Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 02.pdf/452

 Rh given case was denied, doubted, overruled, etc.; but no reference is made to a case cited, either with ex press or implied approval. In this respect it was like Greenleaf's work. In 1878 Cockroft, of Chicago, began the publica tion of "An Unabridged Table of Cases " of all the reports in America, showing in what volumes of re ports a particular case had been subsequently cited, and giving also an alphabetical list of all cases re ported. No attempt was made in this work to show what had been said of or done with regard to a case, beyond saying that it had been subsequently cited, giving the name of the case, book, and page where cited. The first volume covers 727 pages, and goes as far as " Bizzell." The work proceeded no farther. No attempt was made to give English cases when cited in an American decision. In this there was a manifest defect in the work. In 1882 Rapalje & Lawrence published a table of all American and English cases, covering the decis ions published in 1881, which had been cited in the reports of cases for that year, undertaking to show exactly what was said of or done with all cases re ferred to in the opinions of the court reported that year. No table of cases merely reported was given. To say the least, the adoption of the plan of merely giving those cases cited in decisions reported for that year was a very singular one, and one from which failure might be expected. Waite's table of citations of New York was prob ably the pioneer where confined to a particular State. This was in 1872. This work gave no foreign cases cited in the New York reports, nor any table of cases merely reported in that State. Robert Desty's California citations appeared in 1874, in which he merely gave a case, where cited, and the particular point upon which cited. Foreign citations were given, but no table of California cases merely re ported. From this time on, tables of citations came from the press quite rapidly. Some of them are very queer specimens. So far as I have been able to ob serve, tables of citations have been published in the following States: California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin. There are several tables of Federal citations; and one of England, constructed on quite a limited plan. In few States are there tables of cases reported given with those cited. A moment's reflection will show the advantage of giving a table of cases re ported. Often the name of a case is known, but not the volume wherein reported. Such a table will en able the person hunting to find it. It is also a source of gratification to an attorney, when running a case down, to know that it has not been overlooked;

411

and he feels more assured that it has not been if he finds it noted with those cited. In several States the exact point upon which a case is cited is given. This entails great labor upon the compiler, — a labor out of all proportion with the benefit to the practitioner. So the same is- true of the practice of marking a case as doubted, overruled, explained, and the like; for such statements convey no information to the attorney. In all these instances the practising attorney prefers to, and will, if prudent and careful, look up just what was said about the particular case cited from the report itself. A very absurd practice is to arrange the cases cited according to the numerical order of the reports. Thus the cases cited from volume one of the series of reports of the State are arranged alphabetically, and the report and page where subsequently cited are given. This is far less convenient than arranging all the cases cited in alphabetical order. Such tables have been prepared for Georgia and Michi gan (Fitch's). Talbot's "Citations of Michigan" is a very intricate and absurd affair. It is in three parts. The first part consists of Michigan cases cited, and is arranged in double alphabetical order. Thus Adair v. Adair is arranged under the head of " A. A.; " Abbot v. Godfrey, under " A. G." The second part is ar ranged in the same order, but consists of Michigan cases not cited. The third part is arranged in the same order, of foreign cases cited in Michigan re ports. How much better this work would have been if all these cases had been thrown together in single alphabetical order! Shepard's Wisconsin table of cases has all the foreign cases arranged under the particular State from which cited; placing also the Federal and Eng lish cases cited under two separate heads. This ar rangement is very awkward. Albion W. Tourgee's " Digest of Cited Cases " of North Carolina is a monument of labor. All North Carolina civil cases cited are arranged in alphabeti cal order, and likewise are separately arranged all the criminal cases cited. No attention is paid to for eign cases. With each case cited is a short syllabus of the cases, and along with the syllabus is a citation of authorities relied upon by the court to support the decision, below this syllabus are the cases, with book and page, where the case given has been sub sequently cited; and if there are more points than one in the syllabus, they are numbered and a corre sponding number attached to the name of the case where subsequently cited. These syllabi are num bered consecutively; and an index attached to the book gives the particular syllabus where a particular subject is discussed. Thus the work serves both as an index to the reports and a work of citations. Dale & Lehmann's " Overruled Cases " is an Eng lish work. No case is noticed unless it has been