sion in respect of chattels belonging to a third person which were annexed to the premises by the mortgagor and thereby became part of the land and the property of the mortgagee. This might be one of the cases where statutory provision would be beneficial.

CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS BY CLIENT-PRIVILEGE-DISCLOSURE OF NAME OF CLIENT.-By the case of Re United States of America v. Mammoth Oil Co., it seems that only facts which come to the knowledge of the solicitor from his client, and not facts obtained. in information aliunde, are excluded from disclosure, and this rule applies to the acts of the solicitor, which, though proceeding from the instructions of the client, are in no wise confidential communications by the client to the solicitor. "The Privilege of the Solicitor" is not the privilege of the solicitor at all but by the client and the public.

The basis of the principle is founded on the consideration "that there would be no safety in dealing with mankind, if persons employed in transactions were compelled to state that which they have learned only by this species of confidence." Eldon, L.C., in Parker v. Lowten, and see Wright v. Mayer.s The client's name should be disclosed even though the solicitor did not know it except from information derived from the client himself. Bursill v. Tanner.

If the name of the client was communicated to the solicitor for the purpose of being advised by the solicitor, the learned Judge considered. the confidence should be respected. As to this, however, Esher, M.R., in Bursill v. Tanner, p. 4, says: "The client does not consult the solicitor with a view to obtaining his professional advice as to whether he shall be his solicitor or not."

*

GUARANTY FAILURE OF EMPLOYER TO DISCLOSE PREVIOUS DEFALCATIONS TO GUARANTOR.-Eby-Blain Ltd. v. Matthews.1 This was an appeal from the decision of a County Court Judge in favour of the plaintiffs, in an action upon a guaranty. The defendant had guaranteed to become responsible for payment, of all moneys due or to become due from a traveller of the plaintiffs', up to but not exceeding the sum of $500.00.

The plaintiffs had dismissed the traveller from their employ because of previous defalcations, but consented to engage him again if

furnished with a guaranty protecting them against future loss as a result of his failing to pay over moneys collected.

These facts were not disclosed to the defendant and the plaintiffs by their silence practically represented that so far as they knew the traveller was honest.

The Court held that, had the defendant known of the previous dishonesty of the traveller he would not have executed the guaranty, and allowed the appeal and dismissed the action.

2

The decision follows that of London General Omnibus Co. Ltd. v. Holloway, where it was decided that an employee could not enforce a bond against the surety in respect of subsequent dishonesty of the servant, although the non-disclosure by the employer of the previous dishonesty of the servant was not fraudulent; and also that of the Appellate Court of Saskatchewan in Ruthenian Farmers Elevator Co. Ltd. v. Hrycak et al, which decided that a surety was released by any concealment of a material part of the transaction with regard to which the guarantee is given.

B. B. J.

BOOKS AND PERIODICALS.

Publishers desiring reviews or notices of Books and Periodicals must send copies of the same to the Editor, care of THE CARSWELL COMPANY, LIMITED, 145 Adelaide Street West, Toronto, Canada.

The United States Constitution, Annotated. The American Law Book Company, Brooklyn, N.Y., 1924.

This book contains the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Ordinance of 1787 and the Constitution of the United States, the latter being annotated with references to the Corpus JurisCyc. System-and having added a very excellent index. The advantage of having the organic laws of the United States in compact and convenient form is so obvious as to require no comment. G. F. H.

Blakemore on Prohibition-Second Edition-1925.
-Co., Albany, N.Y.

Matthew Bender &

Opening the preface to his first edition in 1923, Mr. Blakemore said that the passage of the National Prohibition Act of 1919 (commonly known as the Volstead Act) marked the end of a long struggle for prohibition legislation, but also meant the beginning of a new struggle for enforcement of the law. In opening the preface to this second edition of 1925, he says that the battle for the enforcement of the Act is waged with a ferocity not fully mirrored on the serene pages of the Reports. Perhaps no better proof of the truth of this latter statement is needed than

12-C.B.R.-VOL. III.

(1912), 2 K. B. 72.
(1924), 3 D. L. R. 402.

the fact that this well compiled book contains 1,185 pages, and does not appear to contain anything not properly pertinent to its subject matter. G. F. H.

Mr. H. G. Garrett, the capable registrar of companies and deputy superintendent of insurance for British Columbia, has published a book. let of sixty pages on The Life Insurance Act, a measure prepared by the Conference of Commissioners on Uniformity of Legislation in Canada, assisted by the Association of Superintendents of Insurance of the provinces and by representatives of the life insurance companies and fraternal Societies. The first draft of the Act was made in 1921, and the Act was passed in 1923 by British Columbia and in 1924 by Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan. It was also introduced into the legislature of Nova Scotia but not passed there in 1924. The result is to make the law as to life insurance uniform throughout the Dominion except in Quebec, Nova Scotia, Yukon and the Territories. Mr. Garrett has annotated the Act with care and thoroughness. Where a question arises which has been the subject of court decisions, a reference is given to the case in which the point at issue has been discussed, and 106 such cases are listed. In addition, the explanatory notes throughout will be found of the greatest value not only to insur ance companies, brokers and agents but also to lawyers who are called upon to advise as to questions which arise in the business of their offices. R. W. S.

Principles of Corporation Law. By William W. Cook of the New York Bar, Author of Cook on Corporations. The Lawyers' Club, Univer. sity of Michigan, 1925.

This is a book of over 800 royal octavo pages, printed on good paper and bound in flexible leather. It is a remarkable departure from the ordinary publication of Law Books, as an accompanying slip states that it "may be purchased at $2.50 per copy, being the cost of type setting, electros, paper, binding and printing." The Preface is so brief that it may be quoted in full as follows:

"This book is an experiment to condense, simplify and clarify the law, for the use of the lawyer, law student and layman. In an article published in the Michigan Law Journal in February, 1923, on the 'Law Book of the Future,' I proposed a new type of text-book, stating general principles with a few applications, and with foot-note references to elaborate text-books and to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. This book has been written on that theory, the references being chiefly to the eighth edition of the author's six-volume work on corporation law, and to the decisions of the Supreme Court. References to very recent decisions are also added."

The book is divided into 25 chapters, each of which is preceded by an elaborate subdivision and classification of its contents. The table of cases includes only United States Reports, but the text contains numerous references to, and quotations from the law of England, and clearly points out the differences between the Company laws of both countries. Νο Canadian Statutes or decisions are quoted, and no reference is made

to the distinction drawn by the Ontario Court of Appeal, in 1902, in the case of Nelson Coke & Gas Co. v. Pellatt, as to the revocability before acceptance between applications for stock under seal and not under seal. The foot notes not only contain references to the authorities for the different statements of the law, but also indicate the sections of the larger work, in which the questions are more fully dealt with. No lawyer who has an extensive Company Law practice, and who cannot afford the author's six-volume work, should be without this book in his library. M. J. G.

SOME LEADING CASES IN RHYME.

Thornborow vs. Whitaker, 2 Ld. Raymond's Reports, 1164 (1705).

1. Thornborow cunning, and Whitacre keen;

(A cold cold day for the farmer man)

"For five pounds down" he said "I ween",
"I'll furnish the rye all on your plan";

Two grains on Monday and doubling each week
For a year from then was the thing agreed;
Poor Whitacre found that he'd have to seek
More rye than all England's yield or need;
Inadequacy of consideration

(His defence), received the Court's negation;
If you'ld confirm, you'ld best resort

To Judge Lord Raymond, his 2nd Report.

Lampleigh vs. Braithwait, Hobart's Report 105 (1613).

2. Lampleigh laboured, at Braithwait's will,

To get him a pardon for murder done,

But no promise to pay was made until

The service was rendered and gratitude won,

The debt was denied when the plaintiff sued,

But the previous asking, though nothing then said

Of consideration, was held quite good

To support the promise; (through Hobart wade).

Beaumont vs. Reeve, 8 Queen's Bench Reports, 483 (1846).

3. Fair Beaumont cohabited years with Reeve

Very unwise, for they were not one,

He a subsequent promise to pay did give;

14 O. L. R. 481.

But consideration moral is none.

So the action she brought, he won from the wench,
You will find this sad story in 8 Queen's Bench.

Cooke vs. Oxley, 3 Term Reports 653 (1790).

4. Cooke, Oxley offered to sell tobacco, Acceptance open till four o'clock,

But, mutabilis semper, his mind, alack, O!

And he sold to another the whole of his stock;

For non-delivery Cooke then claimed,

But the Court's opinion was "Sure we are

That proposal is nil till acceptance named.”
And thus it is written in 3 T. R.

Jordan vs. Norton, 4 Meeson & Welsby, 161 (1838).

5. Jordan from Norton an offer received

For his mare, if "in harness" both quiet and sound,
But the answer from Jordan was that he conceived

When harnessed up double" she's so be found;

The Court held "no contract," and, in effect, chid em,
And the claim of the plaintiff was deemed nothing worth.
Because that the parties were never "ad idem";

Reported in Meeson and Welsby, the fourth.

Burkmire vs. Darnell, 6 Modern Reports 248, (1704).

6. Burkmire sued Darnell who surety stood

For a horse a friend borrowed, but had not restored,
His collateral promise was reckoned not good,
Being verbal, not written, the plaintiff was floored.
Through 29 Charlie the Second we learn

There should have been writing, see 6 Reports Modern;

Mountstephen v. Lakeman, L.R. 5 Q.B. 613; 7 A.L. 17 (1870).

7. In Mountstephen and Lakeman the action was laid
On Lakeman's assurance "sure I'll see you paid,"

But the Statute of Frauds could not help our poor brother,
Those words formed a personal sound obligation

Not dependent on any default of another,

Nor came within terms of the Statute's creation;

So the judgment in this case for plaintiff was given,

Law Reports 5 Q.B. House of Lords Seven.

Toronto.

W. B. RAYMOND.