Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 9.djvu/42

14 !4 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. nally intended to have only a very limited application, and which " could only do duty as a general exposition by being strangely misinterpreted and strangely misapplied." ^ Round numbers, it is said, are always false ; and purely general criticisms are apt to be unfounded. Those who are wont to eulo- gize maxims may not unreasonably require their critics to ** file a specification." In compliance with this request, we proceed to furnish specific criticisms of some specific maxims. And the objections to these maxims will be stated, so far as practicable, in the words of jurists of acknowledged reputation. One who has the temerity to attack popular idols can hardly expect even to obtain a hearing, much less to convince, if he relies solely on the views " evolved from his own inner consciousness." The convincing force, if any such there be, of this article will consist in its want of originality.. There are phrases, solemn and imposing in form, which seldom or never render any real assistance in the solution of a legal puz- zle ; but on the contrary actually retard that solution. They are mere truisms; or mere identical propositions; or moral precepts; or principles of legislation ; but not working rules of law. "Such sentences are not a solution of a difficulty ; they are stereotyped forms for gliding over a difficulty without explaining it." ^ And yet, being mistaken for solutions of the practical legal problem, their use has the effect of preventing a thorough investigation. Prominent in this class is the famihar maxim. Sic utere tiio ut alienum nofi IcBdas, and its companion phrase. Qui jure siio iititur neminem Icedit. Perhaps no legal phrase is cited more frequently than Sic uterCy &c. It is not uncommon for judges to decide im- portant cases without practically giving any reason save the quota- tion of this maxim, which is evidently regarded by the court as affording, by its very terms, a satisfactory ratio decidendi. Yet in the vast majority of cases this use of the phrase is utterly fallacious. " The maxim, Sic utere tuo ut alienum non icedas, is mere verbiage. A party may damage the property of another where the law permits ; and he may not where the law prohibits : so that the maxim can never be applied till the law is ascertained ; and, when it is, the maxim is super- fluous."* 1 6 Harvard Law Review, 437. 2 8 Am. Law Rev. 519. 8 Erie, J., in Bonomi v. Backhouse, El. Bl. & El. 622, p. 643.