Page images

agricultural in the character of the goods sold, while the fair was held less frequently and was more imposing in character. It was the attendance of foreign merchants at the fairs thai was responsible for the rules of law governing them taking on an international complexion. To use the author's words, “The merchants carried their law, as it were, in the same consignment as their goods, and both law and goods remained in the places where they traded and became part of the general stock of the country.”

C. M.


An Introduction to the History of English Law. By Harold Potter, LL.B. London: Sweet & Maxwell Limited; Toronto: The Carswell Company Limited, 1923.

A Treatise on Statute Law. By the late W. F. Craies, M.A. 3rd ed. by J. G. Pease, C.B.E., and J. P. Gorman. London: Sweet & Maxwell Limited; Toronto, The Carswell Company Limited, 1923.

The Historical Foundations of Modern Company Law. By R. R. Fermoy. London: Sweet & Maxwell Limited ; Toronto: The Carswell Company Limited, 1923.

Maclachlan on Shipping. 6th ed. by E. H. Hart and A. J. Bucknill. London: Sweet & Maxwell Limited ; Toronto: The Carswell Company Limited, 1923.

Byles on Bills. 18th ed. by W. J. B. Byles and A. W. B. Welford. London: Sweet & Maxwell Limited, 1923.

National Prohibition. By A. W. Blakemore. Albany, N.Y.: Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., 1923.

Studies in Psychoanalysis. By Professor C. Baudouin. Translated by E. and C. Paul. Toronto: Longmans, Green & Co., 1923. Price $3.50.

Canada as a Political Entity. By Alexander 0. Potter, Ph.D. Toronto: Longmans, Green & Co., 1923. Price $1.50.

Fifty-one Years of Victorian Life. By the Dowager Countess of Jersey, C.B.E. London: John Murray; Toronto: Longmans, Green & Co., 1923. Price $5.00.


In The Editorial Board of the Canadian Bar Association does not

hold itself responsible for the opinions of Correspondents. Contributions to this department of the REVIEW will be published only over the genuine names of the writers.


Editor Canadian Bar Review:

Sir,-Mr. Justice Russell, by his Note, in the May number of the REVIEW, on the thirty year old decision of the Privy Council in the case of Harvey v. Facey, has, in the language of our neighbours to the south, “started something.” The reply of Mr. A. R. MacLeod of Vancouver in the October number, and Judge Russell's rejoinder in the same number, are highly entertaining, but they leave the matter just about where it was before. One may, however, without taking either side in the debate, mention a few cases in our Ontario Courts, which show the influence of that decision.

The first in point of time is Johnston v. Rogers, (1899) 30 0. R. 150. The action was tried in the County Court of Middlesex before Judge Elliott, who gave a lengthy written judgment, but, strange to say, Harvey v. Facey is not referred to, so it could not have been cited at the trial by Counsel on either side. The facts were practically on all fours with Harvey v. Facey, but the Judge, relying principally upon a decision of our own Courts in Harty v. Gooderham (1871), 31 U. C. R. 18, gave judgment for the Plaintiff. On appeal to the Queen's Bench Division, that Court distinguished Harty v. Gooderham, and reversed the judgment on the strength of Harvey v. Facey.

Canadian Dyers v. Burton came before Mr. Justice Middleton upon a motion for judgment on the pleadings, (1920) 47 0. L. R. 259. In that case the Plaintiffs wrote to the Defendant asking him to state the lowest price for a property described as “ 25 H. Avenue." The Defendant in answer wrote naming a price. The following year the Plaintiffs wrote again: "We would be pleased to have your very lowest price for 25 H. Avenue”; and the Defendant replied: “The last price I gave you is the lowest I am prepared to accept. This is exceptionally low, and if it were to any other party, I would ask more.The Plaintiffs wrote accepting the offer, enclosing a cheque for part of the price and asking to have a deed prepared. The Defendant's Solicitor sent a draft deed and stated when he would be ready to close, but after some correspondence about the deed and the title, the Defendant's Solicitor wrote that there was no contract, and returned the cheque. It was held that the Defendant's letter was more than a quotation of price—it was a statement of readiness to sell to the Plaintiffs at the price previously named, and the offer being accepted by the Plaintiffs, a contract was formed. It was held further that, if the language of the Defendant's letter was ambiguous, his conduct showed that he regarded it as an offer, and the Plaintiff's letter as an acceptance, thus making a contract. The learned Judge, in referring to Harvey v. Facey, says that it "does not determine any new law, but is an illustration of the application of the principles involved.”

The last case is McCool v. Grant (1921), 48 0. L. R. 631. The Plaintiff offered to purchase a lot of lumber at a certain price, and the Defendant replied: “We are prepared to accept your offer, provided you can satisfy our bank that all this stuff will be paid for as per our conversation.” The Defendant's bankers were, in due course, satisfied, and so informed the Plaintiff's bankers. The trial took place before Mr. Justice Rose, who held that the Defendant's reply did not amount to an acceptance, and dismissed the action. On appeal however this judgment was reversed, and judgment was directed to be entered for the Plaintiff. Chief Justice R. M. Meredith, who delivered the judgment of the Court, said: “Mr. Grant, who conducted the negotiations for the Defendants throughout, was, at the trial, given the fullest opportunity to state, or suggest, any reason for the writings, if they were not to be binding upon any one, and, as was to have been expected, was quite unable to do so.”

M. J. GORMAN. Ottawa.



As announced in the September number of THE CANADIAN BAR REVIEW, the Association at its last Annual Meeting accepted the courteous invitation of the Bar of England, conveyed through the Rt. Hon. the Attorney-General of England, to cooperate with the English Bar as joint hosts in welcoming the American Bar Association to England in July, 1924. There is no doubt that the joint meeting in London next July will be the most memorable event in the history of the English-speaking Bars and will, be of great international significance.

The Committee of the American Bar Association in charge of the arrangements for the visit include such distinguished statesmen and jurists as the Honourable Charles E. Hughes, the Honourable Chief Justice Taft, the Honourable Alton B. Parker, the Honourable Elihu Root, the Honourable John W. Davis, the Honourable Frank B. Kellogg, United States Ambassador to Great Britain, and the Honourable James M. Beck.

The American Bar Association has chartered the accommodation on the steamship“ Berengaria,” sailing from New York to Southampton on July 12th. The rate from New York to Southampton on the “Berengaria” has been fixed at $270.00 with additional charges for special accommodation such as suites.

The President and Dominion Vice-President of the Canadian Bar Association were appointed a special Committee to ascertain the best arrangements which could be made for our Association.

After a careful consideration of various proposals put forward, they have come to the conclusion that the most satisfactory is that the Canadian Bar Association members who make the trip should sail on the C. P. R. steamship “Montlaurier" on July 8th. The schedule suggested is as follows:

Leave Montreal, 10.00 a.m. July 7th-(Special Train).
Arrive Quebec, 2.00 p.m. July 7th.

Passengers go to Chateau Frontenac.
Baggage to be sent direct to the ship.
Passengers spend night on ship and have breakfast on

board July 8th. Leave Quebec, 11.00 p.m., July 8th. Arrive Southampton, about noon, July 16th. Arrive London, afternoon or evening, July 16th.

This schedule will enable the Association to hold a meeting at the Chateau Frontenac, Quebec, on July 7th and 8th, and transact necessary business, and will also bring the members of the Canadian Bar Association to England a day or two in advance of the American Bar Association party.

The rate offered the Canadian Bar Association party is $135.00 from Montreal to Southampton. This, it will be noted, is exactly one-half the rate secured by the American Bar Association for the voyage from New York to Southampton.

The “ Montlaurier" is recommended as being an exceptionally comfortable ship, and it was felt that, as it is desirable to keep the expense of the trip to the minimum, it might be more generally acceptable than one of the larger and faster liners.

Inquiries are under way as to the reserving of hotel accommodation in England.

In order that proper arrangements may be made, it is essential that the officers of the Association should be able to make an estimate, at an early date, of the probable attendance. Each member who contemplates making the trip is urged, therefore, to communicate with the Vice-President for his Province or with the Secretary-Treasurer of the Association intimating his intentions, and also stating if he will be accompanied by any members of his family.

The President of the Association expresses the hope that the Canadian Bar Association will be strongly and well represented. This is the most ambitious project which has been undertaken by the Association and its professional and national importance cannot be over-estimated. We are convinced that no member of the Canadian Bar, who can arrange to make the trip, will fail to be attracted by the exceptional opportunity which he will have of participating in a historic gathering and of meeting the leaders of the profession not only from Great Britain, the United States of America and Canada, but also, it is hoped, from other parts of the British Empire.

« PreviousContinue »