¡nation, after all, is, for the most part, simply depth and breadth of insight; and, far from being- detrimental to judicial thought, surely no quality could be more desirable in the administration of the law than the intellec tual and imaginative insight which goes to
was involved. Cairns' solution of the prob lem by reference to the going concern as a "fruit-bearing tree" is highly imaginative, and was so convincing that further discussion ceased. In the vibration case of Hammer smith Ry. v. Brand, 4 E. & I. App. 215,
LORD JUSTICE JAMES.
the heart of things and expresses in perfect form a rule for future guidance. The lum inous effect of Cairns' imagination may be observed to splendid advantage in the case of Gardner v. London, etc., Ry., 2 Ch. App. 201, on the vexed question of the relative rights and obligations of railway companies and their debenture holders. The briefs of coHmsel on either side will indicate the doubt and conflict of opinion in which the subject
involving the right to recover for damage incident to authorized acts, he failed for once to convince his colleagues. Probably his most important contribu tions to the law lie within the domain of company affairs. But these are scarcely superior to his judgments in cases of con tract. One of his most original contribu tions to jurisprudence is his series of deci sions as arbitrator in the complicated affairs
