Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 9.djvu/397

REVIEWS. 369 questions affecting land titles which his work affords, some impetus may be given toward concerted effort to remove these defects. To this hope we give a hearty Amen I e. r. c. Principles of the English Law of Contract and of Agency in its Relation to Contract. By Sir William R. Anson, Bart., D. C. L. pjghth Edition. First American Copyright Edition. By Ernest W. Huffcut, Professor of Law at Cornell University. Macmillan & Co., New York and London. 1895. pp. Ixii, 456. The text is that of the English author's eighth edition (1895). It is the same as that of the seventh edition, except for a few minor alterations necessitated by two recent English acts, the Sale of Goods Act, and the Married Women's Property Act of 1893. Few new English cases are cited. Professor Huffcut cites parallel American cases where the American and English authorities are in accord, and indicates carefully all points on which the American authorities are in conflict, either with each other or with the English cases. In his note, however, on the American view of the doctrine of Scotson v. Pegg (6 H. & N. 295), and Shadwell . Shadwell (9 C. B. n. s. 159), as to a promise to perform an existing contract with a third person, he fails to notice the very recent case oi Abbott v. Doane (163 Mass. 433), the only American case which directly supports the English doctrine. Certain cases also, which he cites in support of the American view, are by no means universally admitted to be in point. The citations in connection with Anson's short chapter on Agency and Quasi-Contracts are not numerous. Perhaps it is better so, as Anson's treatment of either subject is meagre. The volume is altogether the most valuable edition of Anson for American students that has yet appeared. h. c. l. Huffcut on Agency. By Ernest W. Huffcut, Professor of Law in Cor- nell University School of Law. Boston: Little, Brown, & Co. 1895. pp. xlviii, 234. The author limits the scope of his treatise to the law of agency " as related to contract." He defines an agent as one who brings his principal into contractual relations with a third party, and excludes from his volume all consideration of the law of master and servant ; arguing that *' the law governing master and servant belongs to that branch of the law of obligation having to do with torts generally," and that " the same reasons that lead to a separate treatment of contract and tort lead to a separate treatment of agents and servants." It is rather hard to follow this reasoning, and still more difficult to see just how the author derives any advantage from this method of treating the subject. His readers are likely to be disappointed at this total omission of the law of master and servant, which is so analogous to and so generally associated with the law of principal and agent. Aside from this, the book should meet with general approval. It supplies a much felt want for a brief reliable treatise on the law of agency. Mr. Huffcut's statements are almost uniformly accurate, though his phraseology is original. His citation of authorities is full and general, though he seems to favor recent cases affirming rather than the leading cases establishing the law. On controverted points both sides of the question are fully and carefully presented, and his statements of prin- ciples are clear and discriminating. The chapters on Ratification and