Search

This article discusses various issues related to law and theories of overdue negotiable paper. There are three theories of overdue negotiable paper, no one of which has been consistently adopted by the common law. It is consequently difficult, if not impossible, to get either a correct perspective from which to view the cases or an absolute standard by which to measure their correctness. It appears to the article author to be impossible to follow the ordinary method and test the correctness of a case relating to overdue negotiable paper by the application. of the logical deduction and modification of the principles which, underlie the law of negotiable paper before maturity, because to do so would be to condemn almost every case to the limbo of legal error.

The article presents abstracts of various papers related to the civil and common law. One of the paper discussed is "Death by Wrongful Act in the Civil Law," issued by the Common Law Technique and Civil Law Authorities. In Panama R. R. Co. v. Rock, the U.S. Supreme Court, reversing the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, holds that a husband cannot maintain an action for wrongfully causing the death of his wife in the Canal Zone. This proposition, sufficiently startling of itself in the year 1924, becomes more surprising when one turns to the opinion of the majority of the court and perceive its presuppositions. Another paper discussed is "Promise to Discharge Promisee's Debt to a Third Party: Effect of a Suretyship Relation Between Promisor and Promisee Upon Promisee's Rights."

The article presents information about papers related to the U.S. law published in various journals. The provisions of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Federal Constitution guaranteeing common law procedure, including the right of indictment and trial by jury do not extend to the inhabitants of our insular possessions. It would seem that this applies equally to all the territories of the United States. It is suggested, there can be no distinction between the organized and the unorganized territories. The privileges guaranteed by the Bill of Rights in fact extend to the former only by virtue of an Act of Congress or a treaty provision.

The failure of common law to develop the principle of family responsibility and its subsequent statutory emergence in sixteenth century England provides the focus for examining the assumption that tensions between the family system and other institutions are unique to industrialized society. Analysis of historical data suggests needed qualification of this assumption and demonstrates the relationship of political and economic forces to the development of soda! welfare policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Of all infringements of privacy, public disclosure of facts about the private life of an individual was certainly one of the earliest to arouse concern. This concern arose primarily through the development of the popular press. The essential role of the press is to inform, and at times this had led editors to publish facts which relate to the private life of the individual. It was this contradiction between the need for information on the one hand and the necessity of protecting privacy on the other that gave rise to most of the difficulties in formulating laws for the protection of privacy, as well as laws dealing with defamation, calumny and insult. In some countries, there are special laws governing the press, in others the press is subject only to the general law. There is a striking difference between the protection offered by the law in the civil and the common-law countries. In the civil-law countries, the penal codes protect the right of honor, usually by the three distinct offences of defamation, insult and calumny, and in some cases the legislation relating to these offences makes specific reference to the question of personal privacy. Civil remedies in these countries are usually available only in cases where one or other of these offences has been committed. In the common-law system, on the other hand, the criminal law is hardly concerned with protecting the honor or reputation of individuals.

The article focuses on civil law background of the Japanese legal system and legal learning trends in Japan. Throughout the process of its modernization, Japanese law had developed, at least until the end of the Second World War, predominantly along civil law lines. Almost all branches of modern legal learning were characterized by a strong leaning toward the civil law tradition. Ever since the last decade of the nineteenth century, a great majority of leading scholars in law spent at least a few years for study in Germany, Austria, or France. The Second World War, its termination in Japan's defeat in 1945 and the subsequent military occupation of the country by the Allied Forces brought about many important changes in Japan's legal institutions as well as in legal learning. In view of these innovations, it is no longer strictly correct to characterize Japan as a typical civil law country, which it definitely was before 1945. In spite of all this by and large, even at present, Japan still remains a civil law country in regard to the basic points which distinguish the civil law from the common law tradition, that is the lawyer's and especially the judge's, attitude towards the sources of law, legal education and above all, legal thinking.

The article attempts to formulate a theory of institutional economics based on the evidence derived from the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. It is a venture in pure economics, distinguished from its practical applications. The practical applications are endeavored in drafting legislative bills, or administering state laws by the U.S. Congress, state legislatures, with the idea of bringing them within the Court's institutional meaning of reasonable value. Economists went off on theories of happiness, but courts and lawyers continued on the theory of the common law of Great Britain and the U.S. A primary difference between the two is that the common law is built on conflicts of interest between plaintiffs and defendants, but with the sovereign, in the person of a judge, deciding, in each case as it arises, what is reasonable between the two, both in their conflicting private interests and in the public interest for which the sovereign is responsible. Net income economics has incorporated certain institutional factors, like patents, trade names, trade marks, goodwill, under such names as "imperfect competition," "monopolistic competition," "competitive monopoly."

The common law recognizes two sorts of rental contracts: leases of realty and bailments of personality. The charges are rents in the inclusive sense of the term. Doubtless these rents are interest in the wider sense of that term, since they are returns from wealth, incomes from capital. In the narrower and technical sense, however, interest is a term inappropriate to lease and bailment contracts. They provide for the return of the specific property covered by the contract. Rarely or never, on the contrary, is it part of the purpose of the interest contract that a specific return be made, and never does the interest contract so stipulate. It has to do solely with money loans, each loan the principal sum to be liquidated through a money payment, with a time charge in addition, which also is stipulated to be in the form of money as a per cent of the principal sum. Rental and interest contracts are similar in extremely significant aspects. Both have to do with time charges. The lessor equally with the lender is paid because of a term of alienation, of abstinence. The rent is an income attaching through lapse of time. To lease is for the owner to put off his right of entry and of use, to subtract, say a year, from his right of direct exploitation.

Reports on statutory encouragement of merchant efforts to apprehend shoplifters in department stores in the U.S. Tort liability of merchants under the common law; Details of the legislation passed to reduce the risk; Study to determine the effect of the law on merchant behavior; Balance of rights of shoppers and merchants provided by the Indiana statute; Role of detection devices in establishing guilt.