The point which the Court actually decided, and unanimously, is that a covenant to retire from a particular kind of business so far as the law allows' is too vague to be enforced. Palmer v. Mallet (36 Ch. Div. 411) is another case on this fruitful subject.

In Baddeley v. Earl Granville, 19 Q. B. D. 423, Wills and Grantham JJ., the same judges who decided the case of Thomas v. Quartermaine in the first instance, 17 Q. B. D. 414, have held that case as affirmed by the Court of Appeal, 18 Q. B. Div. 685, not to apply to an injury to a workman caused by the breach of an express statutory duty on the part of the master. In so holding they only followed the opinion expressed by the Lords Justices in Thomas v. Quartermaine. We have already said (vol. iii. p. 365) that the judgments of the majority of the Court of Appeal seem right as law and legislation stand. It is obvious however that the result is to make the law more complex than ever. Thomas v. Quartermaine makes an apparent exception to the rules of the Employers' Liability Act (for it is hardly possible to make an ordinary disinterested layman, to say nothing of a workman, see that it is not a real exception); and Baddeley v. Earl Granville makes a sub-exception out of that exception. The Act is already a bundle of exceptions from a common law doctrine which is itself an exception from the general rule of a master's liability for the acts and defaults of his servants. So that on the whole we have a nest of exceptions, like a Japanese puzzlebox, four deep one within another. And that is the way we amend our laws for the benefit of the unlearned in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. See also Yarmouth v. France, 19 Q. B. D. 647. After all it seems to come to this, what is the true inference of fact in each case? Has the workman, knowing the danger, elected to incur it? Sciens' is not 'volens.'

There is certainly a tendency at the present day to neglect, perhaps to forget, the ancient principles upon which our law has been built up. The case of Hall v. Ewin, 36 W. R. 84, which turned on the application of the case of Tulk v. Moxhay, 2 Ph. 774, is an illustration of this tendency. Tulk v. Moxhay was a typical equity case, and depended on very simple and elementary principles of equity. If an owner of land covenanted that he would use it in a particular way (positive), and would not use it in another particular way (negative), then, whether he assigned over or whether he did not, he was liable to be sued at law on his covenants if he failed to perform and observe them. If he himself broke the negative covenants, his legal liability being established, equity gave the ancillary remedy by injunction where damages would have been an inadequate remedy on the ground that it was unconscientious on the part of the covenantor to buy off observance by payment of damages. If he assigned, and afterwards his assign did something in breach of the covenant, the original covenantor was still liable in damages; but an injunction against the covenantor was idle, seeing that his committal for contempt of court would have no practical effect towards persuading his assign to observe the covenant. The assign was not liable at law (unless in those cases where the covenant ran with the land), and consequently there was no legal liability to which the equitable remedy by injunction could be ancillary. If the Court of Chancery had reasoned no further, the result would have been that an act done behind the back of the covenantee, viz. the assignment by the covenant or to the assignee, would have deprived the covenantee

of his remedy by injunction in those very cases where damages would have been an inadequate remedy: and the observance of the covenant might have been bought off by payment of damages.

What then was Equity to do? It looked, as usual, to the conscience of the party, and declared that it was inequitable (not unlawful) by such a combination between covenantor and assignee to deprive the covenantee of the observance for which he had bargained; and enjoined the assignee to that extent. But where the proceeding was not unconscientious, as where the assignee had no knowledge of the covenant, there Equity refused to interfere on behalf of the wronged covenantee, however inadequate his remedy in damages might be. Equity never held the assign bound except in this indirect way. Equity never dreamt of the assign being under a direct liability in equity on the covenant, when he was under no direct liability at law. Such an idea would have been entirely foreign to the strictly ancillary nature of Equity.

It is true that all this reasoning is not set out in the report of Tulk v. Moxhay; but in those days it would have been entirely superfluous to set out considerations with which the whole Equity bar and bench were thoroughly saturated; such considerations being part of the very basis and foundation of the whole system of Equity. That they were, however, assumed on all hands is evident from the fact, that the injunction in that case was only asked for in respect of so much of the covenant as was restrictive of the use of the land. There was no magic in the fact of the covenant being a restrictive covenant, except that it was only as to the restrictive covenant that the assign was doing anything unconscientious.

An adherence to these principles will afford a safe clue through all the intricacies of this subject. Thus, if the covenant were to pay rent, or to repair buildings (as in Haywood v. Brunswick, &c. Society, 8 Q. B. Div. 403), there would be nothing unconscientious in the assignee refusing to perform it himself, provided he did nothing to prevent the original covenantor from performing his covenant.

In Hall v. Ewin, the case which has suggested the foregoing observations, the facts were as follows:

In 1849 the predecessor in title of the plaintiff granted a lease of certain premises for a term of eighty years. The lease contained a restrictive covenant, by which the lessee covenanted that he, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns shall not at any time during the term use, exercise, or carry on in or upon the said demised premises, or permit or suffer any part thereof to be occupied by any person or persons who shall use, occupy, or carry on therein any noisome or offensive trade business or employment whatsoever' without consent. In 1851 the original lessee sub-demised the premises by way of mortgage for the residue of the term of eighty years less three days. In 1865 the executors of the mortgagee, in exercise of the power of sale in the mortgage, sold the sub-lease to J. Ewin, one of the defendants, who purchased with notice of the restrictive covenant. In October, 1885, Ewin demised the premises to the defendant McNeff for a term of twenty-one years, and the demise to McNeff contained a covenant by McNeff with Ewin in terms similar to the restrictive covenant in the original lease. McNeff entered into possession of the premises, and in February, 1886, he opened an exhibition of wild animals on the premises. An action was brought by the plaintiff as successor in title of the original lessor, and by one of the tenants of premises adjoining, claiming an injunction against Ewin and McNeff. Of course McNeff was liable, but the question in the Appeal Court related solely to Ewin.

How, on the old principles of equity, any one could possibly suppose that an assignee, who had parted with the possession of the land, and was consequently doing nothing unconscientious, nothing to prevent the full observance of the covenant, and was not liable at law, could be liable in equity for a breach of any covenant, whether positive or negative, as was contended in Hall v. Ewin, is simply incomprehensible.

The Blackstone Publishing Company of Philadelphia are continuing to issue their excellent series of' [pirated editions of English] 'text-books with promptitude, and in the same excellent style in which they commenced.' So says the Canada Law Journal of Oct. 15. English authors are accustomed to the process of being reprinted by enterprising citizens of the United States without consent on their part, or acknowledgment on the other. But it is rather hard to find this kind of enterprise warmly commended by our own fellow-subjects.

122

CONTENTS OF EXCHANGES.

(The titles of articles in foreign reviews are given in the original, translated, or abridged in English, without any fixed rule, as appears in each case most convenient for our readers.)

The English Historical Review. No. 8, October, 1887. London: Longmans, Green & Co.

The movements of the Roman Legions from Augustus to Severus (E. G. Hardy) The Life of Justinian by Theophilus (J. Bryce, M.P.)-Charles I and the Earl of Glamorgan (S. R. Gardiner)-The Employment of Indian Auxiliaries in the American War (A. M. Davis)-Notes and Documents-Reviews, etc.

The Journal of Jurisprudence and Scottish Law Magazine. Vol. XXXI. Nos. 370-2, October, November, and December, 1887. Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark.

No. 370. The Refraction of Evidence, No. II-Loans on Land in Bremen -Allotments-Warranty in Sale of Movables-An Irregular MarriageEmployer's Negligence in Fencing Works-Copyright in Lectures-Notes of Cases, etc.

No. 371. Suicide as a Crime-The Impunity of Perjury-An Irregular Marriage, No. II-Elections-Evidence of Heredity in Insanity-The Defects of the Employers' Liability Act, No. I-Interviews with Clients-Reviews, Notes, etc.

No. 372. The Legal Position of Dissenting Churches in Scotland-The Limited Owners of Land (Scotland) Bill-An Improved Chair of Scots Law —An Irregular Marriage, No. III-The Defects of the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, No. II-Reviews-Notes.

The Scottish Law Review and Reports of Cases. Vol. III, Nos. 34-36, October, November, and December, 1887. Glasgow: W. Hodge & Co. No. 34. The Incorporated Society of Law Agents in Scotland-Notes, Reports, etc.

No. 35. The Citation of Judges as Witnesses-The State's Eminent Domain-Notes, Reports, etc.

No. 36. Should the Jurisdiction of the Sheriff Court be extended, and in what way? (Spens)-The Reform of Private Bill Legislation-ReviewsNotes-Reports.

The Canadian Law Times. Vol. VII, Nos. 13-15, September, October, and November, 1887. Toronto: Carswell & Co.

Lis pendens, p. 205-Rights and Obligations connected with the Payment of Mortgages, p. 233-Sales of Equities of Redemption under process, p. 257-Reviews-Notes of Cases.

Canada Law Journal. Vol. XXIII, Nos. 15-20, September 1 to November 15, 1887.

Law Society Meeting: résumé of Proceedings, p. 281-Recent Decisions under the Married Women's Property Act, p. 302-Acceptance of Risk from Breach of Statutory Duty-English and Canadian Cases-Notes, etc. The Cape Law Journal. Vol. IV, Part 5, October, 1887. Grahamstown, Cape of Good Hope: for the Incorporated Law Society, Josiah Slater.

The Incorporated Law Society Bill-Pandorf v. Hamilton-Rescission of Contracts to take Shares-The Law of the Constitution (Review of A. V. Dicey)-Mining Laws in South Africa-The Registration Act-Extended Jurisdiction of Magistrates-Digest of Cases-Contents of Exchanges. Harvard Law Review. Vol. I, Nos. 3-4, October and November, 1887.

A brief Survey of Equity Jurisdiction II. (Langdell)- Trusts' (Stimson) What is the Test of a Regulation of Foreign or Interstate Commerce? (Greeley) Subsequent Payments under Resulting Trusts (Grinnell)— Chandelor v. Lopus (McMurtrie)-Two Recent Trust Cases' (G. H. Wald) -Notes-Reviews-Recent Cases, etc.

Political Science Quarterly. Vol. II, No. 3, September, 1887. New York: Ginn & Co.

The Interstate Commerce Law, II. (E. R. A. Seligman)-Ferdinand Lassalle (L. J. Huff)-England and the Colonies (H. L. Osgood)—The Cause of Secession (A. D. Morse)-State Control of Industry in the Fourth Century (W. A. Brown)-Reviews.

The New Jersey Law Journal. Vol. X, Nos. 9-12, September, October,
November, December, 1887. Somerville, N.J.: Honeyman & Co.
The American Association-The Arthur Kill Bridge Case-The Possibili-
ties of Modern Marriage, p. 315-Constitutionality of Bookmaking, p. 316—
Production of Books before Trial, p. 348-The Driven Well Case, p. 373-
Editorial Notes, Reports, etc.

The Medico-Legal Journal. Vol. V. Nos. 1-2, June and September, 1887.
New York: Medico-Legal Journal Association.

No. 1. Dr. Isaac Ray Memoir and Portrait (C. K. Mills)-Druse Case (E. W. Chamberlain)-Classification of Mental Diseases (J. J. Elwell)—The Penal Aspects of Suicide (L. C. Whiton)-Prison Labour and Public Utility (L. Seaman)-Editorial Notes-Reviews, etc.

No. 2. The Relation of Intemperance to Insanity (Clark Bell)-Opium Inebrity (Dr. Ira Russell)-Valedictory Address by Dr. A. K. SteeleCriminality (Dr. W. G. Stevenson)-Inhibition of Poison (J. J. Reeve)Transactions of Societies-Editorial Notes-Portraits of late A. J. Vanderpoel, and Judge G. H. McMaster (with short memoirs)-Reviews, etc.

The Reporter. Vol. XXIV, Nos. 10-22, September 7 to November 30, 1887. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co.

Reports in Supreme Court, U.S., and other Courts.

American and English Railroad Cases. Vol. XXIX. Parts 1-2, September and October, 1887. Also Vol. XXVIII. complete. Northport, Long Island, N.Y.: Edward Thompson.

Annotated Reports of Cases relating to Railways in American and English Courts.