per for India was prepared by the Indian Law Commission, then composed of Lord Justice James, Lord Justice Lush, and others. In 1879 the bill was re-drawn by Mr. Phillips of Calcutta; and after consultation with bank ers and merchants it was amended slightly and in 1881 was adopted. The purpose of this Indian Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881, was, it seems, merely to codify the English law. Chalmers' Indian Xegotiablc Instruments Act, introdtiction, passim. Meanwhile, in 1878, M. D. Chalmers, Esq.. published a Digest of the Law of Bills of Exchange, giving the law in the form of a draft code, in brief sections with illustra tions, after the plan of Sir J. F. Stephen's Digest of the Law of Evidence. In 1881 the author was employed by the Institute of Bankers and the Associated Chambers of Commerce to prepare a bill. The resultant draft was examined by a committee of the Institute of Bankers, and was then introduced into Parliament by the President of the Insti tute, Sir John Lubbock. The bill was re ferred to a committee, of which some of the members were Sir Farrer Herschell, Q. C, as chairman, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Asher. Q. C., Mr. Cohen, Q. C., and Mr. T. C. Bar ing. Some amendments were made, includ ing a few as to Scotch law, drawn by J. Dove Wilson, Esq., of Aberdeen. The bill was reported by Sir Farrer Herschell, and was adopted by the House of Commons. In the House of Lords it was referred to a commit tee that included, among others, Lord Bramwell as chairman. Lord Selborne, and Lord Fitzgerald. After amendments, particularly some suggested by Lord Bramwell, the bi'l was adopted by the House of Lords, and as amended it was then adopted by the House of Commons. Such is the history of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882. It has been the subject of remarkably little litigation. The se cret of the rapid adoption of the codification and also of the satisfaction given by it is to be found in the codifier's attempt to repro duce existing law without amendment. Chalmers' Bills of Exchange, fifth ed., in troduction, passim. The American history of the codification
'
j
I !
now known as the Negotiable Instruments Law, begins in 1895, when the Commission ers on Uniformity of Laws, sitting in Detroit at the time of the meeting of the American Bar Association, instructed a committee to cause a bill to be drawn. A sub-committee, el" which Hon. Lyman D. Brewster of Con necticut was chairman, employed John J. Crawford, Esq., of New York, to make the draft. The result was submitted to law yers for criticism, and, after slight amend ment, was adopted by the Commissioners in 1896. The codification is based upon the English Act, but differs from it in arrange ment and frequently in expression. The American codifier encountered the special difficulty that the law was not identical in all the States. Yet this difficulty was so suc cessfully met, that the act has already been adopted in nineteen jurisdictions, including among others, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Vir ginia, Ohio, and the District of Columbia. This record as to rapidity of adoption is quite as extraordinary as the record of the English Act; and the results as to litigation have been similarly good—two or three cases in Eng land and half a dozen in the United States. The book under review is by the gentleman who drew the act—the first act that has codi fied any important division of the substan tive law for any large part of the United States. The book is not a treatise. It is a reprint of the act, with brief and clear anno tations—embodying many of the comments appended to the author's draft when sub mitted to the Commissioners on Uniformity of Laws. The practitioner will find it an extremelv useful tool. SHEPARD'S CITATIONS OF ALL CASES IN THE UNITED STATES SITREME COURT RETORTS WHICH HAVE HAD A SUBSEQUENT CITATION. Third Edition. New York: The Frank Shcpard Company. 1902. Shepard's Citations is more than a time saver for the brief-maker; it is indispensable in following up thoroughly any legal question which has been passed upon by the Federal Supreme Court.
