Page:Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, Volume 1.djvu/799

 ^0. VEEDER: A CENTURY OF JUDICATURE 785 For authorities however venerable, if irrational or founded on doubtful principles, he had scant respect. " I am prone," he once said, " to decide cases on principles, and when I think I have got the right one I am apt (I hope I am not presumptuous), like Caliph Omar, to think authorities wrong or needless." He was well equipped with self-confidence. " Lord Cairns was a great lawyer and a consummate judge," he said in one case, " but I differ with him unhesitatingly." He was too tenacious of his personal opinions, some thought. The view that posting acceptance of an offer which never reaches the offerer constitutes a contract, is one of the doc- trines to which he would not assent.^ It is often amusing to observe his efforts to enforce his favourite views. In the Membery case ^ his discussion of the doctrine volenti non fit injuria was really unnecessary to the determination of the issue. This is the way he introduces it : " Of course it is in a sense not necessary that I should express an opinion on this, as the ground I have just mentioned, in my opinion, disposes of the case. But if, instead of mentioning that ground first, I had mentioned the one I am now dealing with, it would, on the same reasoning, be unnecessary to mention that. What I am saying is not obiter^ not a needless expression of opinion on a matter not relevant to the decision. There are two an- swers to the plaintiff, and I decide against him on both, one as much as the other." ^ Fire Insurance Co. v. Grant, 4 Ex. D. 216. M4 A.C. 179. 'Baron Bramwell's principal efforts are: Derry v. Peek, 14 App. Cas. S37 (deceit) ; Jackson v. Insurance Co., 10 C. P. 25 (marine insurance) ; Hall V. Wright (breach of promise) ; BuUen v. Sharp, 1 C. P. 86 (part- nership) ; Debenham v. Mellon, 5 Q. B. D. 394 (wife's necessaries) ; Rankin v. Patter, 6 E. and I. App. 131 (marine insurance) ; Reg. v. Druitt, 10 Cox Cr. Cas. 592; Commrs. of Income Tax v. Pemsel, (1891) A. C. 531 (charity) ; Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, (1892) A. C. 25 (conspiracy) ; Mills v. Armstrong, 13 A. C, 1 (negligence) ; Capital and Counties Bank v. Henty, 7 A. C. 741 (libel); Degg v. Midland Ry. 1 H. and W. 781 (master aiid servant) ; Jones v. Tapling, 31 L. J., C. P. S42 (easements); Gray v. Carr, 6 Q. B. 522 (shipping); Hammersmith Ry. V. Brand (damage for vibration) ; Bryant v. Foot, 3 Q. B. 497 (pre- scription) ; Rodocanachi v. Elliott, 9 C. P. 578 (marine insurance) ; Mullinger v. Florence, 3 Q. B. D. 484 (liens) ; Clark v. Molyneux, 3 Q. B. D. 237 (libel); Massam ». Cattle Food Co., 14 Ch. D. 763 (trade name) ; Honck v. Muller, 7 Q. B. D. 92 (sales) ; Sewell v. Burdick, 10
 * British and American Tel. Co. v. Colson, 6 Ex. 118; Household