Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 10.djvu/163

Rh material for a good-sized volume. Such a book is, of course, useful only to lawyers in the States that have such acts, but to them it ought to be an aid in dealing with this very common kind of case. The work seems to have been thoroughly done; the arrangement is systematic; and there is a full index such as is indispensable in this sort of book.

The author's aim has been to produce a volume covering the whole law of garnishment, "fully half" of which "has never been touched upon by any text writer." For those who have one of the former works on attachment, Mr. Rood's book should be a valuable supplement, as the separate treatment of attachment and garnishment has undoubted practical advantages. The work is admirably arranged for the purpose for which it is designed, "to make a book of ready reference in which all the decisions may be found." The text contains a clear statement of the principles of law. The notes are copious, giving the citations, frequently arranged under more detailed statements of the exact principle for which they stand, and, more than that, the quotations from the cases are numerous. All the cases down to the time of publication have been collected, a particular advantage in a work on this branch of the law.

There was no vacant niche in legal literature to be filled by this book. Undoubtedly the subject is one of great and constantly increasing importance; but the field was already occupied by several works of marked merit. The profession had access to Bishop on Written Laws, Wilberforce on Statutes, Endlich (Am. ed. of Maxwell) on Statutes, and Pomeroy's edition of Sedgwick, to say nothing of other works.

If, however, a new book must be published, a worse one than Mr. Black's might easily have been written. The work, as a whole, seems fairly done; and especial commendation is due to section 76, on "The Title"; section 70, on "Adopted and Re-enacted Statutes"; and sections 139 and 140, on "Declaratory Statutes."

A remarkable omission should be noticed. The Table of Cases Cited does not contain either Riggs v. Palmer, 115 N. Y. 506, or Shellenberger v. Ransom, 47 N. W. Rep. 700 (Neb.); 59 N. W. Rep. 935; which discuss the question whether the statutes of wills and descent should be construed as allowing a murderer to enjoy a legacy or an inheritance from his victim.