Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 10.djvu/93

67 REVIEWS, 6/ Morawetz and Taylor it will not supersede either of those excellent works. Judge Thompson's book has marked excellences, but is not without defects. Among the author's most conspicuous merits are courage and earnest- ness. He writes without having before his eyes the fear of man, not even of man clothed in judicial ermine. He calls a spade a spade, and never hesitates to denounce what he deems error, even though it be indorsed by the weight of authority. As compared with the conventional and non- committal tone of some other legal authors, one might apply to Judge Thompson what was said of Baron Martin on the Bench : he is " like a rough and healthy breeze in an overladen atmosphere." But the vehe- mence with which he has espoused Certain views on some controverted points has occasionally prevented him from seeing that there are really two sides to the dispute ; and his discussion is less valuable than if he had fully realized all the difficulties inherent in the matter. Again, it is a great merit of the work that it covers various special topics not often so fully discussed- in other books on the same gen- eral subject. (See, for instance. Chapter 87, on " Right to Inspect Books and Papers.") But the author frequently errs on the side of diffuseness. Probably this is largely due to his desire, expressed in the Preface (pp. viii and ix *' to treat every topic with such fulness of detail that the state of the law in respect of it could be learned /r<?//^ the pages of the work, and without the necessity of the reader search- ing the adjudged cases." His motive is praiseworthy, but it was prac- tically impossible completely to carry out the wish ; and the attempt has unduly expanded the text. The work would have been worth more if the six volumes had been condensed into three. Moreover, upon some topics the salient points are not brought out as clearly as could be desired. No doubt each chapter contains a few sentences which were intended by the author as a brief summary of the results of his investigations. But these sentences are not always put in such a place or form as to impress their importance upon a reader not already familiar with the subject. In the citations of authorities some omissions have been noticed. In Vol. 5, s. 5787, under ''Devises to Corporations when their Statutory Limit has been Reached," there is no mention of the important case of Trustees of Davids 07i College . Ex*rs. and Next of Kin of Chambers, 3 Jones Eq. (N. C.) 253. In the same section, De Camp v. Dobbins, 29 N. J. Eq. 36, is cited without any mention of the report of the same case in the Court of Errors, 31 N. J. Eq. 671. The result reached by the lower court was there affirmed, on the ground that the corporation had capacity to take property to the amount in question ; but the opinion of Beasley, C. J., expresses some views generally regarded as quite divergent from those of the Chancellor in the court below. (See 31 N. J. Eq., pp. 690 to 693 ; and compare the comments of Peckham, J., 19 N.E. Rep.,pp. 251 and 254, 255.) Like most other writers on corporations. Judge Thompson appears to have overlooked the interesting early case of Nay lor v. Brown, Finch, 83, as to the rights of creditors against the property of a dissolved corpo- ration. In Vol. 4, s. 4569, upon the question whether the plaintiff in a stockholder's bill must have been a stockholder at the time of the griev- ance complained of, no mention is made of JVinsorv. Bailey, 55 N. H. 218. The " Table of Cases Cited " does not contain either Tomkinson v. South Eastern R, Co., L. R. 35 Ch. D. 675, or Scarth v. Chadwick, 14 Jurist, 300, relating to the question whether a stockholder's bill may be