...relevant text, see supra note 83. of New York's courts on the issue of negotiability: In the ordinary use of language, it will hardly be contended, that the...what the laws are, and are not, of themselves, laws. . . . The laws of a state are more usually understood to mean the rules and enactments promulgated...

...many cases imperfectly exemplify them. In the words of Joseph Story, "the decisions of Courts . . . are, at most, only evidence of what the laws are; and are not of themselves law.23 The degree to which American jurisprudents explicitly defined the Platonic relationship between...

..."laws" that federal courts were required to follow. Justice Joseph Story wrote: In the ordinary use of language, it will hardly be contended that the decisions of courts constitute laws. [Section 34 does not] . . . apply to questions of a more general nature, not at all dependant local...

...case Swift v. Tyson, which declared that federal courts must apply general common law, Story wrote "it will hardly be contended, that the decisions of...of what the laws are, and are not, of themselves, laws."11 The "true interpretation and effect" of commercial laws are to be found "in the general principles...

..."[l]t will hardly be contended," Justice Joseph Story wrote for the Supreme Court in Swift v. Tt/stw,36 "that the decisions of courts constitute laws. They...what the laws are; and are not of themselves laws." So then what was that deeper or larger reality of which judicial decisions were merely "evidence"?...

...disaster — and makes it applicable to man. As Mr. Justice Story said (11): "Decisions of courts do not constitute laws. They are, at most, only evidence of what the laws are, and are not the laws themselves"; and this doctrine is followed by other courts (12). Theoretically, then, it is...