SIR FREDERICK POLLOCK, BART., D.C.L., LL.D., LAW INSTITUTE 11 MOORE, P. C.; 1 ELLIS & ELLIS; 3 HURLSTONE & NORMAN; 29-34 LAW TIMES, O. S.; 1 LAW TIMES, N. S. LONDON: SWEET AND MAXWELL, LIMITED, 3, CHANCERY LANE. BOSTON: LITTLE, BROWN & CO. 1910. THE NEW YORK AW INSTITUTE TABLE OF COMPARATIVE REFERENCE. Anstruther-3 vols. Arnold-2 vols. Bail Court Reports-2 vols.. Ball & Beatty-2 vols. . 3 & 4 Barnewall & Adolphus-5 vols. 35 to 39 Barnewall & Alderson-5 vols. 18 to 24 Barnewall & Cresswell-10 vols. 25 to 34 Beavan-Vols. 1 to 24 49, 50, 52, 55, 59, 63, 64, 68, 73, 76, 83, 85, 88, 92, 96, 99, 104, 105, 109, 111, 113, 116 Bingham 10 vols. Bingham, N.C. 6 vols.. 25, 27 to 31, 33 to 35, 38 41 to 44, 50 & 54 Blackstone, H.-2 vols.. Bligh, N. S.-Vols. 1 to 11 35, 36, 38, 39, Bosanquet & Puller-5 vols. Broderip & Bingham -3 vols. Campbell-4 vols. . 2 & 3 20 to 22 30 to 33, 42 & 51 4 to 9 21 to 24 10 to 16 70, 80, 88 Forrest 66 Foster & Finlason Vol. 1 Carrington & Kirwan-3 vols. Carrington & Marshman 28, 31, 33, 34, 38, 40, 48, 56, 62 Chitty-2 vols. Clark & Finnelly-12 vols. Espinasse-6 vols.. Exchequer-Vols. 1 to 11 . 117 5, 6, 8, 9 74,76,77, 80, 82, 86, 91, 96, 102, 105 Gale & Davison-Vols. 1 to 3 55, 57, 62 Giffard-Vol. 1 22 & 23 Gow 36, 37, 39, 42, 47, 49, 51, 54, 57, 59, 65, 69 Collyer, C. C.-2 vols. 66, 70 Common Bench-18 vols. 68, 69, 71, 72, 75, 77, 78, 79, 82, 84, 87, 92, 93, 98, 100, 104, 107 Common Bench, N. S.-Vols. 1 to 5 107, 109, 111, 114, 116 Haggard's Adm.—3 vols. Hall & Twells-2 vols.. Hare-11 vols. 114 21 33, 35 84 58,62, 64, 67, 71, 77, 82, 85, 89, 90 Harrison & Wollaston-2 vols. 47 42 & 43 Horn & Hurlstone - Vol. 1 Hogan Holt 38 46 14 76 1 & 2 Jones & Latouche-3 vols. 68, 69, 72 49, 55, 58, 62, 65, 67, 69, 72, 77, 81, 84, 85, 89, 93, 95, 97 64 Jurist, N. S.-Vols. 1 to 5 De Gex, Macnaghten & Gordon vols.. 91, 95, 98, 102, 104, 106, De Gex & Smale-Vols. 1 to 5 109, 114 75, Kay 79, 84, 87, 90 Keen-2 vols. . 102, 106, 108, 111, 115 101 103, 110, 112, 116 44 1 5. 74 85 25 3f 30. 33 80 7. PREFACE TO VOL. CXVII. THE Tasmanian appeal in Fenton v. Hampton, p. 32, may be aken as the final authority confirming Kielley v. Carson, 59 6R. R. 336, and denying that the reception of English law in 56a colony can of itself import the whole law and custom of Parliament as applicable to the local legislature. "The lex t consuetudo Parliamenti apply exclusively to the Lords and 7Commons of this country": p. 61. Incidentally this judgment of a very strong though not numerous Court shows that the Judicial Committee does not claim infallibility like the 34 House of Lords; for no attempt is made to reconcile Kielley v. Carson with the earlier decision of Beaumont v. Barrett, on appeal from Jamaica, in which a contrary doctrine was laid 3 down. In Gilmour v. Supple, p. 97, the Judicial Committee dealt with a curious case from Toronto on the vesting of property in goods sold. The subject of the sale was a timber raft on the St. Lawrence river, and a storm broke it up at the place of delivery before the buyer could acquire physical control of it. No new question of law was involved, the dispute being really whether in fact there remained anything for the seller to do which had to be done before the buyer was bound to accept the timber. Here the measurement and specification of the timber were already complete. Other interesting cases on sale in the Common Law Courts are Levy v. Green, p. 552, on the effect of a seller's blunder or sharp practice in mixing goods not ordered with goods ordered, and Macdonald v. Longbottom, p. 556, on the admission of oral evidence to identify the subject-matter of a written contract. Brown v. Royal Insurance Co., p. 492, is of some importance on the right to reinstate under a fire policy. Another well-known case in similar matter is Lofft v. Dennis, p. 292. |