ions of the Roman jurists in the civil law, will constitute an essential part of maritime law for centuries to come; it was because the continental jurisprudence is barren of examples in those branches of the subject. As the commercial law of Great Britain received much of its perfection through the decisions of Lord Mansfield, so the maritime laws of war of that country have attained their maturity through the decisions of Sir William Scott." This acknowledgment is extremely honorable to English jurisprudence; but it is also honorable to our author, who shows in this, as in other parts of his work, that he is far removed from the prejudices of his continental contemporaries, and that he breathes the genuine spirit of a universal jurist. It is no small praise, that he is so far above the visionary doctrines of Hubner, and Schlegel, and the French and German theorists. Nor is this the least valuable portion of the work to an English lawyer. It is a remarkable fact, that no systematic treatise upon the law of prize has, as yet, appeared in England. The very superficial, hasty, and imperfect sketch of Mr. Chitty does not deserve the title, which it bears, and has been egregiously overrated. Our own country has been honored with a Treatise on Captures, by Mr. Wheaton, which is, in every respect, far superior to Mr. Chitty's; and, taken in connexion with his extensive notes on prize law in his Reports, it approaches very near to a complete body of this important branch of law. Are not the merits of our own authors, and especially of our own juridical authors, very slowly appreciated? In what respect is Mr. Livermore's learned Treatise, on the Law of Principal and Agent, inferior to those recently sent from the English bar?

What, however, constitutes the principal value of Mr. Jacobsen's work to an American lawyer, is the minute accuracy and fullness, with which it gives us the positive and customary law of all the maritime nations of the continent. And this, in our judgment, is a most interesting, and, in a practical view, a most important accession to our juridical literature. Of the maritime law of Russia, Prussia, Denmark, Sweden, and Germany, we have hitherto known very little. Yet with all of them we carry on an extensive trade; and the principles of their jurisprudence as to maritime affairs, both in peace and in war, are of incalculable importance to our merchants; nay more, to our government. This is not all. A great variety of curious and difficult questions are perpetually arising in our judicial tribunals, where the positive regulations or usages of other commercial nations would greatly

assist us in forming decisions, which should comport with general convenience, as well as with the general principles of law. Many are the cases, in which the reasoning is so nicely balanced on each side, that a settled foreign usage ought to ince the scale. We owe, indeed, a full moiety of our present commercial law to the positive ordinances or usages of Fra ce, Italy, and S, ain, as they have been delivered to us by their eminent jurists. They seem now inclined to borrow from us in return; and thus, perhaps, national comity may gradually establish a nearly uniform system of commercial jurisprudence throughout the whole civilized world.

We have no hesitation, therefore, to recommend Mr. Jacobsen's treatise to the favorable attention of our lawyers and merchants. They cannot fail to be greatly instructed by the perusal. The learned author has prepared his work from very ample materials, and with the most laborious diligence, and, in general, with sound discrimination and impartiality. If Mr. Abbott's treatise were not in existence, Mr. Jacobsen's would be indispensable for every lawyer's library. As it is, it will reflect great light on points, where Mr. Abbott is deficient or unsatisfactory; and no gentleman ought to consider himself thoroughly read, who has not mastered its learning.

We notice in the translation some Germanisms, which it was not, perhaps, easy, without an awkward circumlocution or paraphrase, to avoid. There are also some words, which have not yet acquired a legitimate use in our language, such as "endorsation" and "bottomried." There may be some reason to adopt the latter word, though innovations are dangerous; but there can be no such apology for the former, since we have a genuine English word (endorsement) of the same signification. There are also some errors of the press; one, (in p. 556,) which is important to the sense, and where the words should be, "the shadow of partiality," in lieu of "the shadow of impartiality." These, however, are but specks, which we have no inclination to magnify, and Mr. Frick can have no reason to wish to have concealed.

REVIEW

OF THE REPORTS OF CASES ADJUDGED IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF NEW YORK, BY WILLIAM JOHNSON, COUNSELLOR AT LAW. VOLS. I, II,

AND III.

[First published in the North American Review, 1820.]

MR. CHANCELLOR KENT was appointed a puisne judge of the Supreme Court of New York, on the 6th of February, 1798; Chief Justice of the same court, on the 2d of July, 1804; and, upon the resignation of Mr. Chancellor Lansing, succeeded to the distinguished station of Chancellor of New York, on the 25th of February, 1814. He has been long, therefore, before the public in a judicial character, which he has sustained with increasing reputation, a reputation, as pure as it is bright; and he is, at the very moment we are writing, devoting himself to the labors of jurisprudence with a diligence and enthusiasm, which excite the admiration of the veteran counsellor at the bar, even more than of the ambitious student just struggling for distinction. He has always been remarkable for an unwearied attention to business, a prompt and steady vigilance, and a sacred reverence for juridical authorities. For him the easy course of general reasoning, popular analogies, and fanciful theories, has no charms. He does not believe, that judicial discretion is the arbitrium boni judicis, much less boni viri; or, that he is at liberty to promulgate rules, either of law or equity, measured by his own abstract notions of what is fit or reasonable. He contents himself with administering the common law, as he finds it, without the rashness to presume himself wiser than the law, or the vanity of distinguishing himself by innovations. His life has been devoted, sedulously and earnestly, to professional studies. He has fathomed the depths and searched

the recesses of the ancient law, the black-lettered relics of former times, so much disparaged, and yet of such inestimable value. He has traced back the magnificent streams of jurisprudence to their fountains, lying dark and obscure amidst the rubbish of monkish retreats, or stealing silently from the chivalric heights of feudal grandeur. His researches have been, amidst the dust and the cobwebs of antiquated lore, pursued in the unfashionable pages of the Year Books, and Glanville, and Fleta, and Britton, and the almost classical Bracton. He has dared to examine the Abridgments of Brook, and Fitzherbert, and Statham; books, from which the modern student starts back with doubt and apprehension, as the great reservoirs, whence have been drawn the best principles of modern times, and whence must be drawn the body and the soul of that learning, which distinguishes the professor from the sciolist. He has not stopped short at a survey of the mere Gothic structures of the law; but has examined with eager and enlightened curiosity the beautiful systems, with which the commercial law has been adorned in our day. He has mastered all their refinements, and has, in no small degree, contributed to their beauty and perfection. He has drawn deeply from the commercial law of foreign nations; the works of Straccha, and Roccus, and Valin, and Pothier, and Emérigon are familiar to his thoughts and his writings. He has there found the principles, by which our own jurisprudence is to be illustrated; and one is at a loss, which most to admire, the incomparable discernment of the judge, or the attractive excellence of the materials. If his attainments had found their boundary here, they would have entitled him to great praise; but he has nobly extended his inquiries beyond the common and commercial law, and explored the Roman jurisprudence through its texts and commentaries with uncommon acuteness and accuracy. This has been done with no idle view, to gratify a merely speculative curiosity, or to gather up the fragments of antiquarian fame. Like all his other studies, this has been made subservient to the great purposes of his life, the promotion of justice, and the establishment of a solid jurisprudence, founded in the most enlightened policy. In his decisions, we can every where trace the happy use of that marvellous system of doctrines, which Justinian collected with so much care, and which stands unrivalled in the world for its general equity, and nice adaptation to the necessities of mankind; a system, which was gradually matured by the labors of jurists and prætors, during centuries, in which Rome

was the mistress of the world; and which had the singular advantage of being the combined results of experience, and general reasoning, and judicial interpretation, aided very little by imperial rescripts, and rarely marred by imperial interference. Let those, who now doubt the importance of the study of the civil law by common lawyers, read diligently the opinions of Mr. Chancellor Kent, and they will find all the objections, raised by indolence, and ignorance, and prejudice, practically refuted, and the civil law triumphantly sustained. They will perceive the vivid lights, which it casts on the paths of juridical science; and they will be instructed and cheered in the pursuit, though they may not hope to move in the brilliant career of such a judge with equal footsteps.

It required such a man, with such a mind, at once liberal, comprehensive, exact, and methodical; always reverencing authorities, and bound by decisions; true to the spirit, yet more true to the letter of the law; pursuing principles with a severe and scrupulous logic, yet blending with them the most persuasive equity; — it required such a man, with such a mind, to unfold the doctrines of chancery in our country, and to settle them upon immovable foundations. Without doubt, his learned predecessors had done much to systematize and amend the practice of the court. But it cannot be disguised, that the general state of the profession was not favorable to a very exact and well regulated practice. There were, comparatively speaking, few lawyers in the country, who had devoted themselves to courts of equity. In general, the ablest men found the courts of common law the most lucrative, as well as the most attractive, for the display of their talents. They contented themselves with occasional attendance at the chancery bar; and placed their solid fame in the popular forum, where the public felt a constant interest, and where the great business of the country was done. In many of the states no court of chancery existed. In others it was a mixed jurisdiction, exercised by courts of common law. And in those, where it was administered by a distinct judicature, there is great reason to fear, that the practice was very poor, and the principles of decision built upon a rational equity, resting very much in discretion, and hardly limited by any fixed rules. In short, the doctrines of the courts depended much less upon the settled analogies of the system, than upon the character of the particular judge. If he possessed a large and liberal mind, he stretched them to a most unwarrantable extent; if a cautious and cold one, the system fainted and expired under his