Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/426

 EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT Second, those arising out of the family relation. Third, those attached by custom as an inci dent to the tenure of real estate, or the in cumbency of some office. Fourth, those annexed by the policy of the law as necessary incidents to a relation voluntarily assumed, normally varying in extent as the relation is gratuitous or beneficial to him on whom the obligation is laid." The examination of these groups leads to the following conclusions: "On the whole it may be said that duties to take positive action for the benefit and protection of others attach only to certain relations; and are imposed only when abso lutely necessary for the protection of others and only to the extent generally necessary to afford them protection. Save where the state has by legislative enactment imposed such obligations, they do not exist, unless there be some family relation; tenure or occupancy of real property, or the voluntary act of con sciously entering into some relationship to which such duties are attached because necessary for the protection of one's associates. Even in the case of family relationship there is present the will of the citizen to become a husband or father, so that even here the relation is, in the last analysis, the creature of voluntary action on his part. The occupancy of real estate is, save perhaps in the case where it conies into one's possession by inheritance, a conscious, voluntary act. It is not too much to say, therefore, that, saving the case of an inherited estate, if indeed this be an exception, no man can be saddled with a burden of posi tive action without some voluntary act on his part which renders him subject thereto. In addition it would appear that save in the case of family relations, where the interest of the state to avoid being unduly burdened with the support of those whose relations are able to care for them naturally leads to the burden of the support of the members of a family being placed upon its head; no obligation beyond that of good faith and fair dealing is laid upon any individual unless he voluntarily occupies a relation materially beneficial to him. Finally it may be said that these obligations only attach where the/ one party, having exclusive control of a condition, has the entire power to prevent harm arising from it, and where the other, from the verv nature of

325

the relation, must be altogether helpless and incapable of protecting himself, and so is forced to rely implicitly upon the care of his associate for his safety." TRUSTS (Preference of Legal Estate). "The Legal Estate," by Edward Jenks. Law Quarterly Review (V. xxiv, p. 147). An iconoclastic query whether the absolute legal rule that, as against a purchaser for value of the legal estate without notice and without negligence, no equitable interest, of however long standing, is of any avail, is justifiable at the present day. He suggests that in such cases as Pilcher v. Rawlins, neither that rule, nor the rule of prior in ternfore be used, but that the loss be equally divided between the innocent parties. Another suggestion is that a cestui que trust be absolutely bound against innocent strangers, by his trustee's mis conduct. UNIFORMITY OF LAW (United States). "Uniformity of Law as an American Ideal," by William Schofield. Harvard Lam Review (V. xxi, p. 510). Continuing the article reviewed in the May GREEN BAG, Judge Scho field considers statute law and its probable effect upon uniformity of law in the several states. The larger part of statute law, he says, can be neglected, for it is administra tive, not private, law. On most matters of private law there is practically no public Opinion. The governors of the states and the judges are precluded by the doctrine of the separation of powers from exerting much in fluence, and the bar has, in most cases, the control. This fact tends to secure uni formity, as also does the legislative tendency to follow precedent and to adopt or copy the statutes of other legislatures. Striking ex amples are the Statute of Frauds, the Em ployers' Liability Acts, the Field Code of Procedure, the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Warehouse Receipt Act, the Uniform Sales Act. Forces of the first importance in securing many of these have been the Ameri can Bar Association, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, and the Association of American Law Schools. "It is plain that uniformity of private law is more easily and surely obtainable from the action of legislatures than from the action of the courts. The corrective action of the