Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 10.djvu/390

364 364 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. F, — and you want to know the right conclusion to draw from them. The right way is to weigh the facts separately and together, and to draw your conclusion. It is not to take A. and say that if A stood alone it would shift the onus of proof, and then to look over B, C, D, E, and F and see if the remainder of the proof is sufficient to rebut the presump- tion supposed to be raised. The truth is, that all the cases which go beyond the line, or the test, or the definition, which has been explained once more by Lord Justice Cotton, are cases which depend on exploded fallacies. One fallacy after another has been exploded about the way in which to deal with these partnership cases, and no fallacy has been harder to kill than that about participation in profits. Of course, as the Lord Justice has pointed out, there may be cases in which participation in profits is enough to enable the court to decide the matter, but if you once lay down a principle of law that participation in profits is a deter- mining factor, at that moment you depart from the region of law into the region of fact." For the application of law to a case as a whole, uniting various methods in the treatment of diverse claims, Maxim Nordenfelt Gun & Ammunition Co. v. Nordenfelt,^ and Mogul Steamship Co. V, McGregor,^ are the best examples of Lord Bowen's work. Indeed, these two opinions are the most brilliant that he ever delivered ; and they have the additional interest of dealing with general and timely issues. The former case settled the law re- lating to contracts in restraint of trade, and the latter laid down the legal limits of trade selfishness by way of combination to sup- press competition. Other notable instances of systematic treat- ment on a large scale are Le Lievre v. Gould,^ on the limits of the law of negligence; Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.,* an elabo- rate discussion of the law relating to the formation of contracts; and Hutton v. West Cork Ry. Co.,^ on the powers of the majority over corporate funds.^ 1 [1893] I Ch. 631. 2 23 Q. B. D. 598. 8 [1893] I Q. B. 498. 6 The cases thus far mentioned have been selected primarily with reference to style and method. For Lord Bowen's substantial contributions to English law, I would cite the following cases: Maxim Nordenfelt Gun & Ammunition Co. v. Nordenfelt, [1893I 1 Ch. 631, which settled the law as to contracts in restraint of trade; Mogul Steam- ship Co. V. McGregor, 23 Q. B. D. 598, on the limits of trade selfishness by way of combination to exclude rivals; Thomas v. Quartermaine, 18 Q. B. D. 685, on the duty of owners of premises, and the doctrine volenti non fit injuria ; Le Lievre v. Gould, [1S93] I Q. B. 491, on the limits of the law of negligence; Ratcliffe v. Evans, [1892] 2 Q. B. 524, on the evidence admissible to sustain an action for defamation ; Finlay v. Chirney, 20 Q. B. D. 494, and Phillips v. Homfray, 24 Ch, D. 453, on the maxim actio
 * [1893] I Q- B- 265. 6 23 Ch. D. 669.