lawyer should ponder well before he

answers.

During the collegiate year 1885-6, prizes were offered by T. & J. W. Johnson & Co. to the graduating classes in most of the Law Schools of the country for the best essay on some legal topic and the awards were made under the direction of the Faculty of each school.

The prize essays from each school were then sent to a committee to select the best of these that honor was divided between the Chicago Union College of Law and the Law School of the University of Pennsylvania.

year

Last Columbia entered this competition, but no report from the final committee has as yet been published. Messrs. Johnson & Co having renewed their offer and having asked us to publish the conditions under which the competition is held, we gladly do so.

The prize consists of a set of Smith's Leading Cases, complete, in four volumes. The prize of course is a valuable one but still beyond the prize there is a chance of being selected to sustain the honors of the Columbia Law School in the final competition with all the important law schools of the country; this alone should be incentive enough to make the contest a lively

one.

The rules are substantially the same as those established last year and are as follows:

1. It shall be known as the T. & J. W. Johnson Essay Prize. The exclusive right of publication shall belong to the firm of T. and J. W. Johnson & Company. 2. Competition is open to all members of the Senior Class in the Law School.

3. The following directions must be followed by the candidates in preparing

essays.

a. "The essays shall be written on white commercial letter paper with a margin an inch wide. Only two pages of each sheet shall be written upon. The essay shall not exceed ten sheets or twenty pages in length.

b. The positions taken in the essays shall, if debatable, be fortified by the citation of authorities. Where the point is reasonably well settled, a single decisive and leading authority will suffice.

c. Conciseness and clearness of expression, accuracy of statement and close reasoning should be carefully studied by the essayist.

d. Each essay must be signed with a fictitious name, and accompanied by a sealed envelope, upon the outside of which shall be written the fictitious name attached to the essay and within a slip of paper containing the real name of the author. The essays shall be delivered to the editors of the "LAW TIMES" on or before March 1st 1889.

4. The Judges shall be three in number to be appointed by the Warden of the Law School.

6. The subjects for this year shall be the following, any one of which may be selected :

a. The rule in Fordick vs. Schall. b. The rule in Holroyd vs. Marshall. c. The history of charitable uses under the law and decisions of New York.

d. The right of a factor to sell the goods of the principal on which he has advanced money.

e. Conveyances by lease and release and the doctrine by which they may be upheld.

f. The doctrine of part performance. g. The transfer of negotiable paper as collateral security.

h. International copyright.

As the successful essay will come in comparison with the best essays from almost all the Law Schools of the United States and will also be entered in the final

competition, we sincerely hope it will be one worthy of the reputation of the Columbia Law School.

NEW HAVEN, Nov. 2d, 1888. To the Editors of the Columbia Law Times: President Woolsey in an address delivered before the Alumni of the Yale Law School at the celebration of the school's semi-centennial in 1874, speaking of the comparative advantage of location in large and small towns for law schools, said: "There is no doubt that the present Law School of Columbia College is mainly indebted for its very great success to one learned and most laborious instructor, Professor Theodore W. Dwight, who, it ought to be mentioned for the credit of the school here, was for a year one of its members; but if this distinguished teacher were here, and some man of much less ability and note there, the numbers in the two schools would not, for that single reason, be reversed."

That a law school in a town of the size of New Haven is at a disadvantage, as regards the number of students that can be drawn to it, when compared to schools located in large cities, will be conceded by all. It is evident that the authorities in charge of the Yale School have not expected in the past, and can not hope in the future, to rival in point of numbers other institutions more favorably located. Every effort, therefore, has and is being made to perfect the body of instructors, and to make the course of study as complete and thorough as it is possible in

order to make up in quality of work for lack of numbers. The limited number of students has been a material advantage in this respect, in that the books in the library are exceedingly easy of access, and association with the instructors for private discussion of their subjects is not only possible, but encouraged.

The present institution had its start in a law school established by Seth P. Staples, a graduate of Yale College of 1797, who had gained for himself a high reputation as a practising lawyer throughout New England. In 1824 Mr. Staples removed to New York, leaving the school in the hands of Judges Hitchcock and Daggett, the latter's term in the U. S. Senate having but recently ended. Soon after Judge Daggett became an Associate Judge of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, of which he was chief judge in 1833-1834. His attention in consequence was largely drawn from his work as instructor. On the other hand, Judge Hitchcock was devoted to his professional life, and was very active in carrying on the work of the school.

In this year, 1824, Yale College, by publishing in its catalogue the list of the law students, in some degree recognized the school as part of itself. It was not, however, until 1843, that the degree of Bachelor in Law was conferred, and 1846 first saw the law department constituted a

branch of Yale College by formal act of the corporation. In 1847 Hon. Clarke Bissell, then Governor of Connecticut, and who had been Judge of the Supreme Court of Errors from 1829-1839, together with Henry Dutton, afterwards also Governor and Judge of the Supreme Court of Errors, were given control. Governor Dutton continued at the head of the school until his death in 1869, but his time was so occupied with private and professional business that he could not devote sufficient attention to the school, and it ran down until the catalogue contained but sixteen or seventeen names.

Just at this critical point in the life of the school new blood was given to it by the securing of the services as instructors of Messrs. Simeon Baldwin, Wm. C. Robinson and Johnson T. Platt. In 1871 Hon. Francis Wayland, who had been Lieutenant-Governor of the State, was associated with these gentlemen, and since 1876 has filled the office of Dean. With the entering of these gentlemen into their professional positions a new, and what has proved a prosperous, era began, and advance being made each year until at present the classes number about fifty, making a total fully as large as the faculty care to have under instruction at one time. Among the lecturers at various times have been Prof. Hadley, who, until his death, delivered annually his course of lectures on Roman Law. Dr. Leonard Bacon on Ecclesiastical Law, Dr. Francis Bacon on Medical Jurisprudence, Judge Chas. J. McGurdy on Insurance, Hon. Origen S. Seymour on Judicial Procedure and Practice, Hon. Lafayette S Foster on Parliamentary Law and the Science of Legislation, and Fred. H. Betts on Patent Law. Also Hon. Morris B. Seymour, M.

Dwight Collier and Hon. William E. Simonds.

In 1876 Theodore S. Woolsey became instructor of International Law, and in 1881 an addition was made to the faculty by securing Prof. William K. Townsend. In the same year Hon. E. J. Phelps became instructor in Evidence, which professorship was held by him until his appointment as minister to England by President Cleveland. The recent additions to the faculty are Judge Stoddard, instructor in Evidence, and Messrs. Thos. Thacher, Jas. M. Townsend and Roger Foster, all of New York, lecturers on Corporate Trusts, Transfer of Monetary Securities and Federal Jurisprudence, respectively.

As regards methods of instruction the system followed differs much from both those pursued at Harvard and Columbia; from the former in that the exercises are for the chief part recitations from textbooks, previously prepared, and from the latter in the much greater frequency of recitations and the larger number of subjects under study at once

The best possible provision is made in the way of accommodations for quiz clubs and moot courts. A committee of graduate students has recently been appointed whose duty it is to organize those members of the junior class who do not of their own accord form themselves into quiz clubs, and to start them in their quizzes and cases.

In addition to their work in law, many of the students take advantage of the opportunities offered in history and political science courses, under such men as Professors Sumner and Hadley. As to the value of this instruction nothing need be said.

W. W. C.

An examination of the catalogue published last month shows the following facts: There are in attendance at the Law School 238 seniors, 230 juniors, 468 total. Of these 209 are college graduates, distributed as follows: Columbia, 47; Yale, 30; Harvard, 23; College City of New York, 22; Williams, 12; Princeton, 10; Amherst, 9; Manhattan, 6; St. Francis. Xavier, 5; U. S. Academies, 5; St. Johns, 4 Knox, University of New York, Wesleyan, 3 each; Brown, Hamilton, Seton Hall, Trinity, Union, Universities of Vermont and Wisconsin, 2 each; Bates, Beloit, Burlington, Cambridge, Centre College, Dartmouth, Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, Kansas State, Michigan Agricultural, Middlebury, North Western, Nebraska State, Oberlin, Oxford, Pennsylvania State, Polytechnic, Queen's University, South Western Presbyterian, Syracuse, California, Michigan, Minnesota, Kansas, Washington and Jefferson, I each.

"WHEELING, W. Va., Oct. 16.-Johnson N. Camden, Jr., son of ex-United States Senator Camden, was married this afternoon at Versailles. Ky., to Miss Susie Preston Hart, the famous beauty and heiress of that State, who enjoys the distinction of being the most beautiful woman in the South. She has a large number of friends in the Eastern cities, particularly Washington and New York, both of which places she has frequently visited.

The wedding was a most brilliant affair. many distinguished men attending. The couple will have $150,000 each to begin housekeeping on. Both are the children of millionaires."

We publish the above by request, with the additional information that Mr. Vaughn, of the Columbia Law School, '89, acted as best man on the auspicious occasion.

The following changes in the faculty of the School of Political Science took effect at the beginning of this year: E. R. A. Seligman was advanced from the position of lecturer to that of Adjunct Professor of Political Economy, and F. W. Whitridge from Prize Lecturer to permanent Lecturer on the Political History of the State of New York. There is a gratifying increase in the number of students in the school.

doctrine of "ancient lights." That doctrine is defended on the theory of prescription, but has been discarded in this country.

Then, secondly, as to express grant, there is no evidence here to show that the defendant made any express grant giving him this power to have access of light and air.

Thirdly, as to implied grant. An implied grant has been deemed by American cases to exist in cases like the following: as if, for example, I should own two plots of ground adjacent to each other and have a house upon one of them which, while my ownership continued, enjoyed light and air. Now suppose I should sell the lot with the house upon it, still reserving to myself the other adjacent lot. Having owned both, and having sold one, with things in such a condition, that that particular house enjoyed air and light over my adjacent property, I as vendor, will be deemed to grant to my vendee those rights, provided they are necessary to the vendee for the use and enjoyment of his property. That is implied grant, which, however, is not recognized in all States. (See Wood on Nuisances, §§ 153-161.

There is no foundation in the evidence before us of any implied grant existing here. We find, therefore, that there is no right by express grant, no right by implied grant, nor any right under the doctrine of ancient lights. So these three may be deemed to have no existence here. We come then to consider whether or not upon any other theory the plaintiff will have any right of action.

It may be deemed that the defendant has been engaged in a purely wanton and malicious act.

Nevertheless, the act of the neighboring land owner has simply been done upon his own property and done upon what he deems to be a proper and legitimate exercise of his own rights.

We find from the authorities that there is here a conflict of opinion. Thus in the case of Mahan vs. Brown, 13 Wend., 261, the court upheld the view that the owner of property might put up a structure of this kind, even if his motives were entirely malicious. The main ground of the opinion was that the builder of the fence had the legal right to do so because he built entirely on his own land

That case has been followed by other cases in this country down to a very late period. There was very recently, however, a case decided in Michigan upon this point in which the court supported the right under these circumstances, to recover damages and of obtaining an injunction

to have the structure removed. Burke vs. Smith, 25 Reporter, 595.

If he

In the opinion, however, we find that they do not, in any sense, deny the right of an adjacent land owner to put up any structure or building or anything else of a similar nature, provided he does it for reasonable purposes of his own. should build, for example, a barn and carriage house, or conservatory, or another house, or anything of that sort, because he desired to so use the property beneficially there would be no action.

Under the law in New York and other States, however, a man has a right to use his property for any constructions whatever.

And although there is much reason to feel sympathy from grounds not purely legal, for a person injured by such an obstruction, yet here we have to consider pure questions of law and we find really no foundation of legal right on the part of the plaintiff. Whatever we may consider the defendant's action to be on moral grounds, it seems that on the whole we should consider that the New York doctrine was better founded on legal principles and might properly be continued. Therefore, that is the view we prefer, and under these circumstances and under this reasoning the appeal of the defendant is sustained.

BAXTER

vs.

BAXTER.

CASE NO. 2.

The facts are sufficiently set forth in the syllabus. The defendant demurred to the complaint. We have, therefore, to consider whether or not such facts as those presented would, under the circumstances, amount to a cause of action.

In a recent case in Ohio, upon a state of facts similar to these it was decided that the cause of action under the circumstances would be supported. The judge who wrote the opinion based his decision principally upon the doctrine that the father's moral duty to support his children is also a legal duty. He reasoned that if that duty was a legal duty while the marriage subsists, it must continue to be a legal duty after a divorce, for although the wife may cease by the divorce to be any longer his wife, nevertheless the children would not cease to be his children; and besides, as the husband was in fault, there was no reason to relieve him of his common law implied obliga. tion to maintain the children.

In reaching this decision the judge relied greatly upon the case of Stanton vs. Wilson, 3 Day