Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/326

 Rh tion in the number of applications for divorce? I answer quite frankly, "No." It is a fact that divorce has lately slightly in creased in France, but I call attention to the fact that divorce is as easy in France, under certain conditions, as in the most liberal State in the United States, even for foreigners, provided the parties accept the jurisdiction of the French courts. IN an article (Michigan Law Review for March) on "Some Legal Aspects of Special Assessments," Professor Frank L. Sage, of the University of Michigan, says of Nor wood v. Baker, 172 U. S. 269: However we may now be tormented with doubt concerning the general principle es tablished by Norwood v. Baker it is made clear by ... later cases that the validity of the front foot rule is not subverted by the I4th Amendment and that all or any part of the cost of a local improvement may be as sessed under general laws without an oppor tunity to the taxpayers to show that the tax was in excess of the benefits. If this method is to be discarded it must be done by the legislatures or tribunals of the various States. Yet it does seem that we may still believe that there is enough left of Norwood v. Baker, as well as from intimations in these subsequent cases, and also in King v. Port land (184 U. S. 61), that while these meth ods, that might be called arbitrary, arc not only prima facie valid, but are generally con clusive, still, if the application of the rule would result in total confiscation of the property, the I4th Amendment might afford relief. Whether any thing less than entire confiscation would be relieved must, we beliee, remain for future determination. Nevertheless the case had a good effect as it has resulted in a re-examination of the fundamental principles of special assessment and some courts, which followed it while it was still in its primal vigor, appear to be well satisfied and disinclined to revert to or adopt the old doctrine that the determination of the legislature is conclusive.

281

THE third chapter of the interesting con troversy between Professor Samuel Williston, of the Harvard Law School, and Pro fessor Francis M. Burdick, of the Columbia Law School, over the question of "Recission for Breach of Warranty," is found in the Columbia Law Review for March. Pro fessor Williston here answers Professor Burdick's criticism (Columbia Law Review, January) of the former's original article (Harvard Law Review, May, 1903). Pro fessor Williston bases his discussion on the proposition "that the Massachusetts law al lows recission of an executed sale tor breach of warranty whether the warranty be express or implied, collateral or a so-called condition, and that the English law denies recission of an executed sale for breach of any warranty or promissory condition what ever its nature, though it allows, as does the law of every jurisdiction, the buyer to take the goods temporarily into his possession to inspect them." In conclusion he says: When I first wrote I was prepared to admit that the weight of actual authority was in favor of the English view. I am still ready to admit this. I thought and still think, however, that the balance of judicial authority in favor of the English view is much less than is ordinarilv supposed. Until a few years ago the only text book on sales in much use was the the English treatise of Benjamin, and this doubtless tended to impress upon student and teacher, practitioner and judge the Eng lish doctrine. The amount of support that the contrary doctrine has found has not un naturally been imperfectly noted. The question, however, in which I am primarily concerned, and I cannot help thinking it is the really vital question, is not whether the courts of ten or twelve or fourteen jurisdictions or more or less support the Massa chusetts rule but what is the intrinsic merit of the rule itself. Nearly half of the United States have as yet neither decision nor dic tum in regard to the matter. When the States I cannot believe that the proper way to decide it is by a popular vote of jurisdicquestion is presented to the courts of these