Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/389

 342

commendation: "A number of errors in proof reading, also, should be corrected. For example, Edwin v. Lancaster in note 40, Sec. 1334, should be Ewin r. Lancaster. Bar ring this and a few other mistakes, which are not serious, the present edition is an admir able piece of work.'' Not so the reviewer in the Harvard Law Rn'iciv. The author and his book are flayed alive and the calf is torn from the covers of the book, although it may be said some lew patches are left to the hide of the unfortunate victim himself. The reviewer states that he examined the book prejudiced in its favor and "we have been surprised," he says, "to find how greatly we were mis taken." The gist of the onslaught consists oMour charges, namely: That Mr. Daniel mistakes the law; that the cases cited often do not bear out the generalization and posi tive statement in the text; that many oppos ing authorities are not mentioned at all, although squarely in point, or are quoted for a dictum in favor of the author's view; and lastly that the omissions of important cases, whether accord or contra, seriously impair the completeness of a work on this delicate and vastly important subject. To this gen eral statement might be added another objec tion of the reviewer, namely, that cases cited in the table of contents are not to be found in their proper places. "Mistakes of this kind,'1 he says, "are so common in this edi tion that we forbear to give further exam ples.'' And another serious drawback arises from the fact that "this edition con tinues to cite many cases as reported only in law reviews, although they have been for years published in the regular reports." A final quotation will show the value this work has in the reviewer's eyes. "We have made," he says, "no special effort to find er rors in this edition. None is necessary. They sautent aux ycu.r. Those which we have mentioned and others have come to our no tice either when we have opened the volumes at random or when we have examined them to find Mr. Daniel's views upon some con troverted point." As this latter is a detailed and extensive

review, the prospective owner of this edition may well examine it and test it for himself. The present reviewer has consulted Daniel's frequently and has at times examined paspages in which he had a present and often pressing interest. The section on Negoti able Instruments secured by Mortgage (Vol. i, pp. 842-848), discusses, in the light of the weight of authority, the theory that the mort gage is merged in the note to such an ex tent, that the rights of an innocent holder in course for value and without notice are those of a holder of a negotiable instrument. This ignores the fact that the transaction is a mortgage transaction and is to be regu lated by the law of mortgages. On prin ciple this is clear and unanswerable. Mr. Daniel cites many authorities for the pre vailing and irrational view, and he throws in in a haphazard way, authorities contra: but in this latter list, the reviewer finds but a single Ohio case, while the leading case of Bailey v. Smith, 1863, 14 Oh. St. 396, in which Mr. Justice Ranney riddles the doctrine and re fuses to follow it, is omitted from the section altogether. The case, is, however, misspelled and miscited in sects. 7s8a, 7793. But it would be unfair to overlook the fact that the courts have quoted this book time and again so that it stands before the public and the practitioners invested, as it were, with a halo of judicial authority. For this reason it has had and does have sub stantial merits, and in this new form it will continue to decide many a law suit in the future as it has in the past. The present re viewer does not detract in any way .from its practical utility; but he suggests a careful pe rusal of the review in the Harrard Law Revicw, Vol. XVI. (pp. 605-612) by way of cau tion to those who would or might otherwise rely upon it as a sole and unassailable authoritv. THE LAW AND PRACTICE IN ARTICLFS FOR TORTS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK. By /. Newton Fiero. Albany: Matthew Bender. 1933. (xviii+893 pp.) In the modest guise of a local book here is a work of merit, well deserving circulation