Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 13.pdf/74

 Rh knowledge of, and in reliance upon, a represen tation to " the public" that the agent has cer tain powers; but such personal knowledge and reliance are essential elements of estoppel as Mr. Ewart points out in chapters x and xi; and that such knowledge and reliance are not essen tial elements of responsibility for the contracts of an agent is demonstrated by the fact that a third person ignorant of the course of busi ness and of the circumstances of the very em ployment, does hold the principal, whether dis closed or undisclosed, for contracts, whether desired or not desired, provided these contracts are within the agent's " apparent authority," to use the common but inappropriate phrase. In short, notwithstanding Mr. Ewart's attrac tive theorizing, the reader will probably remain convinced that negotiable instruments and agency are not based upon estoppel. Neverthe less, the reader should be charitable enough to remember that Mr. Ewart is not the first author to indulge in the amiable weakness of attempting to enlarge the jurisdiction of a favorite subject. Besides, it is notorious that estoppel has peculiar fascinations. There have been writers who actu ally suggested treating the whole law of con tracts as a branch of estoppel. Mr. Ewart has not done this; but he has done much, — and more, indeed, than can be pointed out here. He has, in fact, fallen a victim to an exaggerated impression of the importance of his subject. What is the reason for the excessive attractive ness of estoppel? Partly, no doubt, the vague ness with which its doctrines are frequently ap prehended — but this is not at all the explanation in the case of such a clear thinker as Mr. Ewart; — and partly the fact too seldom perceived but obvious enough, that estoppel, being unquestion ably a doctrine in a business sense convenient and in a moral sense just, resembles closely the fundamental doctrines of many independent branches of the law. Estoppel is but one of a considerable number of doctrines of a secondary or derivative nature, — all of them flowing from the single primary doctrine that law must seek the public welfare by being convenient and just. It is impossible, then, to acquiesce in the author's conception that estoppel is a wizard of substantially unlimited power, whose spell is found in unexpected places throughout the whole sphere of law. Yet it is possible, and necessary,

to say that every part of the book is entertaining. and that the parts with which one cannot agree are among the most entertaining of all. Clear argument is good reading, whether one agrees with it or not; and, besides, in the midst of even unconvincing argument Mr. Ewart places much matter of unquestionable value, such as discussions of what is meant by negotiability (pp. 375—385), of the futile distinction between general and special agents (pp. 474-483), and of the analogy between deceit and contract (pp. 499-501). Both text and notes contain slips that can easily be corrected in a second edition. It would be ungracious to dwell upon these small defects, for they do not appreciably diminish the useful ness of the book; but it is impossible to refrain from protesting against the impossible Latinity of the form in which at pp. xvii, 257, 258, and 259, the author misquotes the maxim, Cessante rationc /t'gts, tessat ifsa /ex. Finally, although it has been necessary to ex press dissent as to a great part of the theorizing of this book, its value as a stimulant to thought cannot be questioned. Here is, in truth, a treatise of unusual ingenuity and fervor; and upon discovering that the author assumes for estoppel a questionable supremacy over one great division of the law after another, the reader does not resent the usurpation, but is pleasantly re minded of Rienzi, when, as Bulwer pictures the scene, that enthusiast of long ago, at a ceremony rendered impressive by sincerity, first defied the powers of the earth to prove any claim to the sovereignty of Italy, and then, turning his sword hither and thither, said to each of the known regions of the globe, " In the right of the Roman people, this, too, is mine 1" THE AMERICAN STATE REPORTS, Vols. 74. 75, containing the cases of general value and authority decided in the courts of last resort of the several States. Selected, reported and annotated by A. C. Freeman. San Francisco : Bancroft-NYhitney Company. 1900. Law sheep. $4.00. The especial value of this series of reports lies in its excellent notes. For example, in volume 74 before us, in connection with Harding v. American Glucose Company, 182 Ill. 551, is a valuable monographic note of forty pages on " What Combinations Constitute Unlawful