€J)e
- tten
Published Monthly, at $3.00 per annum.
Bag. Single numbers, 50 cents.
Communications in regard to the contents of the Magazine should be addressed to the Editor, Horace W. Fuller, i 5^ Beacon Street, Boston, Mass. The Editor will be glad to receive contributions of articles of moderate length upon subjects of interest to the profession; also anything in the way of legal antiquities or curiosities, facetice, anecdotes, etc. THE GREEN BAG. /"UR May number will contain a sketch of the Supreme Court of Illinois, written by James E. Babb, Esq., of the Chicago Bar. The article will prove of great interest, and the illustrations will include many of the most eminent judges who have graced the bench of that State. A New York correspondent favors us with the following interesting and valuable suggestions upon "The Digest : Its Making and Uses." Editor of the " Green Bag " : The recent publication of Austin Abbott's Second Supplement, embracing the decisions of the higher courts of the State of New York since 1882, brings up for consideration the value of the digest to the legal profession, and in connection therewith the enormous labor involved in such an undertaking, — greater by far than the average practitioner may be willing to allow. It may be said, however, that to no other book-making servitor of the bar is he under greater obligation. The digester aims primarily to facilitate the work of the practitioner by making easy of access the innumerable decisions with which he finds it impossible to keep pace. Practical aims are his chief consideration, — the presentation of the law as it exists through the interpretation of those whose function it is to declare it to the community. Two factors enter in securing the best results: (1) accuracy in performance; (2) understanding of what a digest is, and of the uses to which it is to be put. It is of the last factor only, that we propose to speak. A digest is in no sense, as is commonly understood, J key to every legal difficulty which may present it self; and if consulted upon this principle, fails inevi tably as an aid to the clearing up the difficulties surrounding the point under consideration. To sup pose that an exactly similar case to the one engaged upon is likely to be presented, and the necessary la
bor of applying the law to the particular facts thus done away with, is to suppose error. No experi enced digester has any such beneficent aim. He of all men best appreciates the multiplicity of facts which go to alter or in some way modify the law in particular cases. His aim is to suggest, rather than to effect, solution. He presents a kaleidoscopic view of adjudication upon similar points, and asks that they be turned to account in working out particular cases. We will examine briefly the steps by which he proceeds. It will be found that while in no sense "a worker of miracles," there is every reason to sup pose that he may render substantial service. A judicious selection of reports from which mate rial is to be drawn, may be considered the first im portant step in the making of a digest. To this initial task should be brought a wide knowledge of the history of courts of record and of the character of distinct sets of reports. Those which are repre sentative in the sense of embodying the decisions of the leading courts are to be selected. There have been in the State of New York alone, since the es tablishment of the judiciary, in the neighborhood of between eighty and a hundred different sets of reports; and the proportionate weight which is to be given to each of them respectively, is a matter in volving no little discrimination. There is a wide range between the comparatively worthless adjudications set forth in the Chancery Sentinel, and the decisions of the Court of Appeals. A judicious pause at the outset may render the task of analysis which lies ahead, if not an easy one, at least satisfactory, in that it will not spend itself upon material compara tively worthless. The examination of decisions next engages attention, and it is here that the real grava men of the work rests. In the hasty compilation of reports errors not infrequently creep into the headnotes. This arises from a misunderstanding of the real points in controversy, as well as from neglect to discriminate between what are mere dicta, and what is actually decided. The digester does anew the work of the reporter. An opinion tending to estab lish the law upon a particular point may touch indi rectly upon collateral questions, and these obiter dicta in turn may go far toward determining the course of future adjudication. These are to be pre sented not as held, but as propositions enunciated by the courts, which have their proper place in a work aiming to present the trend of judicial opinion,
