SIR FREDERICK POLLOCK, BART., D.C.L., LL.D., 7 HOUSE OF LORDS CASES; 2 HURLSTONE & NORMAN ; LONDON: SWEET AND MAXWELL, LIMITED, 3, CHANCERY LANE. BOSTON: LITTLE, BROWN & CO. 1910. LAWS INSTITUTE ORA TABLE OF COMPARATIVE REFERENCE. INSTITUTE OLD REPORTS. CASES FROM Dow-6 vols. Dow & Clark-2 vols. REVISED REPORTS. Drury & Walsh-2 vols. Drury & Warren-4 vols. Durnford & East-8 vols. Ellis & Blackburn-8 Vols. 60 67 58, 59, 61, 65 1 to 5 93, 95, 97, 99, 103, 106, 110, 112 Ellis, Blackburn & Ellis-1 vol. 113 Espinasse-6 vols.. 5, 6, 8, 9 Exchequer-Vols. 1 to 11 74,76,77, 80, 82, 86, 91, 96, 102, 105 4 to 9 21 to 24 10 to 16 Carrington & Kirwan-3 vols. 70, 80, 88 Carrington & Marshman Carrington & Payne-Vols. 1 to 9 66 28, 31, 33, 34, 38, 40, 48, 56, 62 Chitty-2 vols. Clark & Finnelly-12 vols. 39, 42, 47, 49, 51, 54, 57, 59, 65, 69 Collyer, C. C.-2 vols. Common Bench-18 vols. 71, 72, 75, 77, 78, 79, 82, 84, 87, 92, 93, 98, 100, 104, 107 Common Bench, N. S.-Vols. 1 to 4 Gale & Davison-Vols. 1 to 3 55, 57, 62 Giffard-Vol. 1 114 22 & 23 21 33, 35 36, 37, 66, 70 58, 62, 64, 67, 71, 77, 82, 85, 89, 90 68, 69, 107, 109, 111, 114 Horn & Hurlstone-Vol. 1 House of Lords Cases-Vols. 1 to 7 73, 81, 88, 94, 101, 108, 115 Hurlstone & Norman-Vols. 1 & 2 51 76 1 & 2 Hurlstone & Walmsley 54 Jacob 108, 115 35 & 37 Jacob & Walker-2 vols. 38, 39 40, 41 Jones & Latouche-3 vols. Jurist-Vols. 1 to 18 20 to 22 68, 69, 72 65, 67, 69, 72, 77, 81, 84, 49, 55, 58, 62, PREFACE TO VOL. CXV. LORD WENSLEYDALE is not chiefly remembered as a real property lawyer, but his observations in that field are interesting when they occur. At p. 37 we find him of opinion that it is not improper to apply the words "for ever to an estate tail, but is not perfectly correct. We humbly doubt the qualification. A fee tail is a fee restrained to a particular line of descent, but a fee still, an estate of inheritance and therefore capable of lasting for ever, so far as the Common Law is concerned. It is subject to accidents and catastrophes, no doubt: but so is an estate in fee simple; the special infirmities of an estate tail are a matter of degree. Whether an estate tail perishes or thrives by being enlarged into a fee simple is perhaps one of the mysteries connected with the whole topic which, as Chief Justice Willes said, are in their nature inexplicable. In strictness of law, no doubt, what emerged from a common recovery was a new and different estate under an adverse title paramount. At p. 150 Lord Wensleydale points out, most clearly and wisely, that a decision on the construction of particular words in a will or any instrument is not a binding or indeed a safe guide for the construction of words resembling them, but in a context which must differ to some extent and may be widely different, in some other instrument. Nevertheless decisions on questions of mere construction continue to multiply and bring forth their kind exceedingly for almost all advocates want to make some show of authority, and not all judges are bold enough to tell them that their authorities are irrelevant. In Abbott v. Middleton, p. 38, a really curious and important case, the majority of the House of Lords had seen their way, notwithstanding Lord Wensleydale's dissent, to amend a will |