The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1901-02-12
LITCHFIELD'S LAW SCHOOL.
CONTINUED from Fourth Page.

used in his lectures during the last
years that he taught. An inspection Of
these volumes shows that the course of
instruction given at the Litchfield Law
school covered the entire body of the
law. They speak Of the law generally
in reference to the sources whence it
is derived, as customs and statutes,
with the rules for the application and
Interpretation of each. Then follow
Real Estate, Rights of Persons, Rights
of Things, Contracts, Torts Evidence,
Pleading. Crimes and Equity. And
each OF these general subjects is treated
of under various subsidiary topics, so
as to make the matter Ineligible and
afford the student a correct and ade-
quate idea of and basis for the work
he will be called upon to perform in the
practice Of his profession. Judge Reeve
conducted the school alone until 1898,
when, having been elected a judge of
the supreme court, he associated James
Gould with him. They had the Joint
care of the school until 1920, when
Judge Reeve withdrew. Mr. Gould con-
tinued the classes until 1888, being as
sisted during the last year by Jabez
w. Huntington. Judge Reeve re-
manned on the bench until the reached
the limit Of seventy years in 1915. The
last part of the term he was chief JUS
tice. He died in 1928, in the eightieth
year of his life. He left an only child,
Aaron Burr, who graduated at Yale in
1902. Aaron Burr Reeve married Anna
belle Sheldon of Richmond, Va, in
1908. He died in 1909. He left an only
child, Tapping Burr Reeve, who gradu-
ated at Yale, but died unmarried in
1929, and thus the family became ex-
tinct Mr.. Gould became judge of the
supreme court Of Connecticut, and was
the author of the celebrated work on
Pleading. He died at Litchfield in 1888
The course of instruction at the school
must have been incomparably more ex-
haustive than would be possible at the
present day, for the obvious reason
that there was so much less to learn.
In 1884 there were no printed reports Of
decisions of any court in the United
States, Substantially the entire body
of the law was to be found in the Eng
lish reports. 1t is said that Judge
Gould had systematically digested for
his students every ancient and mod
ern opinion, whether overruled, doubt
ed or In any way qualified" But vast
bodies of law Of which the modern stu
dent must learn something were I'm
known to the curriculum Of the Litch-
field Law school, and many principles
latent In the common law were just be-
ginning to be developed Lord Mans
field resigned his office of Chief Justice
in June, 1888, after presiding in the
Kings Bench over thirty years. Prior
to his time the greatest uncertainty
had prevailed on questions Of CONNER
cial law. Mercantile questions were
SO ignorantly treated when they came
into Westminster Hail." says Lord
Campbell in his Lives of the Chief JUS
tees, "that they were usually settled
by private arbitration among the mer-
chants themselves" There were no
treatises on the subject and few cases
in the books of reports. Thus in He
lyn v. .Adamson 8 Burr, $50, decided in
1858, it was first distinctly ruled that
the second indorser Of an inland bill Of
exchange was entitled to recover from
the prior indorser upon failure of pay
1ment by the drawee, without making
any demand on or inquiry after the
drawer In ITO 1t was held that the in
dorser of a bill of exchange is dis
charged If he receives no notice Of a re-
fusal to accept by the drawee. (Ble-
sard v. Hirst, 5 Burr, 2670.) And not
until 1885, in Tindal v. Brown, Term
Rep. 1877, was it finally determined that
what Is reasonable notice to an indor-
ser of non-payment by the maker of a
,r+1 ~ ~ re
exchange, is a question Of law and not
of fact. OF course there was no Ameri-
can constitutional law when the school
was founded, though some Of the states
had already adopted constitutions.
The first book on corporation law was
that on Kyd, published in London in
1898, butt 1T was chiefly made up of au-
thorities and presidents relating t o
municipal corporations; and Willcock.
on Corporations, also an English trea-
tise, was still more limited in its plan. |
There was no American textbook on
until the first edition of |
Angel and Ames was published III 1881.
At that time the need of such a book |
had become very urgent, but in the
early years of the Litchfield Law school
there must have been extremely few
private business corporations in this
Not until Louisville etc., r. !
Co. v. Letson, How. GU. 81 497, deci- !
ded in 1874, did corporations become
to sue and be sued as ''citi-
zens" of a state, regardless Of the citi-
zenship of the corporators. A fellow |
was q total stranger in legal
Priestly v. Fowler, 3 NJ
& w. /, was decided in 1887; Murray "
Co.. McMull, Is. Carr 1856, in
1S41; and Farwell v. Railroad Co.,
Met. (Mass.) 40, in 1842. The term
''contributory negligence had not been
Butterfield v. Forester, II
East so, was decided in 1907 Davies ".
Mann, 10 M. & W. SAG, in 1912, and the
phrase is not used in either case. Civil
actions for damages for death by
wrongful act were not maintainabIe.
The law of insurance was virtually the
alton of Lord Mansfield, but the vol
ume of insurance law was COMPARE
lively insignificant for several decades.
On the other hand, there was an abund-
ance of real-estate law and of law con-
corning executors and administrators
and trustees generally. In those days
The executort de son tort was more in
than at present, although even
now he has so much vitality in SOME
that 1t would not be wise
'or the practitioner to characterize him
is Judge Lumpkin did in Shotwell v.
Rowell, 80 Ga 500, "de son fiddlestick"