. Western Union Tel. Co... Telegraphs... Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. v. Boyd.. Trespass ....... ......... ›Jury and jurors... 60 Mich. 277..... 501 Barry v. Terkildsen....... ..) Highways ...... .... negligence. ...... 37 Kan. 44....... ..False imprisonment. 145 Mass. 274..... 455 22 Fla. 236. .... 185 Bliss v. Inhab. of South Hadley...Negligence. .......145 Mass. 91...... 441 Bolinger v. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co. Railroads... Briggs v. Lewiston etc. R. R. Co.. Munic. corporat'ns. 79 Me. 363. Brooks v. Brooks.... Bunker v. Barron. Burke v. Johnson.... Burrows v. Mickler.... ..... 37 Kan. 337...... 252 Pleading and prac. 22 Fla. 572....... 217 Bushby v. New York etc. R. R. Co. Master and servant. 107 N. Y. 374.... {Husband and wife 61 Mich. 426..... 606 Casco National Bank v. Shaw..... Neg. instruments... 79 Me. 376...... 319 Clapp v. Minneapolis etc. R. R. Co. Master and servant. 36 Minn. 6.. 629 .... |