« ForrigeFortsett »
Reopening Fourth Section Ap- Smith, Watson v.
298 plications, In the matter of 276, Smith, Western Union Tei. Co. 291
391 Rex v. Casement. 194 Smith v. Worcester, etc. Ry. Co.
185 Richards v. Robin
656 Solis, In the matter of Marcus 653 Ricketson v. Nizolte 494, 526 Southern Pacific Co. v. Spring Roberts, C. P., & Co., Elliott v. 186 Valley Water Co.
297 Robin, Richards v.
656 Southern Power Co., John A. Robinson v. Roe . 644 Roebling's Sons Co. v.
295 Roe, Robinson v.
644 Southern Ry. Co. v. Sewell 289 Roebling's, John A., Sons Co. Southwestern Tel. & Tel. Co. v. v. Southern Power Co. 295 Long .
87 Roebuck v. Atchison, etc. Ry. Sports & General Press Agency Co.
0. “Our Dogs” Publishing Rosen v. Mayer (113 N. E. 217) 188 Co.
297 Roszell Bros. v. Continental Standard Oil Co., Alexander v.
Coal Corporation (235 Fed. Stanley's Settlement, In re
287 Routledge & Sons, Ltd., Cescin- State v. Koettgen
519 sky v. 91 State, Laird v.
87 Rutland R. Co., Underhill 0. 402 State v. Sterrin
State of Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Sachs, Goldschmidt v.
184 Sachs, Schriner v.
657 Stayton State Bank, Anderson St. Mary's Milling Co. v. Town
v. (159 Pac. 1033) 619, 644 of St. Mary's
648 S. S. Amerika, Admiralty ComSt. Nicholas Church v. Kropp 637, missioners v.
742, 771 649 Steele, Highland Park Mfg. Co. Sampsell, Hayes v. . 286
403 Samuels, Matter of
644 Steeplechase Park Co., People Samuels Bros., Hughes v. 292
171 Sargent Land Co., Von Baum
Sterrin, State v.
195 bach v. (37 Sup. Ct. 201). 526 Stiles, Kansas City, M. & B. R. Saunders, Abrahams v. 372
510, 527 Savings Bank of Danbury 0. Stone v. Eisen Co.
389 Loewe (37 Sup. Ct. 172) 513 Stowers Pork Packing & ProviScales v. Nat. Life & Accident
sion Co., Card v.
294 Ins. Co.
189 Stromberg Motor Co. v. Arnson Schriner v. Sachs 657 | Sullivan v. Shea
700 Selwyn, Jeffery v.
763 Supreme Lodge, Knights of PySewell, Southern Ry. Co. v.
thias v. Mims (241 U. S. 574) 85 Sharpless v. Grand Lodge A. O. Sweetser v. Emerson (236 Fed. U. W.
161) Shaull v. Shaull
508 Swift & Co. v. Hocking Valley Shea, Sullivan v.
Ry. Co. (37 Sup. Ct. 287) 756, 765 Shearer v. Christy
767 Sherman Nat. Bank v. Shubert Taylor v. Konchakji (56 N. Y. Theatrical Co. (238 Fed. 225) 521 L. J. 813).
390 Shubert Theatrical Co., Sher- Thompson's Receivership 273, 289
man Nat. Bank v. (238 Fed. Tippin v. Western Union Tel.
192 Skelton, Denny v.
402 | Town of St. Mary's, St. Mary's Smith, Ludtke v. 80 Milling Co. v.
Underhill o. Rutland R. Co. 402 Wagner, Meccano, Ltd. v. . . 166, 195 Union Oil Co. of Cali nia, Walker, Dunkerly,In re, v. HewCatlin v.
772 United Mine Workers of Amer- Waples, Gilmore v.
397 ica, Dowd v.
Ward v. Cleveland Ry. Co. 89 United States, The
Watson v. Smith .. United States v. Cress
764 Welles, Portuguese-American United States, Caminetti
Bank of San Francisco v. (37 (37 Sup. Ct. 192) 491 Sup. Ct. 3)
287 United States v. Forty Barrels Western, etc. Ry. Co., James of Coca Cola
193 Clark Distilling Co. v. (37 United States, International Ry.
Sup. Ct. 180)
491 765 | Western Union Tel. Co. v. Smith
391 United States v. Kelly
764 Western Union Tel. Co., Tippin United States, Lehigh Valley R.
90 290 Whitcomb v. Brant
766 United States ex rel. Marshall Williams, Bordwell v..
265 0. Gordon
384, 395 Wilson v. New (37 Sup. Ct. 298) 739 United States v. Oppenheimer Worcester, etc. Ry. Co., Smith (37 Sup. Ct. 68) 400
185 United States v. Pennsylvania R. Wozneak v. Buffalo Gas Co.
523 Co. (37 Sup. Ct. 95) United States, Petitioner, Ex Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Zemurparte (37 Sup. Ct. 72). . 369, 396 ray
760 United States, Rosenv. (237 Fed. 810) .. 529 | Zamora, The
Zemurray, Yazoo & M. V. R. Von Baumbach v. Sargent Land
760 Co. (37 Sup. Ct. 201) 526 Ziegler, In re
WRITER who, at the present day, should venture to offer
any remarks of a general nature on English Law might well be asked to show his credentials. It may, accordingly, be mentioned, that the writer of these articles has, during the past thirteen years, been engaged, in happy conjunction with four of his former colleagues of the Oxford Law School, in a thorough and systematic examination of the whole body of the civil law of England - i.e., the law governing the relations of English citizens with one another. Further, not only have he and they searched the evidence, but they have bound themselves to state the result in its most compact and logical form - a task which has involved
a the keenest and most thorough discussion of disputed points, and an elaborate winnowing of the chaff from the grain. And, whilst it would be claiming too much to allege that each one of the 2200 and odd paragraphs of the Digest of English Civil Law represents the individual opinion of all the five authors of that work (such a claim would, in effect, be its own condemnation), it is true
* Author's rights in all countries expressly reserved.
1 DIGEST OF ENGLISH Civil Law. By Edward Jenks (editor), W. M. Geldart, W. S. Holdsworth, R. W. Lee, and J. C. Miles. (Boston, U. S. A.; Boston Book Co., London (England); Butterworth & Co. 1905-16.) Referred to in these pages as the DIGEST.'
to say, that no one of these paragraphs has appeared in print without being subject to the scrutiny of at least three critics, whose criticism was none the less keen that it was entirely friendly. At least the writer of these pages, upon whom, as editor of the work, the shafts of criticism most fiercely fell, will hardly forget, whilst life lasts, the long arguments, sometimes prolonged almost to the point of physical exhaustion, which heralded the birth of some of the most contentious paragraphs of the Digest.
The writer and his colleagues would fain hope that this work, though it cannot claim the full tale of Fortescue's viginti annorum lucubrationes, may be of some use to the students and practitioners of English Law, and fill an unique, if modest, niche in the temple of legal literature. At any rate, it seems not unfair to claim that its editor, under whose hands the image slowly grew, must have made some close acquaintance with the materials of which it is carved.
The very fact that such a task has been accomplished, even with moderate success, would seem to be in itself of some importance as a refutation of the obscurantist theory, at one time widely prevalent, that English Law (or at least much of it) is incapable of being stated in the form of simple rules or principles. The advocates of this view would appear to have been blind to the grave imputation which it cast upon a system which they profess to admire; but it is not improbable that their attitude, in so far as it was not the result of mere conservative prejudice, was due to an imperfect apprehension of the difference between a Digest and a Code. The terms are, no doubt, used inconsistently by jurists; but, whatever the terms used, there is a clear distinction between a Code which professes to provide for all possible cases, and a Digest which merely professes to state in orderly form authoritative rules of law. That English Law is yet ripe, or ever will be, for codification in the sense above defined, may well be doubted; certainly the writer is not prepared to discuss here the wisdom of proposals for codification. But, as the success of the Sale of Goods Act, the Bills of Exchange
* The authors of the Digest may fairly pride themselves upon the fact that, in the eleven years during which the work has been in the press, no mistake of any importance has been discovered in the text. One or two omissions have been detected; and a certain number of changes in the law have been made while the work has been in progress. These have been duly noted in the Errata and Corrigenda of later volumes, and will be incorporated into the reissue of the completed work.