institutions are of purely Anglo-Saxon origin, and Dr. Stevens' work clears the subject from all doubt.

The book is well printed, and is attractive in appearance. A few minor errors may be noted. On page 22, 1631 should be 1681. The articles of Confederation were not in operation for ten years from 1777 to 1787, as appears to be suggested on page 40. They were adopted by Congress in 1777, but not by the States until 1781. They were in operation from 1781 to 1789, when the Constitution took effect.

ALBERT B. WEIMER.

COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW. BY JAMES KENT, LL. D., Chancellor of the State of New York. In one volume. Edited by WM. HARDCASTLE Browne, A. M., of the Philadelphia Bar. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co. 1894.

The literary style of a legal text book is an important factor in any estimate of its worth, especially in the case of those works which from their general character would seem to be designed for the use and instruction of laymen as well as of members of the profession, and this is particularly true of KENT'S "Commentaries on American Law." This work was last revised by the author about fifty years ago, and the value of the greater part of the text as an authority on the law of this country is at present small, and becomes less every year as the gap between past and present widens.

Mr. BROWNE has in the edition before us attempted to give KENT a present practical value, but his treatment has hardly met with success. The original KENT possesses great value for a certain class of laymen for whom some general knowledge of the law of their country is almost as necessary as it is advisable, but the present edition has not that value, the style of the author being completely lost in the editor's short and concise paragraphs, which smack strongly of the digest, and which have too little literary connection for pleasant reading. The fault, however, is almost entirely with the arrangement, for the editor's work is very conscientious, the real meat

of KENT being judiciously and thoroughly extracted and clearly set forth. Still the work is without that attractiveness which commended it to the general reader, and the charm of the learned chancellor's work is gone. One misses also the references to those general authorities such as WARD, PRESTON, POTHIER, GROTIUS and others, which are always interesting to the scholar. And this brings us to what we consider a very grave objection to the character of this edition, though we are aware that much can be said upon the other side. The editor has omitted almost all of the notes. A text as old as KENT's requires references to the authorities upon which its propositions are based, so that the student may have some guide as to the relative value of those propositions and may not be obliged to store his mind with an indiscriminate mixture of good and bad law. Well chosen references furnish the student with a basis for independent investigation, and while this may not be so necessary to those who study under the overseeing eye and reasonable advice of an instructor, as is the case in our great law sc 1ools, yet it is important for the large number of students who 'ave not that advantage. Their reading of the present edition of the Commentaries would probably result in the acquisition of a large mass of unproved matter which would be a stumbling block in their future progress.

But this lack of references most seriously affects the character of Mr. BROWNE's work in those instances where a note could have easily supplied either infc mation on the general changes of the law in the last fifty yea s or a correction to the text itself as, for instance, references to he Civil War and its effect upon Slavery, the International Co yright Law, the institution of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Circuit Court of Appeals, the Indian question and the like; and notes of the facts that certain of the year books have been translated, that words which would ordinarily create an estate-tail are now by statute in many states to be construed as creating estates in fee simple; that the doctrine that a married woman's contract amounts to an appointment of her separate estate has .been exploded, and that to the list of states in which it is

stated that the remedy by distress has been abolished the names of at least a dozen other states may be added. The editor might also have omitted in his digest of the text many references to New York Statute Law without depreciating the value of the book as a general treatise on American law. An examination of the whole of the present edition confirms the impression that he who would furnish the public with a valuable Commentary on American Law should either republish KENT as last revised by the author himself or write a new one in the light of modern and recent decisions.

ROBERT P. Bradford.

HAND-BOOK OF COMMON-LAW PLEADING. By BENJAMIN J. SHIPMAN. St. Paul, Minn: West Publishing Co.

1894.

This volume is another of the deservedly popular Hornbook Series, and possesses in an eminent degree all the peculiar exceliences of that system of text-books, already described in a review of Clark's Criminal Law, published in the August number of the current volume of this magazine. It will, therefore, as well as by its individual merits, add to the prestige that series has already acquired, and is enhancing with each successive volume. Books of this kind are eminently adapted to the needs of students, who should acquire a firm grasp of the fundamental principles of the law, before burdening their minds with the mass of trivial and often inconsistent detail that disfigure so many so-called text-books, and makes them little else than a disorderly digest of cases. To disinter the underlying principles from the superincumbent mass of chaff, is a task equally beyond the inclination and the power of a student, and often proves a task to the experienced lawyer. On all sides, therefore, a text-book which clings closely to the central idea which its name represents, is sure to be gladly welcomed.

The subject of this volume is a most important one. In spite of the prevailing mania for innovation and for the cultivation of ignorance and carelessness, which has nowhere displayed itself to better advantage than in legal matters, the

knowledge of the principles of common-law pleading is an absolute essential to the mental equipment of every lawyer,— as essential under a code as under the old system to which they owe their origin. No omission of a material averment, no duplicity in the strict sense of the term, no negative pregnant, is allowable in a "proceeding called an action," any more than in a common-law declaration. Thousands of lawyers are daily paying the penalty of their wanton disregard or wilful ignorance of that fact.

But while the main principles of pleading are thus essential, the minutiae of the old system are no longer applicable in most of the United States; and our book accordingly does not attempt to give them. To do so would indeed be beyond its scope. But it will be difficult to find any important point that the author has overlooked, or any important case that he has neglected to cite. The accuracy of his statements of principles also seems to be unexceptionable, though the wording might, perhaps, in rare instances, be improved.

As possessing special value may be mentioned the discussion of pleading in assumpsit, the statement of parties, the special traverse, and negatives pregnant. On some of these the author's treatment, while not so scientific as that of Stephen, is decidedly clearer to the average student, from its very want of technicality.

The index might have been made a little fuller, for with a new arrangement of the subject, such as in this book, comes a corresponding difficulty in finding the subject wanted, and then some branches of pleading are so well known under pet names that it is never weil to omit them. The lawyer will search the index in vain, however, for his old friend, “absque hoc," though he will find it safe and sound under its more technical, though less familiar, name of “special traverse,”

There are some matters treated of in the book, such as verdicts and new trials, that would seem to belong rather to practice than to pleading; but these imperfections are but slight when compared with the substantial value of the work. There is every reason to believe that it will to a large extent supplant the work of Mr. Stephen, so well-known to older gene

rations, as a practical text-book for the student of law, and it will certainly serve as a useful book of reference for the busy practitioner.. R. D. S.

PROBLEMS AND QUIZ ON COMMON-Law PleadinG. BY EARL P. HOPKINS. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co. 1894.

This handy little collection of questions on Pleading seems upon examination to be as it professes, “especially adapted for use with SHIPMAN'S Hand-book of Common-Law Pleading." It also appears to belie its innocent appearance, for while most of the problems stated are such as a student can readily solve with a little thought, there is sandwitched in here and there, by way of seasoning, one of those articles known as catchquestions, which even courts have not yet solved with unanimity. This does not detract from its value, however, and it will be found most useful to the student by affording him an opportunity for a practical application of the principles learned, without which the study of law would be a drier field of knowledge than the valley of dry bones. R. D. S.

ARCHITECT, OWNER AND BUILDER BEFORE THE LAW. By T. M. CLARK, Fellow of the American Institute of Architects. New York: McMillan & Co. 1894. Price, $3.00.

This is a law book written by an architect. It is divided into three parts, which treat, respectively, of the architect and the owner; the architect and the builder; and the builder and the owner. Each part is divided into chapters, which cover quite fully all the ordinary questions of law likely to arise between the respective parties. Many decisions have been consulted, and important cases are quite fully cited.

The book having been written by an architect, the point of view, in some instances, is different from that which would be taken by a lawyer; but there are few, if any, statements of the law which would mislead the lay reader. Considering that the book was not written by a lawyer, its breadth and accuracy are remarkable; and the fact that its author has had special