Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 13.pdf/576

 A Century of English Judicature. support whatever to the doctrine or princi ple which he thinks is established by them." At all events he was no respecter of persons. In Johnson v. Crook, 12 Ch. D. 439, the question was whether a gift over when the first legatee dies before he shall have

533

opinion he adds: "I am no Œdipus; I do not understand the passage." Further on he remarks: "Lord Selborne says, 'Lord Thurlow said' so and so. There is a very good answer to that—he did not say so." "What is the proper use of authorities?" he

MR. JUSTICE WRIGHT.

"actually received" the legacy is operative, though the legacy had vested in the first taker, if not yet paid to him. He took a view contrary to most of the other equity judges, and he proceeds to despatch them in order. After quoting from Vice-Chancellor Wood he says: "All I can say about it is that it was simply a mistake of the ViceChancellor, and that is how I shall treat it." Then quoting from Lord Chelmsford's

inquires in Re Hallett's Estate, 13 Ch. D. 676. He declares it to be "the establishment of some principle which the judge can follow out in deciding the case before him.'' Jessel had a convenient application of this rule by means of which even the decision of a higher court was not binding unless it decided a principle which he recognized as such. In Re International Pulp Co., 6 Ch. D. 556, where he was pressed by the authority of two