Page:North Dakota Law Review Vol. 1 No. 7 (1924).pdf/7

Rh

It appears that there are some few members of the Bar violating the schedule of fees, particularly with respect to mortgage foreclosures.

I feel that this is regrettable and deplorable if we cannot do for the Bar of North Dakota what is being done in other States. I, therefore, suggest, and use Bar Briefs as a medium of transmitting this request, that in each county in the State the President of the County Bar Association, or, if there be none, the State’s AtorneyAttorney [sic], or, if he refuses to act, a member of the Bar, call a meeting of the Bar and discuss the situation and report to me as Chairman of the Committee on Compensation and Fees.

This is important and I trust the Bar will act.

F. T. CUTHBERT, Chairman

Devils Lake, N. D.

The Third Annual Meeting of the American Law Institute was held at Washington, D. C., May 1st and 2nd, 1925. The meeting was presided over by Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo of New York. Over three hundred and fifty members were present, coming from every state in the Union. North Dakota was represented by Hon. A. W. Cupler, President of the State Bar Association; Dean O. P. Cockerill, of the Law School of the State University, and Judge Geo. M. McKenna, of Napoleon.

Definite, practical and substantial progress has been made in the great work of preparing the Restatement of the Law, best evidenced by the fact that the editorial staff and the Council were able to submit at this meeting a Restatement of a Portion of the Law of Contracts, that portion of the Restatement of the Law of Torts dealing with Assault, Assault and Battery and False Imprisonment, and that part of the Restatement of the Topic, Conflict of Laws, dealing with Domicile.

It was interesting, instructive and highly entertaining to see these restatements analyzed paragraph by paragraph, and sentence by sentence; with critical comment, tersely stated objections, and illustrations from wide personal experience. It was borne in upon the convention that the Reporters, Prof. Samuel H. Williston, of Harvard, on Contracts; Francis H. Bohlen, of Pennsylvania, on Torts; and Joseph H. Beale, of the Harvard Law School, on Conflicts of Laws, were eminently fitted for their great tasks. The readiness with which they were able to answer all questions and objections; to sift to the bottom every proposition; to succinctly and clearly illustrate every point, was a mental treat, and inspired confidence in all present that the work was being thoroughly, carefully and capably done. None of the restatements were finally accepted, but will await the result of practical experience and further comment.

Another interesting and highly important feature was the