Page:Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, Volume 1.djvu/839

 iSO. V ELDER: A CENTURY OF JUDICATURE 825 judicial office. High judicial office means the office of Lord Chancellor of Great Britain or Ireland, of a paid judge of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, or of a judge of one of the superior courts of Great Britain or Ireland. As a judicial tribunal the House reached its highest useful- ness under the Judicature Act. With a membership defined by statute, with a reasonable assurance of regular attend- ance (brought about by relieving the lord chancellor from his ancient duties as a judge of first instance), with the ap- pointment of paid judges as lords in ordinary, and the eleva- tion to the peerage of several eminent and experienced judges, the composition of the court has given much satis- faction. In sheer ability, with Cairns, Selborne and Hatherley in equity, and Blackburn, Bramwell, Watson and Herschell in common law, no other English court has ever equalled it. During this period there have been only four chancellors. Cairns, Selborne, Herschell and Halsbury. Cairns lived until 1885, Selborne and Herschell almost to the end of the century. The most distinguished English lords have been Blackburn, Bramwell, Penzance, Field, Macnaghten ^ and Davey. Untimely death deprived the court of the services of two of its most promising members, Hannen and Bowen. Watson was the ablest of the Scotchmen, the others being Gordon and Shand. O'Hagan ranks at the head of the Irish in equity in cases of fraud and misrepresentation; Angus v. Clifford, (1891) 2 Ch. 449, on actionable misrepresentaion ; Allcard v. Skin- ner. 36 Ch. D. 145, on undue influence; Speight v. Gaunt, 22 Ch. D. 727, on the duties of trustees; Hammond v. Bussey, 20 Q. B. D. 93, applying the doctrine of Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Ex. 341 ; Castellian v. Preston, 11 Q. B. D. 397. on the recovery under fire insurance policies; Stein- man V. Angier Line, (1891) 1 Q. B. 619, on recovery under a bill of lading for loss by theft; Svensden v. Wallace, 13 Q. B. D. 69, on the scope of general average contribution; Abrath v. Northeastern Ry. Co., 11 Q. B. D. 440, on the nature of the burden of proof; Hutton v. West Cork Ry. Co., 23 Ch. D. 654, on the corporate power to remunerate di- rectors for past services; Baroness Wenlock v. River Dee Co., 36 Ch. I). 684, on the limits of the corporate capacity to contract; Re Portu- guese Consolidated Copper Mines, 45 Ch. D. 16, on the doctrine of rati- fication; British Mutual Banking Co. v. Charnwood Forest Ry. Co., 18 O. B. D. 714, on the liabilitv for fraudulent acts of an agent. ^Solomon v. Solomon, (1897) A. C. 22.- Ooregum Gold Mining Co. V. Roper, (1892) A. C. 125; Nordenfelt v. Maxim-Nordenfelt Co, (1894) A. C. 535; Tailby v. Official Receiver, 13 App. Cas. 523; Trevor V. Wentworth, 12 App. Cas. 409; Drummond v. Van Ingen, 12 App. Cas. 284.