Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/1015

979 BOOK REVIEWS 979 its structure and arrangement about which there may be some difference of opinion, and this is the absence from the first part of the book of adequate material for the study of the distinction between the common-law fiduciary obligation and the strict trust, by the aid of which the student may trace historically the difference in origin of these two classes of obligations. One of the most puzzling experiences of the student in taking up the study of trusts is, that although he is taught that the trust is a creation of equity and is enforce- able only by courts of equity, he finds a large class of fiduciary obligations to which the substantive law of trusts is applied but for which an action at law is the normal remedy. He finds in many such cases that the plaintiff not only has a legal action against the fiduciary but that he may proceed at law on claims owed by third persons to the fiduciary, whereas in the case of the strict trustee his remedy is exclusively in equity against the trustee. It is believed the student can grasp the significance of these peculiarities and understand adequately the relation of the fiduciary obligation or "common-law trust" to true trusts only by study- ing, early in the course, the scope of the common-law action of account and of debt and indebitatus assumpsit as successors to the action of account ; the ex- tension of the jurisdiction in equity over the fiduciary relation in bills for an accounting, and finally the use of trover, especially in actions against stock- brokers and agents to collect negotiable paper, as a substitute for a bill in equity. Professor Ames collected much valuable material dealing with this phase of the subject which he placed at the very beginning of his case-book. Professor Scott has compressed this material into two pages and it appears on pages 571 and 572 of his case-book. Many teachers of the subject who regard it as de- sirable to study the "common-law trust" in comparison with the equity trust, with reference to the procedural differences which have survived to the present day, win regret that this part of Professor Ames' case-book has not been ex- panded instead of contracted. This phase of the law has an important bearing on much of the litigation which arises out of banking and stock-brokerage transactions and the business conducted by consignees of merchandise and factors generally. There are some other subjects which are usually taken up in class-room work, that have been omitted, such as the troublesome question (in some juris- dictions) of the trustee's power to delegate trust duties and the liability of one trustee for the default of his co-trustee. Some of the material in Professor Ames' collection which is of historical interest but of little practical value in modern law is also omitted. But when a case-book extends beyond eight hun- dred pages one cannot urge the treatment of additional subjects. It is inevi- table that some selection should be made, and with the possible exception of the treatment of the law relating to common-law fiduciaries, the choice has been made judiciously and skillfully. Without attempting to refer in detail to the many valuable notes which Professor Scott has compiled, especial attention should be directed to the notes on the liability of trustees to third persons, on the distinction between latent and patent equities; to his notes on purchase for value, the statute of frauds, and the liability of agent and subagent banks receiving commercial paper for collection. They represent unusually thorough and patient research and contain much material which it would be difl&cult to find elsewhere. Dean H. F. Stone. Columbia UNtvEESiTy. Authority in the Modern State. By Harold J. Laski. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1919. $3.00. Fifteen years ago in the political science courses we were handed out the hard and fast propositions that the state was sovereign, and somewhere in