the carriage” against the right owner. In Waugh v. Denham, Pigot, C.B., cites this case with approval, and states that it has never been overruled in England. The same judge remarks later on that “If a carrier knows that a thief gives him the goods of the true owner to carry, he cannot charge the owner for the service which he has knowingly rendered to the thief in the carrying of the goods,” from which the natural implication is, that he could charge the owner if he did not know of the tortious bailment. See also Whitaker on Lien, p. 92; Browne on Carriers, p. 337; Cross on Lien, p. 28; Hutchinson on Carriers, § 489. It is thus seen that on the few occasions on which this question has been decided or adverted to in England, the carrier’s right to a lien has always been upheld, and in view of this authority, meagre as it is, we must consider the author’s statement as altogether too sweeping.
It is to be regretted that Mr. Schouler did not discuss at length the question as to the exact nature of a ticket, — whether it is a mere token, evidence of a contract, or the contract itself. The author seems to regard it as evidence of a contract; and while we are not prepared to differ with him, yet we are inclined to think that much can be said in favor of regarding the ticket as the contract proper, — a promise on the part of the company, in consideration of the money paid, to carry the holder as indicated. In this view of the case it only ceases to be such on cancellation, when it becomes a token or voucher showing that the passenger has paid his fare. For a careful discussion of this question see Mr. Beale’s article, Harvard Law Review, vol. 1, p. 17.
In the last paragraph of his book the author points out that if in many cases he may appear to have avoided expressing an opinion or stating the law, this is due to the fact that the subject of Common Carriers, in its present phase, is one of such recent and rapid growth, that the courts themselves have not yet reached satisfactory or definite conclusions on many important points.
We think that the book, in its present shape, will warrant the careful study of any one interested in the subject of which it treats.
The Law of Covenants for Title. By William Henry Rawle, LL.D. Fifth edition. Boston: Little, Brown, & Co. 1887. 8vo. pp. 708.
It is now fourteen years since the last edition of this standard treatise was published. In that time the law on the subject has been much enlarged by decisions and modified by statutes both in England and the United States. It has been the aim of the learned author in this, the fifth edition, more to keep his book abreast of the times, than to change materially his views previously set forth. In order to do this it has been necessary to add much new matter. As an offset, some of that which has now become obsolete has been omitted, and still more of the old has been condensed, so that the size of the volume remains about the same.
Among the heads where the greatest change has been made are the form of covenants, covenants by married women, implied covenants,
- 16 Irish C. L., at 409, 1865.
- Henderson v. Stevenson, L. R. 2 H. L. Sc. 470, per Ld. Cairns; Burke v. S. E. Ry Co., 5 C. P. D. 1, per Ld. Coleridge.