페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

PREFACE

The favorable reception and marked approbation given to the first volume of this series, and the decided indorsement given the plan by the judiciary, leading members of the profession, and the press generally, have stimulated me to do my utmost to render these reports worthy of the regard and favor thus manifested. The general plan of the work has been indicated in the introduction to the first volume, and that will be adhered to consistently and faithfully. As was stated there, particular efforts will be bestowed on the syllabus of the cases, in order to have it truly mirror the decision of the court. The profession are too well aware how deceptive, sometimes, a syllabus is; that either it leaves out a material fact on which the decision was based, or that it states a proposition too broadly where an important limitation should be made, and not seldom is a material point omitted.

The necessity and the utility of a careful revision of the syllabi will be very apparent by a comparison of some of the syllabi of this volume with those of the original reports. For the sake of illustration, I will here put in juxtaposition the syllabus in the case of Ludlow v. Simond :

[2 AM. DEO. 291.)

[2 Cannes's Cases, 1.) DISCHARGE OF SURETY.-Where a surety If a surety engage to make good tho de bound himself to make good a deficiency Aciency arising from a sale of goods at a arising from & sale of goods consigned to given place, and consigned to the corresthe correspondent of the creditor, who had pondent of the person to whom the security entire control of the consignment, a sale by is given, who has the whole control of the the consignee at another place than that adventure, a sale by the consignee at another agreed on releases the burety.

place releases the surety. Though relief at JURISDICTION OF EQUITY IN MATTERS OF law may be had, yet, ir it be doubtfal. ACCOUNT.-Although there may be a remedy equity will retain the biu. at law in matters of account, yet, if the relief be doubtful or inadequate, equity will entertain the bill, in order

the more effectu. ally to give relief generally.

EXECUTION OF BEALED INSTRUMENT BY SEVERAL.-Where several parties should unite in the execution of a sealed instrument, they may use and adopt the same seal.

This case, as will be seen from the note, is regarded as an important one on the obligation of a surety, and on the point of equitable jurisdiction. It will be observed that the syllabus of the original report very inadequately gives the point decided by the court in regard to the jurisdiction of equity. It will also be seen that it omits a material point, in regard to the execution of a sealed instrument, which was raised in the case. And the case was cited on this very point in the 54th vol. N. Y. Reports, nearly seventy years subsequently; and it is also cited on the same point by Parsons on Partnership.

Again, in case of Hare v. Fury, the syllabus may be thus compared: (2 AM. Deo. 358.)

(3 YEATEB, 13.) RECOVERY OF MEANE PROFITS AGAINST Generally, in trespass, the plaintik may JOINT-TENANT -Joint-tepants or tenants in recover mesne profits

for such time as tho common, recovering in ejectment, are bound defendant may have been in possession ; to obtain possession under the proper writ but in the case of joint-tenants or tenants or otherwise ; and in case they neglect to do in common, recovering in joctment, they 60, they will be limited to a recovery of are restricted to a reasonable time after mesne profits to a reasonable time after judgment. Judgment, which in this case was held to be i month.

Here, it will be seen that I have omitted the general proposition stated in the original syllabus, because it was a principle necessarily assumed in the decision of the case, and about which there was no question; and it will also be seen that the original syllabus entirely omits a very important point, viz.: what reasonable time was held to be in this case. These are illustrative examples, showing how little dependence can be placed on the syllabi in some of the reports, and how often they fail to be a faithful index of the court's decision.

Again, it may be noticed how important it is to examine the subsequent modifications or limitations placed on cases which have been frequently cited in text-books and other authorities. This I regard as one of the most essential and useful features in a series like the present, and a most responsible duty for myself in the compilation and annotation of the cases. For example, the case of Dusenbury v. Ellis, 2 Am. Dec. 144, has beer regarded as a leading case in New York, and generally cited elsewhere, on the personal liability of an agent; but it will be observed in a note to that case, that it has been, in recent decisions in the court of appeals of New York, construed and somewhat inodified. So in regard to the case of Seixas v. Woods, 2 Am. Dec. 215; it has been for a long time cited on the doctrine of warranty in the sale of personal property. It will be found that late decisions in New York have materially modified the doctrine of that case.

It is noticeable in the present volume that there are a large number of cases on marine insurance, but this is very accountable when we consider the period when those decisions were made, which followed a great European war, out of which many important maritime questions arose; and the principles of our Law of marine insurance were then established by elaborate and learned decisions of our early judges, particularly those in New York and Pennsylvania.

I have to express my obligation to many members of the judiciary and the profession generally, for their kind suggestions, and in some instances for very material aid in the selection of important cases, and it is hoped in a short time that we may be able to have corresponding members in every state, to whom reference may be made for advice and suggestions.

J. PROFFATT. BAX FRANCISCO,

Varch 1, 1873.

AMERICAN DECISIONS.

VOL. II.

CASES REPORTED.

Award .....

.1 Brevard......

SUBJEOT.
BEPORT.

Paar Abbott v. Broome. ..Insurance,..

..1 Caines

187 Abbott v. Sebor.. Insurance.

.3 Johnson's Cases... 139 Alken v. Bolan...

.1 Brevard

660 Austin v. Burbank.. Mortgage..

.2 Day..

119 Austin v. Richardson....Pleading.

.3 Call..

543 Barnewall v. Church..... Insurance. .... .1 Caines....... 180 Bartlet v. Knight..... Foreign judgment.. 1 Massachusetts.. 36 Bedford v. Hickman. Fraud......

.5 Call ......

590 Bergen v. Bennett. Powers..

.l Caines's Cases..... 281 Bevin v. Linguard. Trespass.

684 Bibb v. Prather. ..Contract.

.Sneed....

711 Blackledge v. Simpson... Award..

.2 Haywood

614 Blane v. Proudfit... Agency

.3 Call..

546 Bostwick v. Lewis. Fraud.

.1 Day

73 Bradley v. Buford. .Fraudulent conveyance... Sneed.....

703 Brander v. Justices. ...Mandamus...

.5 Call

606 Braxton v. Coleman.

.5 Call

592 Brosius v. Reuter.. Mandamus.

.1 Harris & Johnson.. 534 Brown v. Austin .Contract

1 Massachusetts.....

..... 11 Brown v. Girard....... ...Insurance

.4 Yeates....

400 Bulkley v. Stewart. ...Award..

.1 Day.... Bush v. Livingston...... Usury

.2 Caine's Cases 316 Butler v. Hamilton. ... Suretyship

.2 Desaussure

692

......

... Dower

57

Carter v. Carter.... .Contract

.2 Day....

113 Chambers v. Winn ...... Contract

Sneed..

713 Cheney v. Watkins. ....Deed.

.1 Harris & Johnson.. 530 Clarke v. Calloway. Ferries..

Sneed..

706 Clinton v. Croswell. ..Libel......

..2 Caines....

235 Cobham v. Adm'rs ......Statute of limitations ...2 Haywood.

612 Commonwealth v. Bailey.Forgery....

. 1 Massachusetts

3 Commonwealth v. Duane. Criminal laro ..1 Binney....... 497 Com'nw'lth v. Hutchinson Criminal lare

.1 Massachusetts. 1 Com'nwlth v. Messinger.Criminal laro ..1 Binney...

441 Commonwealth v. Posey. Arson

.4 Call.....

560 Conroy, v. Warren. ..Negotiable instrumento ..3 Jobnson's Cases ... 156

« 이전계속 »