Equity, an Analysis of Modern Equity Problems Designed Primarily for Students. George L. Clark, SJ.D., Professor of Law, University of Missouri. E. W. Stephens Publishing Co., Columbia, Mo., igig. Pp. lii, 639

Dickinson, Edwin D

Durfee, Edgar N

Holbrook, Evans

English

University of Michigan School of Law

Michigan Law Review Volume 18 Issue 8 1920 Book Reviews Edgar N. Durfee University of Michigan Law School Evans Holbrook University of Michigan Law School Edwin D. Dickinson University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr  Part of the Legal Education Commons Recommended Citation Edgar N. Durfee, Evans Holbrook & Edwin D. Dickinson, Book Reviews, 18 MICH. L. REV. 817 (1920). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol18/iss8/7  This Book Reviews is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact mlaw.repository@umich.edu. BOOK REVIEWSEQuITY, an Analysis of Modern Equity Problems Designed Primarily forStudents. George L. Clark, SJ.D., Professor of Law, University ofMissouri. E. W. Stephens Publishing Co., Columbia, Mo., igig. Pp.lii, 639.This work, though designed for students, has much to commend it to theprofession generally, and the reviewer acknowledges his indebtedness to itspages for much help. Merely to say, as one must, that it is a pregnant treat-ment, though within small compass, of most of the field of Equity, is tostamp it as unique and valuable. Its shortcomings, aside from those typo-graphical, are chiefly such as are inherent in such compression.It should be said, however, without disparagement of the author, that thevalue of the work lies largely in the fact that it puts before the professionin brief outline the extremely valuable work of law school teachers (chieflyHarvard Law School teachers) which has accumulated for over a genera-tion. The fruits of that work have hitherto lain buried, to most of the pro-fession, in law review articles and classroom notes. The failure of the barto avail itself of the law review material is hardly excused by the want ofan adequate general index to make it readily accessible, for it is accessibleand the effort of reaching it will pay handsome dividends. The keenest law-yers know this and are drawing the dividends, but the bulk of the professionignore the periodicals with a contempt born of ignorance. The same materialplaced within buckram covers would command more respect Mr. Clark'snotes make very full reference to the reviews, and herein lies, perhaps,* thechief value of the book. In a recent case (Stark v. Hamilton, 99 S. E. 861)the Supreme Court of Georgia, taking an advanced position upon a muchcontroverted point, cited this text and an extremely valuable article by DeanPound. One cannot but suspect that thd article would never have beenbrought to the notice of the court but for its citation by Mr. ClarkIt has been feared in some quarters that this book would constitute a trotnuisance in the law schools. This is a serious indictment, the more so inthat the author, as a law teacher, owes an undivided allegiance to legal edu-cation. The reviewer feels, however, that a work so brief, and in spots inac-curate, cannot be, and cannot be supposed by students to be, a substitute forindividual effort. On the other hand, it may do much good in supplyingwhat many students, even excellent students, may be unable to derive forthemselves from the intensive study of cases, distributed among several courses-an outline and broad perspective of the whole field of equity. The dangerof harm might have been reduced and the possibilities for good increased ifthe writer had made less use of the cases in the Ames case books and moreuse of recent cases,--wherein lies Mr. Clark's most serious fault.EDGAR N. Dum .MICHIGAN LAW REVIEWCASgS ON TH4 LAw oF EVIDENCE, selected from decisions of English andAmerican Courts, by Edward W. Hinton, Professor of Law in theUniversity of Chicago. St. Paul: West Publishing Company, I919.Pp. xxiv, 1o98.A new case-book on Evidence invites, of course, a comparison with thewell-known collections by Professor Thayer and Dean Wigmore. An exam-ination of Professor Hinton's work indicates that it can well sustain suchcomparison. To be sure, a case-book is primarily a.tool for teacher and stu-dent-a means to an end-and it is difficult to know, without actual trial,b ow well it will accomplish that end. But there are some features aboutProfessor Hinton's book which justify a belief that it will be even better, asa means for teaching Evidence, than either of its admirable predecessors.The author has had the advantage of the monumental work done by Pro-fessor Thayer and Dean Wigmore, both in their treatises and in their col-lections of cases (he gives grateful acknowledgment of this in his preface) ;he has also had the advantage of a wider field for the selection of cases, someof his most effective cases having been decided since the publication of theearlier case-books; and he has had a fairly long experience as a practicinglawyer during the period in which many lawyers thought we were approach-ing a time when, as Mr. Choate once put it, there is no "such thing in exist-ence as the law of evidence." It seems to this reviewer that all of thesefactors are reflected advantageously in the arrangement and selection of thecases contained in the book.As to the arrangement, the author adopts some features from each ofthe earlier works. He follows the Thayer plan of introducing the subjectslof Court and Jury, Burden of Proof, and Judicial Notice at the beginningof the book instead of toward the end, where Dean Wigmore puts them.-Here the advantage seems to lie pretty clearly with the plan adopted by theauthor. The subject-matter, while difficult, is fundamental, and a clearerappreciation of its problems, and of the powers of the judge in solving them,clears away a lot of complicating and disconcerting factors which otherwisewould inevitably vex the student by obscuring the real issues in the follow-ing cases. As to the subject of Witnesses, the author follows Dean Wig-more's plan of introducing it early in the work instead of at the end, where,it appears in Professor Thayer's collection. Here, too, the choice seems clearlyright. An early examination of the organism which presents and examinesevidence-an examination which observes its origin and growth, its person-nel, and the methods of its operation-is of obvious advantage. Chapters Iand II of Professor Hinton's book supply excellent material for such exam-ination; the student who has mastered them is far better prepared to takeup the other divisions of the subject (the so-called rules of exclusion, forinstance) than a student who has little or no appreciation of either the phy-logeny or the physiology of the modem trial court. To this reviewer itseems clear that the author has done wisely in placing these subjects at thebeginning of his course. Indeed, many teachers using Professor Thayer'sbook have in practice actually made this arrangement by taking up, early inBOOK REVIEWSthe course, the chapter on Witnesses and treating it as if it were Chapter IIinstead of Chapter V.As to the selection of cases, of course the real test is the test of the class-room, and an opinion given before actual use of the case-book may well bea mistaken one. But an examination of the cases selected by the author cer-tainly gives one the impression that they will teach well. Many of themare recent cases; yet the history of the formative period of the law is notneglected, though perhaps less emphasized than in the older case-books. Onenoteworthy feature-relating both to the arrangement and to the selection ofthe cases-is the author's obvious preference for a broad and general schemeof classification rather than the minutely analytical scheme adopted by DeanWigmore. The result of this broad grouping is, naturally, a classificationwhich is not strictly accurate and logical, a lumping together of cases whichare similar and yet distinguishable. Vrom the point of view of the thoroughanalyst, this plan is open to objection; but it is certain that many teachersapprove of a method which compels the student to make his own classifica-tion after finding for himself the proper fundamentum divisionis.EvANs HOLBROOK.THn ImmUNITY o PaivATr PRoPtRTY rRom CAPTUR. AT SEA, by Harold ScottQuigley. Bulletin of the University of Wisconsin, Economics andPolitical Science Series, Vol. IX, No. 2. Madison, i918. Pp. 2oo.The immunity of private property in maritime warfare means freedomfrom capture and condemnation for privately owned enemy ships and enemycargoes on board. Immunity has never been the rule. Is it desirable as areform? The United States Government has always favored it and the ideahas received influential support in other countries. What is the proposalworth and what may be expected to come from it?Dr. Quigley believe that the question of immunity must be considered inconnection with blockade, contraband, continuous voyage, visit and search,war zones, and other aspects of the law of capture which affect primarily theships and cargoes of neutrals. Accordingly, he bases his dissertation uponthe premise that practice under rules for the protection of neutral ships andgoods, as well as enemy goods on neutral ships, should be a reliable indica-tion of the probable value of proposed limitations on the capture of enemyships and cargoes. The practice of the principal maritime powers as regardscapture at sea is reviewed briefly from the Consolato del Mare of the four-teenth century until the present day. Due attention is given to the develop-ment of theory in the writing of publicists. The evidence which the authorassembles with admirable impartiality is far from assuring for the reader whowould like to believe in the rule of immunity. While the author feels thatthe development of the law of capture is on the whole a record of progress,he concludes that limitations on the right of capture have rarely been effec-tive in practice. Belligerents have unfailingly subordinated neutral rights totheir own interests. New limitations are likely to be made in time of peace"820 MICHIGAN LAW REVIEWonly to be disregarded in time of war. The reader lays the monograph downfeeling the futility of attempting to impose new limitations until more sub-stantial foundations have been laid in the practice of nations. Indeed, onemay fairly question whether effort spent in this direction can ever yield evena modicum of satisfactory return.The positivism of the monograph gives it permanent value. A little moregenerosity in comment passim on the evidence would have been welcome.The work could be madq more readable by a more thorough assimilation ofmaterials. The text should not have been encumbered with untranslatedextracts from foreign sources. The chapter on the World War is of neces-.sity incomplete, covering approximately the first year, but the significanceof the war measures seems to have been adequately appreciated. On thewhole, Dr. Quigley has written an excellent dissertation and one that isfully up to the standard which we have come to except in the Wisconsin series.EDWIN D. DICKINSON.

Book Reviews

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5257&amp;context=mlr

Book Reviews

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Michigan School of Law