original contract of carriage still remains in force, the carriers liability is so modified that he is no longer an insurer but liable as if he were a warehouseman. This is applied particularly to transportation of goods by water, and in some states, to railroad transportation. This last remark is true in New York. See Burnell vs. N. Y. Central R R., 35 N. Y., 134.

Whether in cases of railroad transportation it is necessary for railroad to give notice to relieve itself from liability of common carriers ? No such notice is required by Mass. decisions. See Gray, 274; 118 Mass. 201. This view adopted in Mo., Ill. and other states. On the other hand New York courts hold that notice is necessary in the same way as in water transportation. Fenner vs. Transportation Co., 44 N. Y., 505. This case has been followed up by many decisions. Faulkner vs. Hart, 82

N. Y., 413. In that case the contract was to be performed in Mass., and yet the court refused to follow its law on ground that

its rule was opposed to general principle of commercial law. Same doctrine prevails in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire.

Sec. X. Claim made by a third party. It is commonly laid down in the law books that the bailee cannot set up the right of a third person. However, it cannot be said that he conclusively admits the right of the bailor. His contract is to do with the property committed to him what his principal has directed, and then to restore it, and if he cannot do that, to account for it. This he does by showing that he has yielded it to the claim of one who has a paramount right to it. He thus has the burden of proof imposed on him, and if he can show this the estoppel is at an end. Case of the Idaho, 3 Otto, 575. This rule however cannot be applied where the bailee when he accepts the bailment has full knowledge of the adverse claim. This qualification is found in L. R., 19 Ch. Div. 86.

QUESTIONS ON THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK-by Henry Warner, New York, S. S. Peloubet, 80 Nassau St., 1888.

This work does not like so many "questions and answers" attempt to cover the whole domain of law. Its scope is confined to a single topic-the Code of Civil Procedure-and being so confined it is within the possibilities of such a work to treat its subject thoroughly and completely. The examination to which a student can by such a work subject him

self is a most valuable aid to the mastery of any subject. One never knows just how much or how little he has retained of a subject until he measures his attainments with a system of searching questions. Mr. Warner's work has we think exhausted the possibilities of his subject. His questions take up the Code, title by title and chapter by chapter. The section in which the answer is to be found is added to

each question. Such to be sure is no lazy man's way of answering questionsbut there is no royal road to the Code.

By the aid of Mr. Warner's questions, the Code student may not only "know himself" but what in this case may be even better-know the Code.

THE AMERICAN STATE REPORTS-Containing the cases of general value and authority decided in the courts of last resort of the several states. Selected, reported and annotated by A. C. Freeman and the Associate Editors of the "American Decisions," Vol. III. San Francisco: Bancroft-Whitney Company, 1888.

This valuable system of reports is now so well known that it is hardly necessary to further review them. The present volume reports cases in the 83 Ala., 43 Ark., 10 Colo., 55 Conn., 122 Ill., 113 Ind., 93 Mo., 22 Neb, 19 Nev., 43 N. J. Eq., 15 Ore., 32 Va.

administrators, legacies and guardians, and scattered through the book, in their appropriate places, a very valuable set of forms. Probably there is no part of the Code of Civil Procedure which has been better settled by judicial decision and interpretation than the portions regulating the practice in the Surrogates' Courts and the duties of personal representatives. This fact, however, does not in any degree lessen the usefulness of this book. Between looking for the law through the fifty or more different volumes in which the decisions are contained and finding that law in one compact, carefully written and well-arranged book there is a distinction as well as a difference which will be appreciated by every lawyer who has not more time than he knows what to do with.

EXCHANGES.

Among the exchanges we have recently received and wish to mention as especially worthy of note are: The Criminal Law Magazine, the Albany Law Journal, the Virginia and New Jersey Law Journals, the Central Law Journal; and among other periodicals, Brentano's Book Cha and Belford's Magazine.

EVIDENCE-Writings-Parol.-Parol evidence is admissible to show that the time specified in the written contract for the completion of machinery was regarded as essential, and also to show that the purchase of cotton seed in advance, in order to have the same ready for the manufacture of oil by that time, was contemplated. Van Winkle vs. Wilkins, S. C. Ga., May 2, 1888: 7 S. E. Rep. 644.

IMMIGRATION-CONTRACT LABOR-CLERGYMEN.-The statute entitled "An Act to prohibit the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States," imposes a penalty on any person or corporation encouraging migration of an alien under a contract or agreement previously made "to perform labor or service of any kind." Defendant, a religous

England to come to this country and take charge of its church as pastor. Held, that the corporation was liable to the penalty prescribed. United States vs. Rector, etc., of the Church of the Holy Trinity, 36 Fed. Rep. 303 (N. Y.).

The statute contains a clause exempting from its provisions "professional actors, artists, lecturers, or singers," and in view of this proviso the court said that the words "labor or service of any kind" could not be given a restricted meaning so as to exclude the vocation of a minister of the gospel, but that they were intended to apply to all who labor in any professional calling not specially exempted.

Harvard Law Review.

LANDLORD AND TENANT-TENANCY FROM WEEK TO WEEK.-Where premises are let at a weekly rent, this constitutes a tenancy from week to week, and is a reletting of

successive week, if, therefore, at the beginning of any week the premises are in a defective condition, the landlord is liable in damages to a tenant who, during the week, is thereby injured.-Sandford vs. Clarke, 59 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 226 (Eng.); s. c. 38 Alb. L. J. 347.

"This case is interesting as deciding the hitherto doubtful point that a weekly rental constitutes a tenancy from week to week. No authorities are cited."

RELEASE.-Damages-Consideration.An agreement by an injured employee to receive in satisfaction for both wages and damages the wages due him, concerning which there is no dispute, is without consideration, so far as it purports to release the claim for damages. -Carlton vs. Western & A. R. R., S. C. Ga., Oct. 5, 1888; 7 S. E. Rep. 623.

An annecdote is told of Henry W. Paine, of Boston, who once when arguing a case before Judge Gray, now of the United States Supreme Court, on being interrupted by the judge's saying that a point he sought to make was "not the law," instantly replied, "It was, your honor, until you spoke."-American Law Review.

THE MAN WHO MAKES HIS OWN WILL. — At a provincial law society's dinner not long ago, the president called upon the senior attorney to give as a toast the person whom he considered the best friend

of the profession. Certainly," was the. response, "the man who makes his own will."-American Law Review.

LAWYERS AND LAW.-As doctors seldom take their own prescriptions, and divines do not always practice what they preach, so lawyers are shy of meddling with the law on their own account; knowing it to be an edged tool of uncertain application, very expensive in the working, and rather remarkable for its properties of close shaving, than for its always shaving the right person.-Dickens, Old Curiosity Shop.

A German or French jurist trained in the study of the Roman law would probably, on his first acquaintance with the English law of contract, receive the doctrine of consideration, as a new addition to his stock of legal conceptions. He would be surprised to find this doctrine referred to the Roman Law, in text-books of reputation and authority, for familiar as the passages quoted from the digests in support of such a theory, might be to his recollection, they would hardly seem to him to warrant the vital conclusions drawn from them and set up as an important and comprehensive doctrine. Since recent investigations have thrown. new light on the origin and growth of this doctrine, the old opinion no longer needs any refutation. But it may still be interesting to examine how the contract of the classical Roman law stood with reference to what we call consideration.

The value of such an investigation lies in the application of a doctrine worked out in one jurisprudence to the system of

another. The advantages resulting from this process are obvious: for it not only reveals different modes of legal thought, but it throws light upon the various manners of adjusting theory to practice and principles to institutions, and upon what we might call the economy of juristic conceptions. As it is not proposed to institute two parallel inquiries, but merely to determine the position of one law by a standard taken from another, it is a first requisite, that the principle with which we work should be well understood and free from uncertainty. The doctrine of consideration will therefore be assumed in its theoretical consistency, putting aside such difficulties and anomalies as may arise from the accidents of historical development, and also disregarding as irrelevant and foreign to the theory of contracts, the so-called good consideration of natural love and affection. The substance of the doctrine will then be that a contract cannot come into existence without a mutual parting with value, present