an artistically balanced picture of English medieval law will come; it has not come yet."

As regards this limitation to the period of Edward I., we may accept the reasons for ending the present book at that point without excusing our authors from carrying on the work thus admirably begun. They must not stop here forever.

The body of the History is in two Books, the first of which, in six chapters and about two hundred pages, gives "a sketch of early English history, "including brief accounts of Anglo-Saxon and Norman law, of England under the Norman Kings, of Roman and Canon law, of the age of Glanvill and the age of Bracton. And then, at the end of this Book, the authors intimate what is to come by saying that "now having brought down our general sketch of the growth of English law to the accession of Edward I.,the English Justinian,' we may turn to an examination of its rules and doctrines as we find them in the age of Glanvill and the age of Bracton."

The second Book, which begins at page 207 of the first volume, then comes back and takes up the body of English law for more particular scrutiny. The scheme of this part of the work, under the general title of "The Doctrines of English Law in the Early Middle Ages," will be best stated in the authors' words: "As regards the law of the feudal time we can hardly do wrong in turning to the law of land tenure as being its most elementary part. We shall begin therefore by speaking of land tenure, but in the first instance we shall have regard to what we may call its public side; its private side we may for a while postpone, though we must not forget that this distinction between the two sides of property law is one that we make for our own convenience, not one that is imposed upon us by our authorities. From land tenure we shall pass to consider the law of personal condition. The transition will be an easy one, for the broadest distinction between classes of men that will come before us, the distinction between free men and men who are not free, is intricately connected with land tenure, in so much that the same word villenagium is currently used to denote both a personal status and a mode of tenure. Then we shall turn to the law of jurisdiction, for this again we shall find to be intertwined with the land law; and along with the law of jurisdiction we must examine the 'communities of the land.' Having dealt with these topics, we shall, it is hoped, have said enough of political structure and public affairs, for those matters which are adequately discussed by historians of our constitution we shall avoid. Turning then to the more private branches of our law, we shall take as our chief rubrics Ownership and Possession,' 'Contract,' 'Inheritance,' and Family Law,' while our last two chapters will be devoted, the one to Crime and Tort,' the other to Procedure.' We are well aware that this arrangement may look grotesque to modern eyes; since, for example, it thrusts the law of persons into the middle of the law of property. Our defence must be, that after many experiments we have planned this itinerary as that which will demand of us the least amount of repetition and anticipation, and therefore enable us to say most in the fewest words. We shall speak for the more part of the law as it stood in the period that lies between 1154 and 1272. This will not prevent us from making occa

sional excursions into earlier or later times when to do so seems advisable, nor from looking now and again at foreign countries; but with the age of Glanvill and the age of Bracton we shall be primarily concerned.

Again, we shall be primarily concerned with the evolution of legal doctrines, but shall try to illustrate by real examples some of the political and economic causes and effects of those rules that are under our examination."

As to the manner in which all this well planned work is done, we would gladly illustrate it by quotations, but there is no more room for that. One remarks everywhere a mastery of the subject, a knowledge of the sources, a temperate judgment in using them, and an unrivalled skill and felicity in exposition and statement. For a good specimen of all these qualities let us commend the reader to the pages, at the beginning of Chapter IX. in the second volume, which deal with the Forms of Action. Never was learned legal discourse so delightfully or more profitably carried on. Always the style is that of a master; for, with all its subtle stimulus of pleasure, it is a mere handmaid to the thought.

We are glad to hear that the book is having a wide sale in this country.

HANDBOOK OF THE LAW OF TORTS. By Edwin A. Jaggard. West Publishing Co. 1895. (Hornbook Series.) 2 pp. xvi, v, and 1307.

J. B. T.

St. Paul: vols. 8vo,

The merits of this work are very considerable, and far outweigh its defects. The author leaves the impression of a very able lawyer, who has personally investigated the authorities with great care and judgment, but who has put his book together in haste, and who has been hampered by a defect in the plan adopted by the publishers. Hence there is, to a certain extent, a lack of proportion; in some cases, over-fulness for an elementary work; in other cases, a want of definiteness, and occasional passages which are liable to be misinterpreted. The prospectus of "The Hornbook Series" names as one of its features, notes 66 containing a copious citation of authorities." This seems a mistake in a work intended largely for students. It would be better to follow, in this regard, those model books, Anson on Contracts and Pollock on Torts, wherein the learned authors merely cite cases enough to illustrate the text, without any attempt to make an exhaustive collection of authorities. No doubt an American author labors under especial difficulties in compressing his citations within narrow limits; inasmuch as "the American law" (to use the words of Professor Huffcut) "is the law of upwards of fifty jurisdictions, while the English law is the law of but one." Still the American writer can take Anson and Pollock for his standard, and tollow their example as far as the changed circumstances will permit. A copious citation of cases is likely to react, as it were, upon the text, and is almost sure to mar the simplicity and conciseness of the author's treatment." To put the criticism in the form of a paradox, it is, in a certain sense, true, that the success of an elementary law book depends on what is left out.

But, after making all deductions for defect of plan and rapidity of execution, the book is a good one. The writer has ideas of his own, and is also familiar with the best ideas of other people, notably the recent English authors who have done so much to elucidate the law of torts, and who are as yet so little known on this side of the Atlantic. Undoubtedly, Sir Frederick Pollock's book, which Professor Jaggard justly places at the head, has been largely used in the United States; but it is prob able that comparatively few American lawyers have even heard the names of Clerk and Lindsell, Pigott or Innes. Professor Jaggard has

not made up his book by copying bodily from these authors; but he has made an entirely justifiable use of their works by giving from time to time judicious selections, with proper acknowledgment. Moreover, he has grasped the leading modern conceptions in the law of torts, and has given proof that he is himself an original thinker.

The book fulfils the statement of the Preface, that it "is brought thoroughly down to date." The more important recent cases are generally given; and although, as has been said, fulness of citation may diminish the usefulness of the work to students, yet its value to the practising lawyer is thereby materially enhanced. (See, for instance, note 3 on page 474, containing a full collection of authorities and able comments on the interesting question so recently raised in Hanson v. Globe Newspaper Co., 159 Mass. 293.)

As to the topics which should be dealt with in a treatise on "Torts," there is likely to be some difference of opinion. The writer of this notice thinks that some subjects usually discussed in books on "Torts" should be left to works on " Property," while others (and this includes a large class) should be left to "The Law of Persons." But Professor Jaggard, in including such topics in the present book, is simply following the example of able predecessors.

It seldom happens that all parts of a work are of equal merit. Professor Jaggard's treatment of Conversion seems inferior to his treatment of Deceit ; while the chapter on "Wrongs affecting Reputation" is superior to the discussion of Juridical Cause. But the book, taken as a whole, is a distinctly creditable performance.

J. S.

RESTRAINTS ON THE ALIENATION OF PROPERTY. By John Chipman Gray, LL.D., Royall Professor of Law in Harvard University. Second Edition. Boston Boston Book Co. 1895. pp, xxix, 309. The appearance of a second edition of this volume is significant of the rapid change that has taken place in the law regarding restraints on alienation. A dozen years ago, at the time of the first edition, the doctrine which it was one of the purposes of the book to discredit was still in its infancy. As yet few jurisdictions had followed the dictum in Nichols v. Eaton, 91 U. S. 716, in declaring that a man could enjoy the benefit of his property without being compelled to subject it to the payment of his debts, and the task of the writer at that time was to protest against the growth of this new doctrine, and to show by argument and authority how at variance it was with good morals and previous law. Since then decisions in favor of spendthrift trusts have been so rapidly multiplied that the weight of authority is now on the other side, and the writer almost stands (as he says in his delightful Preface) vox clamantis in deserto. This change in the aspect of the courts has given us this second edition, and with it not only a discussion of the more recent decisions, but also an explanation of the causes of this strange departure from the common law view of the incidents necessarily dependent upon ownership. The change is traced partly to the decision of the United States Supreme Court, but more generally to the modern reaction against the laissez faire doctrine, to the tendency to drift away from a society founded on contract, and to adopt a system of paternal socialism. Against this modern tendency the writer takes a strong stand in favor of the old doctrine, which, he says, 66 was a wholesome one, fit to produce a manly race, based on sound morality and wise philosophy." To the layman who imagines law books to be the epitome of dust and

dryness, this little work of Professor Gray's would be a refreshing revelation. The peculiar nature of the book, combining, as it does, an argument for justice with a collection of the many authorities into one, has given an opportunity for a piece of animated writing, and a demonstration that a law book may be at once both profound and readable.

H. W.

A TREATISE ON LAND TITLES IN THE UNITED STATES. By Lewis N. Dembitz of the Louisville Bar. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co. 1895. 2 vols. pp. xvi, viii, 1655.

The present work is the result of three years' constant industry on the part of the author; and the result justifies the labor. It would, however, be more accurately styled a "Digest" than a "Treatise." So far as can be judged by a rapid examination, the author has striven to state clearly and with precision the principles for which the multitude of cases on the subject of Land Titles stand, but has with equal care kept his own individuality in the background. Rarely does he defend or attack a particular doctrine or give us a clue to his own preference. As a digest it is hard to take exception to the two volumes the author has given us; and he may well be content to let it stand as he describes it in his Preface, "his last work." We cannot but admire the painstaking thoroughness which the author displays, and which has enabled him to collect the decisions and statutes of over forty States on so comprehensive a subject, and present them in well classified arrangement.

It is essential to the helpfulness of the work that its scope be fully understood. In the first place, it is a digest of the American law only of Land Titles, and but few English cases are included. It therefore contains next to nothing of medieval and obsolete law of real property, but deals with the law in its modern shape with little attempt to trace its development. Topics too not directly bound up with the subject of title to land are excluded. Under this head fall the law of easements and of fixtures, and the discussion of remedies by which possession of land is regained. Trusts of land is another topic dealt with only in a summary manner; and the reader is referred to other authorities for a fuller discussion. On the other hand, "Title out of the Sovereign," "The Registry Laws," "Judgments affecting Land," and "Title by Judicial Process," receive in as many different chapters a fuller treatment than is accorded them elsewhere. "Title by Prescription" is excellently treated at length.

Adverse criticism must of course be made on some points. For instance, there is no mention of the various rules for determining the division among riparian owners of land formed by accretion; under the subject of "Deeds," the old undiscriminating distinction is made between "latent" and patent" ambiguities, and extrinsic evidence is said to be admissible to interpret the deed in the former case, but not in the latter; in the chapter on "Title by Prescription," under the head of "Tacking," the case of Fanning v. Wilcox, 3 Day, 258, is cited in support of the rule that "transfer of land with delivery of possession is enough to justify tacking." although it is really one of the very infrequent authorities for the doctrine that successive disseisors may tack. Such defects are however minor.

The author in an appended note (p. 1458) expresses the hope that, by the demonstration of the diversity and uncertainty of American law on

questions affecting land titles which his work affords, some impetus may be given toward concerted effort to remove these defects. To this hope we give a hearty Amen!

E. R. C.

PRINCIPLES OF THE ENGLISH LAW OF CONTRACT AND OF AGENCY IN ITS RELATION TO CONTRACT. By Sir William R. Anson, Bart., D. C. L. Eighth Edition. First American Copyright Edition. By Ernest W. Huffcut, Professor of Law at Cornell University. Macmillan & Co., New York and London. 1895. pp. lxii, 456.

The text is that of the English author's eighth edition (1895). It is the same as that of the seventh edition, except for a few minor alterations necessitated by two recent English acts, the Sale of Goods Act, and the Married Women's Property Act of 1893. Few new English cases are cited. Professor Huffcut cites parallel American cases where the American and English authorities are in accord, and indicates carefully all points on which the American authorities are in conflict, either with each other or with the English cases. In his note, however, on the American view of the doctrine of Scotson v. Pegg (6 H. & N. 295), and Shadwell v. Shadwell (9 C. B. N. S. 159), as to a promise to perform an existing contract with a third person, he fails to notice the very recent case of Abbott v. Doane (163 Mass. 433), the only American case which directly supports the English doctrine. Certain cases also, which he cites in support of the American view, are by no means universally admitted to be in point. The citations in connection with Anson's short chapter on Agency and Quasi-Contracts Perhaps it is better so, as Anson's treatment of either subject is meagre. The volume is altogether the most valuable edition of Anson for American students that has yet appeared.

are not numerous.

H. C. L.

HUFFCUT ON AGENCY. By Ernest W. Huffcut, Professor of Law in Cornell University School of Law. Boston: Little, Brown, & Co.

1895.

as

pp. xlviii, 234. The author limits the scope of his treatise to the law of agency related to contract." He defines an agent as one who brings his principal into contractual relations with a third party, and excludes from his volume all consideration of the law of master and servant; arguing that "the law governing master and servant belongs to that branch of the law of obligation having to do with torts generally," and that "the same reasons that lead to a separate treatment of contract and tort lead to a separate treatment of agents and servants." It is rather hard to follow this reasoning, and still more difficult to see just how the author derives any advantage from this method of treating the subject. His readers are likely to be disappointed at this total omission of the law of master and servant, which is so analogous to and so generally associated with the law of principal and agent. Aside from this, the book should meet with general approval. It supplies a much felt want for a brief reliable treatise on the law of agency.

Mr. Huffcut's statements are almost uniformly accurate, though his phraseology is original. His citation of authorities is full and general, though he seems to favor recent cases affirming rather than the leading cases establishing the law. On controverted points both sides of the question are fully and carefully presented, and his statements of principles are clear and discriminating. The chapters on Ratification and