Editorial Committee of the Cambridge Law Journal

The Private International Law of Succession in England, America and Germany by WalterBreslauerReview by: H. C. G.The Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 6, No. 3 (1938), pp. 480-481Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of Editorial Committee of the Cambridge LawJournalStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4503094 .

Accessed: 10/06/2014 17:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Cambridge University Press and Editorial Committee of the Cambridge Law Journal are collaborating withJSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Cambridge Law Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.107 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:14:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

480 480 The Cambrtdge Law Journa7. The Cambrtdge Law Journa7.

history of our legal institutions and the present organization of our Courts

of law. This need has become more urgent owing to a change in the

curriculum of certain law schools in recent years involving the substitution

of the 6tudy of the development of our legal institutions for the somewhat

threadbare constitutional historJr which formerly was an integral part of

the first year course. The inclusion of the subject by the Law Society in

the new scheme for heir examinations further enhances the importance

to students of a volume like the one under review which concentrates

material, available hitherto only by delving into a number of books of

considerable bulk and varied iIl character. Although the authors purport to corlfine themselves to the history of

legal institutions, they in fact proceed to deal with the evolution and

present state of the whole of our machinery for the administration of

justice. This introduces a humaIl interest into their work which the mere

history of institutions would not evoke. The arrangement and sequence

of topics is excellent and their exposition scholarly and as simple as the

refractory and technical nature of the subject-matt,er make possible. For

instance, the account of the early development of the Common Law, in

Chapter VI, i8 the clearest account of this matter within a short compass

that we have met with. In spite of tlle extent and intricate nature of much of the materialt

the work appearb to us to be distinguished by great *3ccuracyX although a

few small errors have been passed by oversight. On p. 66, As7tton v.

Thornton should, of course, be Ashford v. Thornton. IThe error is repeated

in the Index. On p. 28{) no mention is made of the merging of the Court

of Exchequer Chamber and the Court of Appeal in ChancerJr in the

Supreme Court of Judicature by the Judicature Acts. although this

oversight is corrected by implication on the followillg page. D. T. O.

The Prtvate International Law of Succession in Enylandr America and Gerqnany. BY WALTE1T BRESL.GUER. London. Sweet & Maxwell. 1937. 8-;o. sxviii and 339 pp. (£1 ls. net.)

IT is not easy to deal with this book in a short notice because its

structure is of a nature to present a difficult task to the reviewer. It

follows the plan of such German institutional works as Cosack's treatise

on the B. G. B. and sets out the German rules of conflict relating to

Su.ccessio:ll with statements of the corresponding rules of English and

American law sandwiched in between and followed by illustrations

intended to bring the comparative aspect into relief. In other words

it i8 not a systematic comparison: in fact it could not be regardedVas

such since it omits French law and thus fails to give a complete picture

of the law of succession as it i8 found in the western world. So much

grouxld is covered that the work inevitably becomes somewhat superficial

in places. This criticism applies more particularly to the summaries of

American law} which are sometimes unconvincing and imperfectly docu-

mented. The best feature of the book i9 its exposition of Gerrnan Privato

International Law which is certain to be of vallae to English practitioners

who are confronted with such problems as arese, for instance, in Re Askew-

history of our legal institutions and the present organization of our Courts

of law. This need has become more urgent owing to a change in the

curriculum of certain law schools in recent years involving the substitution

of the 6tudy of the development of our legal institutions for the somewhat

threadbare constitutional historJr which formerly was an integral part of

the first year course. The inclusion of the subject by the Law Society in

the new scheme for heir examinations further enhances the importance

to students of a volume like the one under review which concentrates

material, available hitherto only by delving into a number of books of

considerable bulk and varied iIl character. Although the authors purport to corlfine themselves to the history of

legal institutions, they in fact proceed to deal with the evolution and

present state of the whole of our machinery for the administration of

justice. This introduces a humaIl interest into their work which the mere

history of institutions would not evoke. The arrangement and sequence

of topics is excellent and their exposition scholarly and as simple as the

refractory and technical nature of the subject-matt,er make possible. For

instance, the account of the early development of the Common Law, in

Chapter VI, i8 the clearest account of this matter within a short compass

that we have met with. In spite of tlle extent and intricate nature of much of the materialt

the work appearb to us to be distinguished by great *3ccuracyX although a

few small errors have been passed by oversight. On p. 66, As7tton v.

Thornton should, of course, be Ashford v. Thornton. IThe error is repeated

in the Index. On p. 28{) no mention is made of the merging of the Court

of Exchequer Chamber and the Court of Appeal in ChancerJr in the

Supreme Court of Judicature by the Judicature Acts. although this

oversight is corrected by implication on the followillg page. D. T. O.

The Prtvate International Law of Succession in Enylandr America and Gerqnany. BY WALTE1T BRESL.GUER. London. Sweet & Maxwell. 1937. 8-;o. sxviii and 339 pp. (£1 ls. net.)

IT is not easy to deal with this book in a short notice because its

structure is of a nature to present a difficult task to the reviewer. It

follows the plan of such German institutional works as Cosack's treatise

on the B. G. B. and sets out the German rules of conflict relating to

Su.ccessio:ll with statements of the corresponding rules of English and

American law sandwiched in between and followed by illustrations

intended to bring the comparative aspect into relief. In other words

it i8 not a systematic comparison: in fact it could not be regardedVas

such since it omits French law and thus fails to give a complete picture

of the law of succession as it i8 found in the western world. So much

grouxld is covered that the work inevitably becomes somewhat superficial

in places. This criticism applies more particularly to the summaries of

American law} which are sometimes unconvincing and imperfectly docu-

mented. The best feature of the book i9 its exposition of Gerrnan Privato

International Law which is certain to be of vallae to English practitioners

who are confronted with such problems as arese, for instance, in Re Askew-

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.107 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:14:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Book Reviews. 481

[1930] 2 Ch. 259. In fact the writer knows of no other book in English which deals with such matters more lucidly or in such a practical spirit, and it is, perhaps, to be regretted that the author did not confine himself to expounding his own law for the benefit of English and American readers. He is evidently very familiar with it not only as it is based on theory but also as it functions in the German Courts. The book is full of detail and it is impossible to test the accuracy of the author's conclusions except in a somewhat perfunctory way. The English law seems to be set out, generally speaking, with accuracy, though the author sometimes states his conclusions as to the effect of the cases rather over confidently. This tendency is the lion which stalks in the path of foreign writers when dealing with English case law. There are a number of

slips of the pen; e.g. at p. 36, lines 13 and 14, the words * German' and * American ' seem to be transposed, and at p. 48, lines 2 and 3, the same fate appears to have overtaken the words '

English' and * German \ Certain footnotes (e.g. No. 3 at p. 29) are rather puzzling. But, taken as a whole, this book is a very useful guide to those who seek for knowledge of the main principles of German law relating to the matter and of the attitude of the German judges.

H. C. G.

Book Reviews. 481

[1930] 2 Ch. 259. In fact the writer knows of no other book in English which deals with such matters more lucidly or in such a practical spirit, and it is, perhaps, to be regretted that the author did not confine himself to expounding his own law for the benefit of English and American readers. He is evidently very familiar with it not only as it is based on theory but also as it functions in the German Courts. The book is full of detail and it is impossible to test the accuracy of the author's conclusions except in a somewhat perfunctory way. The English law seems to be set out, generally speaking, with accuracy, though the author sometimes states his conclusions as to the effect of the cases rather over confidently. This tendency is the lion which stalks in the path of foreign writers when dealing with English case law. There are a number of

slips of the pen; e.g. at p. 36, lines 13 and 14, the words * German' and * American ' seem to be transposed, and at p. 48, lines 2 and 3, the same fate appears to have overtaken the words '

English' and * German \ Certain footnotes (e.g. No. 3 at p. 29) are rather puzzling. But, taken as a whole, this book is a very useful guide to those who seek for knowledge of the main principles of German law relating to the matter and of the attitude of the German judges.

H. C. G.

Slater's Mercantile Law. Tenth edition. By R. W. Holland and R. H. Code Holland. London: Sir Isaac Pitman &

Sons, Ltd. 1937. xliv and 652 pp. (7*. 6d.)

This is the fifth edition to appear in the last seven years. For a modest sum a student may get an account of commercial law, beginning with a general view of the law of contract, together with a summary of selected leading cases and an appendix giving the text of the Factors Act, 1889, and the Sale of Goods Act, 1893. The inclusion of legal topics in various examinations means that books must be produced for students who simply cannot find time to read more than one book on a subject. A sound grasp of legal principles is then practically unattainable, and available time and energy go into remembering much detail of the type that examiners may be expected to ask about. The task of the authors is, from the point of view of anything worthy of being called legal education, quite hopeless; if ''

improvements'' were made so that reviewers in learned journals praised the work, then those for whom the book is written would no longer read it. Judged by what it is written for, the book is eminently successful, although criticism might be made on many minor points. The chief trouble lies not in wrong statements but in the necessity for compression, leading to passages that tend to

produce wrong conclusions. The paragraph on M'Alister v. Stevenson

(p. 242) is of this type, and at p. 293 much trouble to students might be saved if in relation to crossed cheques a distinction was made between

paying and collecting banker. The selectionof cases is not particularly good; for instance, London Assurance Co. v. Mansel is given (p. 577) in a form that suggests that a statement to an insurer must be material if the insurer is to be able to avoid the policy on the grounds of inaccuracy in the proposal even when the proposal is made the basis of the contract, although Dawsons, Ltd. v. Bonnin is cited in the text.

R. M. J.

Slater's Mercantile Law. Tenth edition. By R. W. Holland and R. H. Code Holland. London: Sir Isaac Pitman &

Sons, Ltd. 1937. xliv and 652 pp. (7*. 6d.)

This is the fifth edition to appear in the last seven years. For a modest sum a student may get an account of commercial law, beginning with a general view of the law of contract, together with a summary of selected leading cases and an appendix giving the text of the Factors Act, 1889, and the Sale of Goods Act, 1893. The inclusion of legal topics in various examinations means that books must be produced for students who simply cannot find time to read more than one book on a subject. A sound grasp of legal principles is then practically unattainable, and available time and energy go into remembering much detail of the type that examiners may be expected to ask about. The task of the authors is, from the point of view of anything worthy of being called legal education, quite hopeless; if ''

improvements'' were made so that reviewers in learned journals praised the work, then those for whom the book is written would no longer read it. Judged by what it is written for, the book is eminently successful, although criticism might be made on many minor points. The chief trouble lies not in wrong statements but in the necessity for compression, leading to passages that tend to

produce wrong conclusions. The paragraph on M'Alister v. Stevenson

(p. 242) is of this type, and at p. 293 much trouble to students might be saved if in relation to crossed cheques a distinction was made between

paying and collecting banker. The selectionof cases is not particularly good; for instance, London Assurance Co. v. Mansel is given (p. 577) in a form that suggests that a statement to an insurer must be material if the insurer is to be able to avoid the policy on the grounds of inaccuracy in the proposal even when the proposal is made the basis of the contract, although Dawsons, Ltd. v. Bonnin is cited in the text.

R. M. J.

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.107 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:14:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions