Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 24.pdf/288

 Reviews of Books so worshiped, or so interpreted, that I felt almost dishonest when I looked into a text-book. I used to regard the treatise in much the same light that I had previously regarded the "literal translation" that was so often conven ient, not to say necessary, in my collegi ate struggles with the great Latin and Greek authors. In one or two of our law courses the instructor was accustomed to give us brief summaries that cleared the air and served to arrange the cases and prin ciples for permanent remembrance and use. In contracts, however, the in structor paid us the high compliment of assuming that we ourselves were able to systematize and co-ordinate the work, and that we would receive great advan tage from writing our own text-book or treatise. It may be that some could, and that a very few did, do something of that sort. But to me the whole subject of contracts seemed disjointed, unconnected and irreconcilable. The subject would have been more thor oughly understood and more easily remembered if its different theories and its many parts had been correlated and systematized. It is my idea that at least in the first year of law school the instructor should from time to time give the students brief summaries of the work that has been gone over, and should refer them to some treatise that gives an authoritative discussion of the fundamental points involved, and should then ask each student to write out and submit his own summary. If this were done from time to time during the whole year the student would be kept up to his work, his knowledge of his subject would be increased, and the necessity of heavy "cramming" at examination time would be somewhat avoided. Moreover, he would be surer to get a broad view of the subject, and some

257

idea of the atmosphere that plays so important a part in legal decisions, and he would pay less attention to un important and minor details. For use in connection with a case book course on contracts it would be difficult to imagine a more satisfactory book that this one by Dean Ashley. The author nas taught the subject so many years that he must have acquired an accurate knowledge of the many difficulties that confront the student, and he certainly has a pleasing way of making clear the most abstruse points. There is no attempt to make a digest of all the cases on contracts, but leading decisions are given from time to time to illustrate the text. The author cares less for decided cases than for the analytical reasoning of the great thinkers. And accordingly we constantly find him referring to Langdell, Ames, and Keener. It thus seems to me a safe and valuable book for the student. He will not get the most out of it till he has read his cases, but having read them, this book will round out the discussion of the class room and will fix in his mind a connected and scholarly view of the whole course. The book should also be read by the busy practitioner. It is surprising how much the busy lawyer forgets about fundamental principles. There are plenty of able and successful lawyers in New York City who think considera tion is necessary for a valid deed, or who are firmly convinced that "for value received" is conclusive in a promissory note. The trouble is that we spend our working hours digging out what some judges in our own Court of Appeals or Appellate Division have said upon the particular questions that are at present paying us fees. Obviously it is impos sible for us to read such long works as Parsons on Contracts just to refresh our recollection of the basic principles