Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T16:17:35.872Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Gossip about Legal History: Unpublished Letters of Maitland and Ames

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

Get access

Extract

When, during a recent visit at Harvard University, I called upon my friend Mrs. James Barr Ames, in her Cambridge home, she most generously gave me the originals of some letters which had been written to her husband by Mait-land, Brunner, and other legal scholars. On examining the letters, I found that the bundle contained six letters written to Ames by Maitland, and also the original of one long letter which Ames had written to Maitland, a letter which for some reason, possibly the refreshing of memory, appears to have been returned to the writer.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1926

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 5 note 1 Selden Society, vol. 1, p. 14.

page 5 note 2 Statutes of the Realm, i. 66.

page 5 note 3 It has. Selden Society, vol. 2.

page 6 note 4 It has published sixteen such volumes.

page 6 note 5 Possession for year ana day: L. Q. R. v. 253 [F. P.].

page 7 note 6 Harvard Law Review, ii. 1–19.

page 8 note 7 Selden Society, vol. 2, pp. 132–133, 137, 152.

page 9 note 8 Harvard Law Review, iii. 23–40.

page 11 note 9 They were printed in Harvard Law Review, iii. 97–115, 167–179, 212–226.

page 12 note 1 Die Anefangsklage in ihrer Ursprünglichen Bedeutung (Breslau, 1886).

page 12 note 2 All the material authorities (I believe) about the position of a finder are collected inWright's, R. S. part of Pollock & Wright on Possession (1888)Google Scholar. It is incredible that a “pure” finder, i.e. without clue to the true owner, should ever have been deemed a trespasser [F. P.].

page 13 note 3 Isack v. Clarke.

page 13 note 4 Page 131, sub fin.

page 13 note 5 65 b in Richard Tottell's ed. 1561.

page 15 note 6 Harvard Law Review, iii. 313–328.

page 15 note 7 Desperate in reason, but it was first made by Mellor, J. (in a Court of only co-ordinate authority), in Asher v. Whitlock. See now Macnaghten, Lord in judgment of Judicial Committee: Perry v. Clissold, [1907]Google Scholar A. C. 79, 80 [F. P.].

page 15 note 8 Cf. P. & M. ii. 168, n. 2.

page 15 note 9 Ibid. 222–224.

page 16 note 1 P. & M. ii., 164–170.

page 16 note 2 Liceat in the text. So, too, Liebermann, Gesetze der Angelsachsen, i 327.

page 17 note 3 Cf. P. & M. ii. 70–71.

page 17 note 4 Ibid. 222. n. 2.