« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
The first American edition of this work was edited by Mr. Solicitor General Davis, of Massachusetts; in which some of the chapters of the original work are omitted as not applicable to the United States. Mr. Metcalf in his edition has omitted the same chapters, with the exception of that on Dealing in Slaves, which he has retained, adding to it the American legislation and judicial decisions on the subject.
In Mr. Davis's edition the American decisions are placed together at the beginning of the chapters. Mr. Metcalf has followed the same plan in some cases; but more generally has adopted the better one of introducing the notes in those places where the same subject is treated of in the text. This is undoubtedly the best way where the original text supplies the subject for the notes, but when it does not, the better way is perhaps to add a section, distinguishing it however by some mark or mode of numbering from the original work. The work will in this way have greater symmetry and present less confusion of arrangement.
It is about four years since the 2d English edition was published, and Mr. Metcalf has therefore added the English decisions for that period, as well as the American decisions reported since the publication of the first American edition. We consider Mr. Metcalf's well known talents, industry, and learning, and his well established reputation, to be a sufficient guaranty of the faithful and skilful execution of his part of this publication.
Eunomus. Letter 111.-We have received the third letter of Eunomus, addressed to Mr. Peel, the contents of which are —
State of legal practice in Pennsylvania, where there are no Courts of Equity ; showing that it is practicable to unite the rules of Law and Equity, but not to obtain the fruits of equitable remedies by legal processes. — Inefficiency of conditional verdicts to do the work of decrees. - Opinions of American jurists, condemning the system of Pennsylvania. - Doubts entertained by English practitioners of the existence of juridical science' animadverted on. — Mischief of its non-cultivation exemplified in what has happened under the New Bankrupt Act. - Developement of the doctrine of rétroactivité upon the Continent wholly unknown to English lawyers. Absurdity of the English phantom of 'legislative intention ' proved.
The author speaks of the work of Mr. Joseph Parkes, recently published in England, on The Statutes and Orders of the Court of Chancery, and the Statute Law of Real Property of the State of New York, of which he says, it is a work, which it may be fervently hoped will draw the attention of the profession, and still more of the Commissioners, to one of the most interesting and informing subjects which can occupy the attention of an English lawyer, the condition of jurisprudence in the United States.
'I cannot omit to congratulate Mr. Parkes on the improvement his own legal understanding has evidently received from his transatlantic studies, on comparing his prefatory sketch with his previous work on the English Court of Chancery, which is well described in the Article on Chancery Jurisdiction, in the 4th Number of the American Jurist, p. 356, as “the trash industriously gleaned by Mr. Parkes from the musty records and reports of Parliamentary Committees and proceedings, and from pamphlets and newspapers, ancient and modern, filled with vulgar clamors against the abuses of all the courts, both of law and equity.”
“To those indeed who are in the habit of regarding America as the country of ultra-popular sentiments on all subjects, it would be a matter of much surprise to find with what steadiness and intelligence all the leading American journals steer clear of the ignorant declamation which has been afloat in this country on the subject of jurisprudence for the last five years; and how sternly, though respectfully, they refuse to “indulge in the theoretical extravagances of some well-meaning philosophical jurists, who believe that all human concerns for the future can be provided for in a code speaking a definite language.” — Amer. Jurist. No. I. p 31.'
Eunomus mentions Mr. Laussat's Essay on Equity in Pennsylvania, in the following terms: 'I cannot cite this tract without rendering the just tribute of praise which is due to it, as the very extraordinary production of a law student under the age of legal discretion. Although I differ entirely from the main conclusion which it seeks to establish, the sufficiency of common-law powers for accomplishing the objects of equitable remedies, it would be ungenerous not to say, that the range of information which it demonstrates is such as may well put the law students of this country to the blush.'
We are happy to see, by this letter of Eunomus, and Mr. Parkes's work, as also by an article in the last July number of the London Law Magazine, on the latter work, that American Law finally begins to attract the attention of the English jurists. All these productions, particularly the Letters of Eunomus, indicate the commencement of a new era in English jurisprudence, the professors of which begin to venture abroad from the labyrinth of Coke on Littleton, and expatiate freely, and with a new enthusiasm, in the fields of juridical science; and the day is near at hand when it will cease to be a common maxim, that the study
and practice of the law contract, while they sharpen the faculties. The science, both in England and the United States, is rapidly becoming what it is described to be in the sublime passage of Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, so often quoted.
The letters of Eunomus have, it seems, given a salutary shock to the profession in England. In reference to the connexion of the sciences of law and legislation, he says
. Since the publication of my first Letter, I hear, from several quarters, of a general expression of scepticism among those English lawyers by whom it has been honored with perusal, as to the existence, or, at all events, the value, of that species of science which I have there designated as "juridical.” What, say they, is this ideal being who is always presenting himself to the eye of the writer under the form of a “ Jurist ? ” Is he any thing more than ens rationis ? And is not all this prating about "jurisprudential economy," and such like matters, about as tangible as the vaporings of our friend Robert Owen on the “science of society," and the formation of character.”
'Sir, there is nothing more easy to deal with than the individual ignorance which is an exception to the general condition ; there is nothing more impracticable than the aggregate ignorance which constitutes the general condition. Give me an ignorant or unenlightened individual in a society of cultivated and liberal minded men, and I will shame that individual out of his ignorance or his prejudices in eight and forty hours; but place me single handed amid a conclave of Romish priests, or a college of Brahmins, and I should probably spare my breath, and husband my temper for more hopeful occasions.
* Sir, if I had heard the master-mason and deputy clerk of the works upon London Bridge ridiculing a discussion which they might have overheard upon the geometrical principles of the arches, and designating it as a "palaver about semi-ellipses and such stuff,” I should not have attempted to disturb the self-complacency of those gentlemen, or to demonstrate to them that there were structural principles concerned in the building of bridges, far different from the mere shaping of stones, and laying them to their bed-fellows; because I should have been perfectly satisfied that such principles had not been neglected in the hands of those who exercised a more extensive, though perhaps less visible, influence over the edifice than the master-mason and deputy clerk of the works.
• But is difficult to be as easily reconciled to the disclaimer of structural principles, in persons who are to be themselves, perhaps,
both engineers and masons. Examples, it is said, sometimes teach where precepts fail, and instead of endeavoring to give a definition of structural science in jurisprudence, I will point to the first instance that occurs to me of the practical mischiefs arising from inattention to or ignorance of it.'
Grimaldi's Pedigrees, Ancient Records, Rolls, and Manu" scripts. The title of this work is 'Origines Genealogicæ; or the Sources whence English Genealogies may be traced from the Conquest to the Present Time, accompanied by Specimens of Ancient Records, Rolls, and Manuscripts, with Proofs of their Genealogical Utility; published expressly for the Assistance of Claimants to Hereditary Titles, Honors, or Estates. The author is Mr. Stacey Grimaldi. Only two hundred and fifty copies of the edition are published. This is stated to be the first work of the kind, and the author says he has had the assistance of nearly all the record keepers and genealogical antiquaries in the kingdom. The arrangement is chronological, beginning with Domesday Books. The plan is to give an account of each record, its contents, repository, and a general history of the subject matter; then a literal copy of a portion of it with the original abbreviations by way of specimen; and then instances of such record having been used by way of evidence.
Among the records are — I. Domesday Books, 1066 to 1086; II. Monastic Manuscripts, 1066 to 1535; Chartularies, Leiger Books, Registers, Obituaries, Necrologies, Calendars, Chronicles, Battle and other Abbey Rolls; XVIII. Patent Rolls, 1201 to 1825; XXXIII. Parliamentary Records, 1277 to 1826; XL. Guild, Fraternity, and Corporation Registers, 1335 to 1826; XLII. Registers of the Universities and Public Schools, 1381 to 1826; XLIV. Entries in Family Bibles, &-c., Family Letters, and MSS., 1533 to 1826; XLVI. Parochial and other Registers of Births, &c., 1538 to 1826; Churchwardens' Accounts, Fleet Marriage Registers, English Ambassadors' Registers, May Fair Chapel Registers, Red Cross Street Library Registers; XLIX. Records of Clergymen, Roman Catholics, Jews, Lawyers, Surgeons, Soldiers, Sailors, East India Company's Servants.
This work ought to be procured for some of our public libraries.
INTELLIGENCE AND MISCELLAN Y.
The Political condition and jurisdiction of the Cherokees. Tennessee case. As the questions between Georgia and the Cherokees, and also between the United States and each of those parties, are deeply interesting, we publish a decision of the Supreme Court of Errors of Tennessee bearing upon those questions. The decision was given before the present controversy respecting the Cherokees had arisen.
[From Peck’s Reports.) Supreme Court of Errors and Appeals of the State of Tennessee.
HOLLAND V. ELIZABETH PACK.
An Indian residing within the bounds of the Cherokee country beyond the treaty line, is not subject to be sued under our laws, for any default as an innkeeper, being governed by the laws of her own nation.
A count in the declaration for the loss of a horse put into her care as an innkeeper, cannot be joined with a count in assumpsit. The defect will not be cured by pleading to each count an appropriate plea, if the jury find upon the whole case.
The objection will lie on demurrer, in arrest of judgment or writ of error.
Haywood, Judge, delivered the opinion of the Court. Action against her, as an innkeeper, for the loss of a horse put into her care as such, and another count in assumpsit, for the value of the horse ; pleaded not guilty to the first count, and non-assumpsit to the latter. The jury find the issue for the plaintiff. Appeal in the nature of a writ of error from the circuit court of Marion county to this court; errors assigned, misjoinder in action and that the court ought to have granted a new trial.
The court will now proceed to examine the case upon the evidence offered in the record, which shows that the cause of action arose within the limits of the Cherokee territory. The evidence is, that in 1815, plaintiff came to the house of the defendant, put up as a guest at her house, and that in the morning his horse, which he had put in her care, could not be found. Plaintiff