Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 9.djvu/395

367 REVIEWS. 367 not made up his book by copying bodily from these authors ; but he has made an entirely justifiable use of their works by giving from time to tiaie judicious selections, with proper acknowledgment. Moreover, he has grasped the leading modern conceptions in the law of torts, and has given proof that he is himself an original thinker. The book fulfils the statement of the Preface, that it " is brought thoroughly down to date." The more important recent cases are generally given ; and although, as has been said, fulness of citation may diminish the usefulness of the work to students, yet its value to the practising lawyer is thereby materially enhanced. (See, for instance, note 3 on page 474, containing a full collection of authorities and able comments on the interesting ques- tion so recently raised in Hanson v. Globe Newspaper Co., 159 Mass. 293.) As to the topics which should be dealt with in a treatise on "Torts," there is likely to be some difference of opinion. The writer of this notice thinks that some subjects usually discussed in books on " Torts " should be left to works on " Property," while others (and this includes a large class) should be left to ''The Law of Persons." But Professor Jaggard, in includ- ing such topics in the present book, is simply following the example of able predecessors. It seldoQi happens that all parts of a work are of equal merit. Professor Jaggard's treatment of Conversion seems inferior to his treatment of Deceit ; while the chapter on " Wrongs affecting Reputation " is superior to the dis- cussion of Juridical Cause. But the book, taken as a whole, is a distinctly creditable performance. j. s. Restraints on the Alienation of Property. By John Chipman Gray, LL.D., Royall Professor of Law in Harvard University. Second Edition. Boston: Boston Book Co. 1895. pp, xxix, 309. The appearance of a second edition of this volume is significant of the rapid change that has taken place in the law regarding restraints on aliena- tion. A dozen years ago, at the time of the first edition, the doctrine which it was one of the purposes of the book to discredit was still in its infancy. As yet few jurisdictions had followed the dictum in Nichols v. Eaton, 91 U. S. 716, in declaring that a man could enjoy the benefit of his property without being compelled to subject it to the payment of his debts, and the task of the writer at that time was to protest against the growth of this new doctrine, and to show by argument and authority how at variance it was with good morals and previous law. Since then decisions in favor of spendthrift trusts have been so rapidly multiplied that the weight of authority is noA^ on the other side, and the writer almost stands (as he says in his delightful Preface) vox clamantis in deserto. This change in the aspect of the courts has given us this second edition, and with it not only a discussion of the more recent decisions, but also an explanation of the causes of this strange departure from the common law view of the incidents necessarily dependent upon ownership. The change is traced partly to the decision of the United States Supreme Court, but more generally to the modern reaction against the laissezfaire doctrine, to the tendency to drift away from a society founded on contract, and to adopt a system of paternal socialism. Against this modern tendency the writer takes a strong stand in favor of the old doctrine, which, he says, " was a wholesome one, fit to produce a manly race, based on sound morality and wise philosophy." To the layman who imagines law books to be the epitome of dust and