_Reports of Cases decided in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland.
By Theodorick Bland, Chancellor. Vol. 1, pp. 708, 8vo._
We cannot perceive any sufficient reason for the publication of this
book. The tribunal whose decisions it reports, is not of the last
resort;[1] they therefore are of very questionable authority, even in
Maryland; and the Chancellor, though evidently a man of sense and
learning, has not, like Kent, Marshall, or Hardwicke, that towering
reputation which will stamp his _dicta_ as law (either persuasively or
conclusively) beyond the limits of his own state. The cases reported
in chief, are all decided by the author of the book. In the notes are
given many decisions of his predecessors. So that, wherever we look,
there is still but the same inadequate weight of name and station.
[Footnote 1: Constitution of Maryland, Art. 56.]
Now, the enormous multiplication of books in every branch of knowledge
is one of the greatest evils of this age; since it presents one of the
most serious obstacles to the acquisition of correct information, by
throwing in the reader's way piles of lumber, in which he must
painfully grope for the scraps of useful matter, peradventure
interspersed. In no department have the complaints of this evil been
louder or more just, than in the law. There are five and twenty
supreme courts, or courts of appeals, in the United States, (not to
mention Arkansas or Michigan) each of which probably emits a yearly
volume of its “cases;” besides as many professed _legislative_
law-factories, all possessed with the notion of being Solons and
Lycurguses. These surely can give both lawyers and people _rules of
conduct_ enough to keep their wits on the stretch, without any
supplies from inauthoritative sources. The law books we get from
England would of themselves now suffice to employ those _lucubrations
of twenty years_, which used to be deemed few enough for a mastery of
the legal profession. From these considerations, we hold him to be no
friend to lawyers—and hardly a good citizen—who heedlessly {732} sends
forth a bulky addition to their reading, to encumber and perplex the
science, and make it more and more a riddle to common minds.
The volume before us, besides these more general objections, is liable
to at least another special one. Many of its cases are inordinately
voluminous. That of _Hannah K. Chase_ fills 30 pages—_Lingan_ v.
_Henderson_ 47 pages—_Cunningham_ v. _Browning_ 33 pages—_Owings'_
case 40 pages—and “the Chancellor's case” 92 pages! The third one of
these cases involves no principle that can _probably_ affect any
mortal out of Maryland, and the last is not even a _judicial_ decision
in Maryland! It is a mere determination of the legislature of that
state, touching the salary of a judge. They might all, we are full
sure, hare been shortened by two-thirds, with great advantage to their
perspicuity, as well as to the reader's time, patience and money.
There are no running dates on the margin, showing in what year each
case was decided. But in other respects, the _getting up_ of the book
is uncommonly good. The paper, typography, and binding, are all of the
first order. We are sorry however that these appliances were not
bestowed to better purpose.