Priestley v. Fowler (1837) and the Emerging Tort of Negligence

Priestley v. Fowler has long been noted as the source of the doctrine of common employment. This Article, however, argues that the case is better understood in the context of the then-emerging independent tort of negligence—specifically, as an unsuccessful attempt to require of masters a duty of care towards their servants. The Article re-examines the facts, arguments, personalities, and various reported versions of the case in tracing the effort to establish a new duty of care. The Article traces, as well, to another case, Hutchinson v. York, the true origins of the common employment doctrine. Finally, the Article compares the perspectives of nineteenth century authorities to those of modern writers hi establishing how Priestly came to be detached from its true significance

The development of the tort of passing-off

This thesis investigates the historical development of the tort of passing-off. Morison said that the term “passing off” indicates the act of offering goods for sale with an accompanying misrepresentation, either by words or by conduct as to the origin of the goods, whereby the purchaser has been misled and business has been diverted from the plaintiff to the defendant.1 It is called a strict liability tort because the plaintiff does not need to show any wrongful intention on the part of the defendant, fraud apparently having been abandoned as an element for proof in the tort of passing-off.The composite research question of the thesis is in two parts, as follows: ‘Has the historical development of the tort of passing off resulted in the tort becoming a strict liability tort? If so, why and how did this development take place?'The tort of passing-off derives from the direct rule by the English Kings of earlier times, and was developed both as a general regulatory instrument to control industry, and in particular to make industry more war-ready.2 The tort of passing-off has a very substantial history in the jurisprudence of the medieval and late middle ages craft gilds and counties of the United Kingdom. The purpose of this thesis is to set out how the tort developed from the ordinances of gild and county jurisprudence into the royal courts, and to see whether, why and how from that form of development it developed as a strict liability tort

This Court Doth Keep All England in Quiet : Star Chamber and Public Expression in Prerevolutionary England, 1625–1641

The abrupt legislative destruction of the Court of Star Chamber in the summer of 1641 is generally understood as a reaction against the perceived abuses of prerogative government during the decade of Charles I\u27s personal rule. The conception of the court as an \u27extra-legal\u27 tribunal (or as a legitimate court that had exceeded its jurisdictional mandate) emerges from the constitutional debate about the limits of executive authority that played out over in Parliament, in the press, in the pulpit, in the courts, and on the battlefields of seventeenth-century England. Too narrow a focus on the question of the court\u27s legitimacy, however, impedes our ability to understand the historical Court of Star Chamber and the significant role it played in policing the boundaries of public expression in prerevolutionary England. This thesis attempts to capture an image of the Court of Star Chamber as it existed during the late 1620s and early 1630s by identifying the individuals who formed the \u27core\u27 of the court and by examining the court\u27s decisions in a series of representative cases. This study exposes the fault lines of political allegiance, religious persuasion, and judicial temperament that divided the members of the court. On the other hand, it suggests that the men who sat as judges in the Court of Star Chamber shared a commitment to the preservation of the established order in church and state—a commitment fundamentally out of place in a society that was entering a period of radical change

The True Meaning of Going Armed in the Statute of Northampton: A Response to Patrick J. Charles

In the debate over the meaning of the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment, some writers have argued that the prohibition in the 1328 English Statute of Northampton on going armed referred to carrying weapons, thus purportedly showing that regulation of carrying weapons was well known and established when the Second Amendment was adopted. For the first time, this Article reveals, through a thorough analysis of medieval royal proclamations and acts of parliament, well-regarded legal treatises, literature of the time, and English case law, that going armed did not refer to carrying weapons, but rather to wearing armor. Accordingly, the Statute of Northampton does not show that regulation of carrying weapons was established at the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment

Lawyers and Their Books: The Augusta County Law Library Association, 1853-1883

During the eighteenth and nineteenth century, law books of various types contained the vital information needed by Virginia’s practicing attorneys and judges. Access to these resources, however, was generally limited to personal collections and a handful of libraries. Despite numerous calls for the creation of libraries by theVirginiagovernment, state legislators took little action of note. This study explores the history and origins of law libraries in Virginia by focusing on the formation and evolution of the Augusta County Law Library Association, one of the first libraries organized in Virginia under state legislation enacted in 1853 that authorized the creation of law libraries by local bar associations. The commitment to action and understanding of their profession exhibited by the Augusta bar association represents a singular example of professional awareness and unity during this period. The successes of this and other emerging libraries of the era also lead to the development of library forms and practices that persist to the present day. In examining the activities of the library association between 1853 and 1883, this study interprets and explains how this unique library and its unified organizers constitute a noteworthy development in both the history of libraries and the practice of law