Page:Marvin, Legal Bibliography, 1847.djvu/510

 MAR MARCH, JOHN. Actions for Slander and Arbitraments. 1. What Words are Actionable in the Law, and what not ; where an Action De Scandalis will lie, and of the Nature of a Libel. The other showing what Arbitraments are good in Law ; with Precedents, now Reviewed, and Enlarged, with many useful Additions. By W. B. 8vo. London. 1674. MARESCHAL, G. Le Droit Commercial Dans ses Rapports avec le Droit des Gens et le Droit Civill. 6 vol. 8vo. Paris. 1844. MARIUS, JOHN. Advice concerning Bills of Exchange. 3d ed. 12mo. London. 1674. 8vo. Philadelphia. 1790. See Malijnes. Marius, says Lord Kenyon, lias always been treated with considerable respect, though not the production of a lawyer; it was written in early times, by a person conversant with the custom of merchants respecting Bills of Exchange ; the rules laid down by him have been since received by the mercantile world ; and his book has been frequently referred to by Courts of Justice, and by the most able authors treating upon Commercial Law. 6 Term Rep. 212; 2 Ld. Raym. 920; 3 Kent, 12G. MARRIAGE. The Present State of the Law as to Marriages between English Subjects, within the Prohibited Degrees of Affinity. Svo. London. 1840. MARRIAGES of Cousin-Germans, Vindicated from the Censures of Unlawfulness and Inexpediency. Svo. Oxford. 1675. MARRIOTT, SIR JAMES. Formulore Instrumentorum or, a Formulary of authentic Instruments, Writs, and Standing Orders, used in the High Courts of Admiralty, of Great Britain, of Prize and Instance. Perused and approved as correct by Sir James Marriott. Svo. London. 1802. . Memoire Justificatif de la Conduite de la Grande Bretagne en arretant les Navires Etrangers, et les Munitions de Guerre Destinees aux Insurgens de I'Araerique. Svo. London. 1801. . Decisions in the Court of Admiralty, during the Time of Sir George Hay and Sir James Marriott, late Judges of that Court, from M. T., 1776, to H. T., 1779. Svo. London. 1801. Sir James Marriott immediately preceded Lord Stowell upon the Bench, than between whom there was never a greater contrast in the judicial history of England. The former treated with disregard, authorities from 498