Page:Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, Volume 1.djvu/810

 796 V. BENCH AND BAR Westbury. Although the Judicature Act of 1873 was passed under Lord Selborne's chancellorship, public opinion had been aroused and the main outlines of the reform sug- gested by Cairns, who was chairman of the first Judicature Commission of 1866. It was he who influenced the modi- fication of the act so as to retain the final appellate juris- diction of the House of Lords. ^ Hatherley (1868-'72) sustained on the woolsack the repu- tation which he had made as vice chancellor. He was an accurate and sound judge, although somewhat overshadowed by his distinguished contemporaries. He thought so quickly and expressed his opinion so readily (he always delivered oral judgments) that his opinions lacked form. Lord Campbell, on appeal, once commented strongly on the " prodigious 2-672; Rhodes v. Forwood, 1-261; Thorn v. Mayor of London, 1-126; Lakeman v. Mountstephen, 7 E. & I. App. 20. Torts — Metropolitan Ry. Co. v. Jackson, 3 App. Cas. 196, Dawkins v. Rokeby, 7 E. & I. App, 753; Bridges v. No. Condon Ry., 7-537; Ham- mersmith Ry. V. Brand, 4-215; Rylands v. Fletcher, 3-330; Prudential Ins. Co. V. Knott 10 Ch. App. 144. Wills — Fulton V. Andrew, 7 E. & I. App. 456; Omahoney v. Bur- dett, 7-392; Hill v. Crook, 6-283; Harrington v. Harrington, 5-103; Sackville West v. Holmesdale, 4-571; Bowen v. Lewis, 9 App. Cas. 904; Singleton v. Tomlinson, 3-413; Thomson v. Eastwood, 2-227. Mercantile Law — Bowes v. Shand, 2 App. Cas. 455; Goodwin v. Rob- erts, 1-488 ; Ward v. Hobbs, 4-19 ; Steel v. State Steamship Co., 3-75 ; Vyse V. Foster, 7 E. & I. App. 728; Morgan v. Laixviere, 7-429; Shots- man V. Ry. Co. 2 Ch. App. 332; In re Agra & Masternian's Bank, 2-391, Miscellaneous — Lyon v. Fishmonger's Co., 1 App. Cas. 670 (riparian rights) ; Swindon Waterworks Co. v. Nav. Co., 7 E. & I. App. 701 (do.) ; Kendall v. Hamilton, 4 A. C, 512 (joint and several liability) ; Doherty V. Allman, 3-716 (injunction); Singer Mfg. Co. v. Wilson, 3-381 (trade mark); De Thoren v. Atty. Gen., 1-688 (Scotch marriage); Clark v. Adie, 2-317 (patent) ; Harrison v. Anderson Foundry Co., 1-575 (do.) ; Corser v. Cartwright, 7 E. & I. App. 734 (estate) ; Nickalls v. Merry, T-538 (broker) ; Shropshire etc, Co., v. Queen, 7-504 (equitable mort- gage) ; Beattie v. Lord Ebury, 7-108; I^amaire v. Dixon, 6-474 (specific performance) ; Ferguson v. Wilson, Ch. App. 77 (do.) ; Maxwell v. Hogg, 2-307 (copyright) ; United States v. Wagner, 2-582 (foreign state as plaintiff); Patch v. Ward, 3-203 (fraud); Lloyd v. Banks, 3-488 (notice) ; Parker v. McKenna, 10-114 (trustees) ; Wilson v. Merry, 1 Sc. & Div. App. 328 (fellow servant) ; Redsdale v. Clifton, 2 P. D, 276; Attwood v. Maude, 3 Ch, App, 369; Gisborne v. Gisborne, 2 App. Cas. 300. 'Among his other legislative achievements are the Conveyancing Act, the Vendors' and Purchasers' Act, and the Registry Act. The only statute which bore his name, however, was the act enabling the Chan- cery Courts to give damages in lieu of specific performance or injunc- tion.