University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The Code and the common law

(USC Thesis Other)

The Code and the common law

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content LA • • TIJE Theai■ Presented to the D pnrt ent or La University of outhern Cal1£orn1a In partial fulfillnent of the equ1rementa for the Degree of J IS By Arthur Po er Lord a1 15th, 1925 176 C Introduction · • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • T11e l~ornian Influence 1n tte · story or our La Education indispensable to tle leoder •••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Page 3 4 ·Establishment OJ.. Gove A.ent hel ed · · y '.uperst1t1on • • • 4 .. 5 The Trial by Jury ns· Genesis of le d ... ng • • • • • • • • 6 The influence of Dracton nd lanv lle. • • • • • • • • 7 The years 1507 to 15~.. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 8-9 The Claaaes 1n En~lond ••••••••• The power ond eauoot1on of the La era. • • • • • •• • 10-11 • • • • • • • • 11 Tl1e Judges es educe.to s of t .. e class . • • • • • Tr.a r1-•st ·r1tten Pleading • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 12-13 ••• 17-18 Its influence to abrogate the St~tutes on .o1nta1nance. 19 The Statutes of Jeofails ond .□end ents • Conaervatiso as a retardant. Blackstone end Bentham ••• • • • • • • •••••••• 20-22 • • ••••• • 24 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 25-2C The llilary Rules and the e Yo 1~ Code • • • • • • • • • Sunderland's definition oft e o d "Code" ••••••• Arrai~ument of the Corn on Le ~ ••••••••• The differences between La · .. Equity . -1nta1ned. • • • • • • • • The Cornoon Counts; Trover nd Assut. sit. The Code and the Common I.av ••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 26-27 27 28 29-30 ~le greet d1rreronce resultin~ fro tll Codes. • • • • • 42--50 ~~!- ~!_!!g 1 s Pesce, 189~, London, Selected Esaa~ 1n An . 310~.nerican an, onnensc e1n ~ Co. -- -Llttrejj owil ci; -- Co. _.....X, 1907 La uerterly eview, Vol 4 I, Te loonent of y-,ritten and al lead in·, 1nm Seerie IBlasworth . ~earle H olds o. t M1Q~1ga~-~~ -_ev1e, Voluno 19 Selected Cesew on Evidence, 2nd ·dition John • 1~::cre ~ . _..._,.. _ ____ ...,_ _ _ . ....____ -~ Cases on P.oceedure, 1913, Callo ban Edsori· ~ unde lond 1~fo~. !..- - ~qu~ty_Pl~ in s, J. ler 1 s • ~1t1on Lectures on Le al Il1sto - ·· jes. or Arios ond isc~llenoous _ssays, Code or Civil P.oceedu e __ tte ~tate nia~ - · - 1923, Ed tod • eeYl1 ft- il 1tney Co . ncisco The r1ul~ ~-g!J1nst 8Jl)8tuit1!!!_, Jolin C 1pcan Gray The I-1stoz-; of t e evelo • e - . ·- Pollock §.' ·--.- 1 tlond lisl1 La Bayard v. ."elcolrn l Johna ~ ·B1c mell v. ,et rill 41 ..._.__.co • ep. 037 zteyea v. Little Yor 1n1 o. 53 c l 724 Iilll . en v. ev1ngton 57 C 1 _ 66 People v. Gold un itc . :1n1 Co . l . 138 '1ller v • ~lllond 1 tc Co . cFaul v. c sey 20 Ho ,·. 523 7 Cl. 4 0 Hill v. ccart y · •• ode . ep. 49 ,no lee v. Geo 8 r ou. 00 m1tb v. it ~ o o. • 54 ,.;lnor v • ld 1d e 1 3 C • l 7 Pike v. n d1a 171 , · • 27 l:enke v. re' ~-o . t ~ of1eld v. Orconhood 29 c Cuthill v. e ody 19 C 1. Jonsen v. Dol n 157 ,1ssou 1 # tio 7 04 100 C 1. 429 2 ~ 1lson v. ~urner l 11. 40~ ~llon v. togner 7 I • 19 'endling Lum e~ o. v. n1 n oo C l. 11 . eed ~ Co • V. l 1 s 1 1 11 l' l • ~ Babcock v. a uell 21 .lOnt 507 State v ... kanaos 1c , uf. Co. Ada .. s v. cl. rtz 1:7 .... p • iv.2 O ~ento v. 1ller 1 1 • 41 ,. nsas 125 eottle ?"nt. n1~ • a te 13 e • 2 l :· ~ond v. Peo nle 1 • • ~44 Drberv. lll' .'085 lea'. v9 rewet t v. ~ro n 21 :..inn. l Ur1d1as v. · .• o --a ell 2 • 1 ::11nt· v. 01~ en 1 l. ovon v. · ~:er o '7. • _ a. o 4 Coryell ". • 1n 1 ~ · ._,l . 571 ,cCou hey v. c uette 117 1las v. ~ cDe_ -ott l. Thorios v • Des uond 1 • ~ 1ter v. Je ett 33 c • 92 .~couillat v. ·7 ene "2 Col. Getee v. ol ·on 4 ~ 1. ilson v. le ve nd ZO ~en Joaquin Co. v·. ud redericla v. ~~ocy n 4150 • 192 47 City of _ Loe n~elea i •. 1 _ et r:o 1. 2 Eppinger v. ~ end 10· ll- • O •· !urriss v. Peo le I a 1tc • 104 C l. Peters v. ~-oPl er~on ... ('.) • 4 .•1nney v. :arylo C asu lt y • o. 1 Scott v. upe· io ,ur..aet i o. 14 .;eDonald v •• ulet 132 · • l Oetos v. P ,ul 117 f• ieoone n 170 Fischer v. ao · 7' · i1s. ,:~1- Post v. C nnbell 10 ~ -,is. 37 .. • 571 C l. 140 Loa ol1noa Land Co. v. ,.iC Zettle v. G1lln 1ster 222 Empire Inv. Co. v. Jort l 9 175 al. 05, l c. 645 l. '138 · Imperial ',ater Co. v. . e 217 ec 5 8 c.926 THE CODE t THE The Science ot Plead1n as it 1a call tho e ho have wr1tt.en on the aubjeot, is or than Science, it 1a an Art; ant1 1t 1a much to b re r tted that it 1 confined w1th1n 11m1ta ao nhat too narro 1n co .par1son 1th the intrinsic value or the oience to the orld, did the 'orld know how to Ulle it. It, 1a to b deplored that the Art ot Stating the Eeaence of T 1ng should be o1ro cr1bed by the co .ntlne■ known aa the IB•, and does not reach over in to and perYade other aoienc a ea it ou ht. · hear con tinually that Journalism is a science; t t Banking 1a a soieno•s that Bua1ne • ia a aoience; and I cannot r train from expre■a1ng hat a r lief it ould be to me pereonall, end to the other educated bera or our society as ell, it the eooalled lead ra or Sci nt1f1c Buaineaa ould bor- row trom the Common La that ay-atem of 11 p1d1ty ich Cbenoellor Kent jud ed to be so necessary to the state ment or Truth that the hand of Innovation ahould not be 1 permitted unadvisedly to touch the sacred fabric. At the riak or adding one rnor uaeleaa anusor1pt to those already piled 1n the attic of the edifice called "Things Legal", I have decided to 1mpoa upon your II nae ot humor, and expreaa my vie a upon the ditt ranee, U any, hich ex1at between what is called Co on La Pleading, and l.Ba19rd v. elcolm 1 Johns ( .Y.) 453 (l) tbat which, a1nce th promul at1on or th Code or e York in 1848, baa been nown aa Cod leadin, the one being the reault of years of education and of aoo u~ lation and the second en ett .pt to ip out the bits ot centuries by a wav or th ma 1c nd in th hands of l the Legislator. The aotual creation oft e Le or En land b an 1th t e 1111am th Bastard. ho e call 1111am th Conqu ror because at Hastin a 1n 1066 A.D. he gave battle to and defeated th Saxon ~1ng Harold, the laat of an ettet end decayin re 1 e, substituting tor the paternal ml or the superst1t1oua Saxon the virile and personal governm nt of the 1ront1ated orman. The reault or the ah1ft1ng or po er to one person usually 11 the eatabl1ahment of Order, b cause Virile Despotic Power is the uinteasence or Order, or in other words a Despot, especially e military despot suoh ea 1111am waa. beg1ne by auppreaeing Disorder. That this was true in England can not b doubted if we glance•~ the years bet een 106 and 1086. The Conqueror firat es·tabliahed Courts, not so much fro a deep a nse of the need of Justic, bat b cause he sought o meana or pl'Ov1d1ng the herew1thall to ov rn and to live at the same time. He then b en to 1nv st1 at bat hia rights 1. ADdrewa Stephens Pleading 2nd. Edition p.31. (2) ere, end t c_ 0 t 1 arnon t o t 0 la to ldc 0 0 o. - oeetora. In 1086 ~ 1111a estebl1abed the eud 1 System in England• and if e understand what that eena, e nat admit that in the t enty years mentioned, the Conqueror showa he na a maatercratta Jan, and that when he landed on the English strand acoompan1ed by hie knight.a and men at arma. he brought 1th him three th1nga; h1a own exeo11~ t1ve a- bllity and habit of coftlll'l'lftnd; de system or Uw; and lat but not by any eans least, a lieutenant cap- able or applying 1t in the peraon o:f nf no, h> aeema to have been the one educated man of those uncouth and semi barbaric t!dnee • It 1a t,rue that 'U11am 1naugaratea a military tsi•nny; that the whole fabric ex1aW et r1ret only 1n b1m~ bat .from the standpoint of Government, it aa exactly the 1n- atr.umeut needed to mould a refractory population after the l Norman model. The sratem waa abolished 1n 1660 by the St.atute or 12 Char- lea II. Cap.24, at a tim e hen having survived ita usetul neaa there waa nothing to do av a bro te it, bot, e must however give 1t the er it it d serv as the fN e upon which men like Henry the First, nry II • , and Ed ·rd I • , 1. Inderw1ck,.Freder1c ndre ... The Co= ~n La Courts • ea• tabliahed ander Ed ard I.fo1Jnd 1n t,b Kings Peace 1895~ London Swan nnenecbein Co. pp.68.-72. 77-85. (3) wove the woot o ou gal Destiny. Bad ther been no one man power 1n England, t r ould have been no Law or De o1aa1ona tor ua to read, no Ple dings to d1eousa, b oauae 1n all likelihood t ere would hev b en fl0 Judges to 1na1at upon the ayat tic stat ent or the cauaea which finally developed into the Science itselt. Education 1a the tna1a pensable adjunct ot the Pleader and in truth 1a t every roandat1on ot the Art; ho fart e cry 1a from IBntranc, ; 1111am' s Chie:f Juat1c1ar • to the a sea or .. en 110 surround. ad him 1a evi~ent from a curaory gl nee at the society ot wbich he waa e member though not exactly- a pert. The date is 1066 A.D. and only six decades have paaaed since what 19 supposed to ve been tiie 0 dar est hour" or the race. It seema 1nd1:aputable that there as no learning. en lived by the aword. On the Continent the Barona ere hi h1ray- rob ber• defying all yel F.d1cts, who fo ht all day and at night ?'eturnea t,o their la1ra to drink tnt:u:elvea into a stupor and to roll under the table there to lie until mo!'n- ing amid the dogs quarreled over the scraps from t.he banquet. There waa no roo for letters in sue a soo1 ty and thoae ho proteaaed to have any learning ere flouted by their tieroe and ignorant cont rer1es; and to the adject1vea "fierce and ignor nt" I ight add nsu rat1t1ol18 t 1 nd that the men ot those timea ere so, 1 hat see11m to me to have savecf the germ or aovernment which 1111am planted, for, 1t 1■ unao, uMedly true that, 1f' the Chi r Juat1c1ar d (4) been anytb.ing but r1eat. t peraono11ty oft C onqu r49 or-, thoagh multiplied e tboU11and Cold ould not hav been I po ert'ul enough to save his yet fhe man 1n hoee hand t .. e s o d as t e t bitu l n or argument. boved befor the s oerdot l b and al1o ed t e oyal ?ower br ething apace hich it used to peop t king- dom with replicas or t i e Chief Just1o1ar imaelr. T 1 1 8 Juetlce waa a reed over th lend fr mend to end, rep aented e1thel9 as the itinere t Co 1as1oner or tl1. rl or the Sher• 1tf* but, thia suffered an eol1pee hen :1111am died end the :.11d Rufus ascended t e throne to roam the ood , and to ve all ho interfered 1th his s port, to wallow in the tro room tore better man. unt1l t e arro or rov1d nee mad ·1th the advent or enry I. e1v111zat1on ae a to be on t mend; the tumult of the reigns ot Step en end ·aua a re placed by an el'& ot strong government and of comparative peace, and the King provee to be one or the moat interest 1ng figures 1tb1oh comes do to ua out of the mtat or thoae far off t1mea. Sir Frederic ollock. and ederlck i1111am 1tleDd, the outhora of a g~e t or on t e Development or the ngl1eh Law,, state ~hat the it of :.ovel Die e1s1n 1a, 1n t 1 1r est1matlon, an ev :nt, tar reaching eat e Conqu st 1n the influence it bad upon the subsequent la. 1ng of the aub t ntlve la, but fl-om the standpoint ti-om (5) which I em attempt! u, write, na ely, t development of the methods ot prooeedure, onothe chapter or the as e Statute eeema to e to v1 it· it 1n 1mportanc. If the writ or Novel D1sae1s1n 1ded to do away 1th a truittul source ot 11trlte and thua ea the sponsor to ~h germ1na• tioD or the ruiea of civil oonduct hioh call La, it 111 certain that the Statute l 1ch established the trial by Jury, called into being a olaas of en ho ere to be trained to probe the problems of life, hich ere no des tined to be handled b ar ument, 1nateed or being cut by the keen edge of a c 1on 1 a bl de 1n t Trial by Battle. The writ of ove1 Diaae1s1n 1a supposed to be dated aa or aboat 1166 A.D. and is the ork of the f1?'8t Ienry. Statute 1n h1oh 1t 1s incorporated 1a DO as the seize of Clarendon. but lt took tl1e aeelJ planted jtlflt one l111n · dried yeara to germinate. In order to C1Ske 1t, bear fruit another Legal Pronllilciamento ns neceaaary. The oblea had to be aat1af1ed that 1t waa as ll oo :resort to La aa to weapons in the settlement of d1ft1oult questions. In. the reign of Henry 111., about 1250 t ere aa framed what 1a called the r1t of Trespass. It gave the party aggrieved the right or choice bet een the risk or a 1ng bat-tie. and the acoe .. ting or a d~ge 1n oney for an in-. jury to either h1a property or h11 pel'8on. It 1a easily seen that th1a put the finishing touch to a a1tuat1on wh1oh bad already been a 1ttea by all t ring peopl; (6) the Ordeal by Batt;le ea inconvenient and aangei-oua and, a1nce on hono~able aubet1tute to 1t bad been round. it muat disappear. i\.utomatlcally there arose demand fol" men trained 1n the ~ethoda or Proceedure. The reign or Hetl?7 III. 1s me?'ked by t Great CbarU,r; b~ the d1v1a1on oft e Courta into t quer, the in a Bench, and the Co on Pleas. and the rise to pI'Olllinence of a clan of men called ~enta and Apprent1oea !tho e t tirat profe e1onal LawyeNJ. But I 1ght remark 1n paaa1ng, that though the professional Lo rer mad hia appearanc , his tra1n1n hod still t,o b ha ered out and hat tbat. train,.. 1ng was e may at er t~om the pages or a certain ssge of' the law named B:racton, ho lived about th1a t"""'""", and by means ot hose rk e oen in a faint· oonce tion or tlx>ae daya. Bracton 1 a ork 1 the f1~at rel treatise on the L1l of England. It tollo modern plan; the case ayat • e o.?'e indebted to him fol' the first recorda of cases plead-. ed and for the record1ng of the rulee tor ringing the part ies t,o an 1as~e, but cannot aay that th aya ...,._,.. • in vented 1n the ttme of ~cton, for the work of OlanvUl~• the Chief Juat1o1ar of .. enJ y I contain 1nd1cat1ona t t 1n his time, 118€ . D. the beg1nnillga or Pleading had al ..... "' ... "'- 1 " been ield. Thia uat e so 1f _ e admit. a I think e ust, t l4t 1166 ie the enesi of l d1ng in Eng nd nd the - aon, the advent of the Trial by- Jury. or to be st111 moNt exact, (7) l the exit or t e Trial by Battle. In the Collected Papen, of rederlo 11118 • itland ho but no a Downing I'O.f aso. oft ea o.f En lend at Cambridge 2 Un1vera1ty, e find cla•a1t1oat1on o t e aalie t periods in the dev lopment or t e La cul1.ar. 1c a al a app a pe- His claaa1t1oat1on 1 followa: Frorn Ethelbert about 600 ~•D • to Canut,e'a Code: tro t ot nry I. ~..... t e e1 n of Henry I1. to t e end of t reign or IIenry III. Fro 11d t F1I'at to rd I• or from 1272 to 130'1: 1307 until 1503; F.d rd II to Ienry VIII or Coke to 1 o ., ton , nd from la .. atone to th great q ~o Billo 1830. The pecul1er1ty oft 1a d1~1 ion into period lioh struck my untutored mind fr t .. e fir t is• that hile • ·aitland eegregatea t first p rioda 1 to ~ups extending ov a little moi-o than o liundred yea each. passes ov t fo- Ul"th period tl1 hat eemed to e to b a efe~nce ao small as to proola thot t e d1atingu1a b9d author deemed the yea:ra r?'Otl 1307 to 1503 scero:ely worthy of gr eter not1c • r·1a t~---.tm nt o t e l. "Legal Proceedu ,..'IIM!!I ... out of a gradual substitution or argument for v1olenoe o 1t b re t e ma of its origin at every ~u:rn". Je.-w-, ............ rd.. :first the E ltah J t1nian. 1 t ~ 1Jl lo- .. ertoan IA9RBl ritator,, 1907 1 1ttle wn Co. Boat.on Vol~~ I. part II. p.14 -l.50 2. 1ted by Ii • .• L. tacher at ~ · - 1d n 1911. (8) period would lead u to urmis that e conaldered lt a■ more 1n1m1oal than tavo?'flbl to development ot any sort and h1• idea seems to have ore or l aa ~oundation. Ill1terec7 1a at111 t e rule ,nd le rnin thee caption. · en uae a seal to uthent1oate their documents, le~ters, or bat not_ end 1t ls easy to infer froo th1a that t e meas of the people 1a still unt u ht; butt ere is anot r reason - bea1dea t 1a one h1oh tenda to expla n hy ~ • 1 n1tland paaaea ao rapidly over the epoo I a discussing, tdch 1s, that 1t waa a period m arked by er, by Pestilence, and by Famine. In 1326 Ed ard III fou lit the Battl or Creacy on French Soil; in 1340 the Blac Death broke out in England to be fiollowed by Famine in 1349. The struggle 1naugurat-ed by Edward ns called the Hundred Years ·ar and durin · 1ts sway the yoke of the nglo- ormsn bore heavily on tlie1r neighbor■ ond it as not until 1428, the pe 1od of Jeanne d 1 AI'C, tha~ the English armies suffered any serious re verses. After the ·e~a of Conquest carried on by Ed ard and Henry Fourth and Fifth, com e the period of domestic st.rite. Englishmen ear1n dit-rerent liveries atrove to place on an insecure and tottering throne persona ·ho were the mere puppets of the great. a 1ok made and unmade kinga only to leave hie on, head on th field of Te kabury. nd yet during thia period nothi g a at a atandat111; the proceaa by h1oh the Law or Prooeedure as to i-eaoh 1ta full development, and to •tep fullpanopl1ed. aa 1t (9) ere• bof o e tlle o ld s e n t ied out,, end tl1 a in slo s the d1ffe ent an lee t·ro ,1 llich e eec vie 0 au - _ .., jeot. ~!et t ~ is period 1s e llJ ro • tive n tl t eve yt n as under~o1nr,- cll8n es se .e to "'~ .. e to 0 t 0 OU bly es- ta 11sl ed by a ve y o1 n1 1cant fact. here ere no Co.~ - .entato s of w . entionad tl ou t e.o ore ne .es ~ong which one milt cosily e oel cte sue as ndo son. rian, · 1 r1sot, yttleton, Fen 1c and l•orteecue. Jo.., e eason for tlis is that since a Co enteto et o • W -e the la hie self es u eoton a1a. o elnboi ates it 1 l1cn fl. de as o e did, a period u en t e lo is u1ce_to1n usu 11 p oducea no critic, and that this .is t ue ·1 1, I o .. rehend not e difficult to estsbl1s if y ~le aid or hat utho~1t1es we hove at had, e are 1111ng tor 1se a corner o the curtain hicl obscu 'es o.u" view. ~eering into t.e aists of ges y ce no oft o doou .ents r,itr uhich the 1obors or the 1pe . olls nd elden oc1~ eties hove ondo ed us, 1 t do e see? ::c find tlwt by 1 1 gna C · rt.a o sect o .. clas~ in society of an absolutely ne type has oen rorrn.ed, cu 1ou.sly enou 0 ~ . out of old material; t ~ is is ie Ap rentioe and yer type noted 1n connection it.,11 the r1t of Trespass. .11s class was not chosen fro the mass or tre poople but f o□ a oer to1n pr1v1le ed Jort1on of bot as ne1ther loble nor e f. There were three distinct d1v1 ions in the En 11sh society (10) o those daya, just as there re no. T~er re t Hoblea or Knights, th F~rmon 10 becam the aqu1 alld ho m1g t b y or fe1tllfUlness nd of eztraor- d1nery ervice beo e vn1 hts t ____ elv- a, and belo t Freeman but or r do 1n t ie social scale t t t never was a elm ce for toe anclpete 1ms lt, 8 the rt or Bond n ho nt it tlle 1 nd 1 t _e s a. e way ea a bora • 0011 o pig. uch ae 1n aodern ~.~ .... -land those ho did not 1:ah to bear re destined to the ChurchJ t .1 became Clerka·, and it na among tbia clas-s that at first those ab1e to were t-ound, arxl mong ho - , 1D t h long run, t Chene 1- lor a leoted the 1na- trumenta ot his ad in1strat1on, and it 18 perfectly reasonable to suppose that the la era llho argued betot'e the c ncellor e per ona ohoaen from thla cla••• The Prothonotary, pe?'lfon oo coul be .found o taide ot the court end who uauall V:t'Ote fo persona Who oould not, was another part, of thi group hie at the eg1nn1ng or the r-eign ot Ed rd I. s to .ove concent ted 1n 1ta handa all the La Bu 1 ea . tlere a to do tn ng1and. Havir.g all the le ming, t, 1 e La yore r prottd or 1t • - o.nd hat, cam to be co 1dered as t nona n ical atyle or the Pleadinga at Common , 1 to ind. only hat a1 ht be logically oxpeoted from the poa1t1on oft Plead ers themaelvea. Th vei-b1a or t e Co on La Plea 1 der 1a (11) intentionally involved and t e fin tlo era of iet.oric which we today dare to stigmetiae as uaeleaa otfus1ona. at the end o~ the aixteent century conat1tuted the v ry b1rth1!'1ght of those ho ployed them since theJ ere t onlJ onea ho oould. Chudleigh' s Case 1n 1595 1■ cited by r. Gray in his or on the Rule A oinst Pe etu1t1ea aa a land mark, for, according to him. 1t is the cause 1n which all the subtl t1ea oft e rt or Pl ading at Co , n . LD\7 ere us-ed to their fullo t e tent, but e ere perhaps leaping before e oo e to the stile, in rna ing such a di gression frorn o\1%', line or thought, and betore e loo at Chudlo· 1gh' a Case e m1ght per p examine the long and painful yeara of evalut1on hich led up to 1t. If then. e look into the 9.,. .. ~~ documents over ich raaton pored, ve will not1co tl1&t the Co~a are not tribt1nala in the sense 1n 1ch e 1nt,erp et t at o?'d,. bat rat er a . sort of school here the Apprentice,. end peroopa t e Sa ent al so, ore being t.?'ained by tbe Judge. e ee the Court 1n the fil"at 1ear or Edvard II'a re1gn interrupting a pleader thu-a: .. n:You are alle 1ng tin• tending tot 1sauas. at1-ck to one." l and 1n the sa e y- ar th Court 'th\18 d ~nis e tl"'e l wye. r be.fore it: 1 Y.B. l Edward II. 15 (l.2) n It would be b tter U yon tood by one ( plea ) be- oauae each or t ___ pr sent■ a different 1aeue." 1 Rereri-tng to the Yer oo a a di tin uished scholar aa19: "the report■ therein contain ppear 1n ny c aea to be merely report• or desultory oonveraat1ona be tween Judge nd Counael hioh often terminates 1th. out reaching d1at1nct iaeuea either of tact or law. Even hen a d1at1nct 1a ue or teot or law 1a reach ed., they ofien tell us noth1ng of the final result." 2 or th1a the tollow1ng excerpt is a very good exa l :- "Alice b?'Ou ht her writ of entry aur d1ese1s1n againlft a Prior and counted on her own ae1a1n ea of fee and of r-1ght in time of peac, saying into 1oh the Prior bas no entry eave erter (post) the d1aae1s1n which one o. did to Alice Paase~ez. She as never seized or ree and or ri ht fii auob iae that she could be disae1aed. Stanton J. That la no good ans er to th1a writ. but !£ oul~ Se a ~ood ano er to say that o. did not d1a ee1ae her. Priakeney argued that Passeley 1 a ns er wee receivable becauae 1f the pla1nt.1t.f I a count claiming ea or tee and of right was accepted by them t ey mi ht be eatop ped 1n any subsequent pl'Oceed1 g trom denying that she held ea of fee and of r1 t. §_tant,on 1 J. hat 10u aay 1a wrong. · hat enrollment are we to have in thia ceae? I think it al oulcl be not, so ae1aed that ahe could be d1ase1aed ao your aYerment 1a not receivable. Paaaeley. Te em-ollment shall be not eo aeiaed 1D sach-marmer as sl1e demand■, so that she could be d1e ae1aed. To this all agree.• 3 But we are not told hat redress .lice obtained againat the Prior. How well the Judge• th aelvea · new t e ls ta shown \111 in l Y.B. l Edward II 8 2 lbldaworth, 1111a and Oral Pleading: Searle, The Dev lopment- ot r1tten La Q u rt,erly Rev1e Vol XXII pp.3 0-382. 3 Year Booka 2, 3 , Ed • II ( s • • ) 136 • 13'7 • (13) an lnt.ereettng 1de light tro the Year Beo or Ed ?'d the F1i-a~·:• "Ho la 1t' , •a Berw1c J. to the SherUt • "that you haYe ttao · tnet1te peopl w1 thout warrant: tor ..,, ry amt le c~ed b7 t1nt'J1ng pl~ , am ~ hay a~t.aehed altbough he did not tlll4 pledge. Sir"• arur ~ the She!'Ut. 0 1t wa.a b your own or dera8. Th1 aeem to have saved t 1heritt tor the eport r add■· 8 1t it, bad ix,t bean o be would baTe beea grievoW1ly a reed. DOd _-...:· .. ·-• • l All the tricks ot sharp prect1c uae4 by mat1a'8 a the "•h-1 ter lawyer 11 1,c,daf ware known ~ om ployed by- the medhev 1 pract1ct1oner. U the l • aa un .. 1n our tie. he ho would u e it mu-at be tbol'Otlghly tam111 r 1th ft. Betore the Statute of Acton Burnel. a suit brought by a 1nerchant 1111a aubjected to all the dela78 bich the ingenu. lty ot ahrell'd men QOnla dev1ee. It, s neoeaaary 1to aerv tl1e det'endant and 11 the excu ea incident to the slowneaa or ti-,,nt1port,ation and the dift1cult1ea ot travel ere QI'Sed to tl1e limit. en thie as overcome. then the defendant bad another meam of delay. Be too to h1a bee!; t,bat 111 to say, be Eaao1gned himself. P1 in b1■ Intro_ 4\1ct1on to the Year Boeke of FA! rd Third aa ra: • "We eee dete!:~.-nta att r seven years of suooeaaful touroh1ng, lett, touroh1ng 1n illt1n1t.um." 2 hat we bav aata above about the sea 1ona or the Court■ being a sort et school 1n which the Judg gave dvioe to l Y.B. ~0,31 Edw I ( .s.) 258 2 1 Y.B. 19 Ed III (R.S.) 12 (14) the 1 wy · pr t1me o~ Bdwara III. 1 borne out by a a a e fro the s nahalle J. to t t tt;er I bou d bola to be fooli le r 1t "•Pl ded to t maa!ant 1 a c'tion within the 11ber.ty. but ouia ••Y that h ought not to ana er there bee ua the tenementa outsid the l1bert and upon that he ought to bid · judgrn nt~ 1fhe:re11pon 1f jud ent e render a inat h1m he uld hav the aJrz • n 1 The compl1cat1ona of proctea:a ao· m t1m.ea gave the pleader the chance ot correctins what would otherwise have been tatal error and of th1a a good example o6cu..., 1D Henry S~h 1 e t1me:- 11Formedon against, J nd A h1a rife. The demalldant counted against them on a gttt 1n te1l made bf deed to the anceetor or the demand nt. Pa -ton by 1st.a e s id 1 b v1rtu.e of hich tho donor wae se1sed 1 , whel'eaa he whould bave eaid t&i1Scmee- the huab nd ae def alt therl and at the. i,etlte capeJ the .Ue prayed to be received to defend her t,1tle, and relied on the faulty count► .•. Paa ton ottered to plead anew, and he and martin argued that t,h18 aould done, Bebingt,on oontna; Cokain agreed •1th Paaton and art1n p\lt .. ting the caate- of a roftect1on nd a e....,-~~.:no-na ettona que apree le count. le parol nate este tt1a· •ana jom' per ~eot1on, , et ore le deciandant uat sue reawmnona envers le t,enant,. ne duiat, le d-emar.da.Dt or ootmt • nouvel! Jeo d1a qul al pur ceo que parol eerra mia a. am Jour pour ceo tu1t le premier ao\Ult a1l et, de termine; et en reaoDDOna U aerra pria s1come mil count uae jama1 , et a1come 11 n' est jama1a eu nol aat.re breve devant eyant regard al count. Sic hie". 2 The translation or t . orda cf Co 1n are:-. 8 adm1'tt1ng tat ft r th count the ae had been a4jolll'Ded without da7 through protectie>n, and tlla~ l Y.B. 18 Ed• III ( .s.) 152 2 Y.B. S Henry VI Pa ch. pl.10 (16) the demandan_ t had ued the Tenant anew bJ rHwmnona ahould not the Pla1nt1tt pleat! again? I ay that, when the c••• wae adjourned without day, for tbat reaaon tbe r1r1. t pleading waa endedJ and upon re- u11aona the ca•e shall be •• it no c uae of ct1on bad ner exlated nd a 1t no pleading bad ever been ma4e ~•lat1•e to that, count.. Tl1e aame here. 0 But aometlltee the advice ot the Court aa to matter9 of Pro ceedure doe not turn out - ell and 1n the time or Edward III we aee the celebrated Tr 1th thro ing th bl e tor al1p · on the Colll't i~ael:f. •~1th aner some pleading aeeing t t, the Court was aga1nat the rlt d=~nded that 1t ahOuld abate to wh1oh Parntng anawered, 'You shall not gt that J1>U have ple dee! h1gber, end therebr at1'1rmed the wrl t • s ood 1 • ' I vouch th record ot the • 11 ' , exclelma Trewith, 1 that it- as not or my own ao col'd, but b ~he d 1ce of t co rt". l Pleading 1n 1450 es lar el. was aub3eo't to correotlon until a owed by the Cltent,. In the worde ot R evee: - "Everlf,h1ng adva c.ed y Counsel •• in tbe first 1nat,ance* treated oa tt only 1 1n f1er 1 1 h1Ch upon d1acuaaion and cona14erat1ori might be amended or wholly abandoned, nd t othel" t er sol"ted to, t,111 at lengtb th Counsel telt b1mselt on auch ground• a he 00tud traet J , ..... ....a t.s.e tinall:t· reat h1• c uae! that a the plea hi-oh entered ap- on the ro 1, and hie bid t ju_,....__ ~ ot D inqu~t or of a Court, aoeordin as 1t na a polnt, of la or fact". 2 D~elopme.nt bl t CUatoma or a c 1 that lt is scarcely p rcepti l na t...-- rocea so alo• is e pee lly true of the English hom Ia a acouao of a1 ,- Y.B. 11* 12 F.d III ( •• ) 88 Holda rth 1 · ,1111am Searl , Risto Lew -LI. p 223 En lish doing thin p1ec--~ h1cb baa lead tot l dayJ b t, de a 1t and or blu er1n along th road p1nnecl apon hloh they atancl t,o .. 1, it 1 ezi ..... ..,•,.ly attf1cUlt to point out exactly hy t • c Le or roce u1'e 1n 11gl nd houla have been th alo eat of all to r 011 it full gro h un len e charg its ?'eta:rootion direct,l to tle exi tence or the atatute agoinst a1nta1nanc, 1oh to my ldea 111 · I'98lly one of th moet thoroughly E 11sh statutes 1t a ever been y luc t,o rad. 1a1nta1nence a the interfer ence ot a st,ranger 1n the bus.1nea or another and the Stat ute ot F.dward I allo ed the peraon a a1nst hom the stranger gaYe an aoeount or a transact1on ich did not directly con cern him, unleaa ea a relative, se?'Tant or agent, the r ht to sue for having g1ven hat as really evidence 1n Court against ~he complainant. Moat of the rules or-Pleading ~ settled 1n the relp 2 or IIenry VI and of Edward IV or betw en 1122 and 1461; nor ia thia all that happened ln thes pregnant yeara, for - side by aide 1th the ulea of Proceedure, t o other branohea or the Law ere forming, one ot wllioh, ASSUtlPSIT, ha but a collateral 1ntlueno on Pleading. h1l the other, EVID CE, is as nearly related to 1t as are the finger■ on the aame hand to each other. l ?~ than Isaacs, .ichigan Le ev1 Vol. 19 p 804 t eq. 2 Holdaworthf ·1111am Searle, History o the English Law I. p 620 (17) T e ee '\ o .. a or I·en y 7 I 1ve ua a seen icl1 occurred in tle yea 1460, 1ch e may call the b1rth .?f Eaper plcad1 ~ · nd 1s n rate ve y nea l y a follo s: ,. efo e ~ ·o1le nd P !sot s1tt1na es Judges t ere ppeared o suitor fro . t county • • e season was ad end t e roods 1r.tpasse le , so _e isl~ to nleod t is state of ar fe1~s , ut t e sar ente , to ~sc . 1 st eee ~ cts a - "" e red doubtful , refused to le d a lie "dvised tliet , t1l~oh tr e Judgea · eld to be rtood· eonse on their p rt e couse tl e t utl of w t ws odv~1iced by t ~ e Client uos a_)p, e ently vouc ed fo by is lo\Vyers . t otl ... n - . daunted -- tl'e lient ~-aea out to tl e rot nota1, and as 1 _ 1s plea nd l'.,.onds it self to 1 ~ .:s re reaento.tives ----- - - -~ y it . vl 1ef o~on Gilbe_ t 1 ~ -s o ,, on t e ,ri~ J1ns of tl e I~ 1 ('!" ' s enc .. , ~ ·os t e strter.ont tiat ritten ple din-.Ja dat e f or.: tle t1rae of · .. 10. II o· f om 1377 , but it is cleo toot le is VIron c. est e Ye r · ools sbo , and t e 1 : .. rtonce of tle act oft e nan .. ho apne red .:o ile ' s Court cnn ot bo ovo eeti lated • for 1t fected botl l1e Ju: y n t c .L leedcr . ver since t e dison 1 co ance of tl1e eels n the Trial J attle as t ·~ fin l pe l to the inscrute le being -r 1 ~ \o coll t10 o1ty, t e Ju_y rd ee - used e.s tle -- ----- sch. l . 13 (l) a\lbttltute :?or the ruder method ot tlUJ saxona, but 1t na not • • JU?T auoh a we know lt today, aa 1t.. ~111ed t rolea. 1t waa both wttne■• and Judge. but hen the pleadings or t?Mt pant• became t1xed, that 1• written, it•• no long• er 11eoeaear1 that the J~ra abould b taken rro the vta clmge in llb.1Ch the tranaaot1on ooourrecl. The lawyer ceased to be r.e•pona1bl betore the Court of the .tl'llth ot wbat bta client, advanc , and there began to be a elea..-.se in the profeea1on betweexi those who conducted the oa•• 1n court an! tboae who prepared them. In 1584 the ebange · (begun 1n l-i60) ta c plete • and the great 1nf luence ln br1ng1ng thia about 1a the abolltlon of 1ntaim.Jl0e by stetut•, though the law conte1na no direct, ment,1on of such a repeal. The only ingredient neoeaaary, h1ch 1a that the 1J1t,n .. • ahall btt compelled to attend coui-t. hae been aup .. p:l1e4 1n 1563 bJ the Statate 5 El.1zabeth cap. 9 sec. 12. It 11 the culm1nat.1on ot the influence Which the Co\lN'. or Chancery baa been ex&rtlng on the law a1nce 1375 and 1e 1n theae word■:- •u any pereon or persona upon wbo111 any pro-ceea out ot aD· J ot the Courta ot Record with thia realm or Wale• •hall be served to teatUy or depoae concern ing any cause or matter depeDd- 1ng 1n any ot the same OeUl'ta and having tendered to b1m or them,. according to h1• o~ their oount.enance or calling. sucsh rea on able •wna cf moneJ' for his or their coata or chargee aa baTS.ng regard to the d1etance - or the places la neo.aaar'f to be allowed 1n tba~ bebalt • do not app ~ aooordlng to the t-enor ot eald pr.ooeaa, haY1ng not a lawful aDS NNt.aonable let ozt lmpedlment to the con- _ t,rary, that then the party making d~anlt ahall for.- (19) felt L 10 and give further ~ecomv9nse for the harm aut~ered by the party aggrieve4. 1 ~ Law or Proceedure aeema to ve been unaat1sfaoto~J 1n all ·s• end thie 1a evident, enough from a set or Stat• utea which app ar te have b n torgott n today, tor I have dieco ered an 1gnorenae ot them among tho•e ho oaght t know. as deep a if' they bad neYer torm d a part or o- ur law •. I retez, to the Statutes or Jeotaila end Amendm,,nta, the :fiz'et or which appean in 1340. The name signifies that someone ba• been unauco atw. in hie pleading, or, having now a toult a J8 •~•at ta11ut (I bave tailed) and ap .. pliea to the Court ror leave to am nd. They apply not on .. 17 to miatakee of the Pleader alone, but also to tho•e Wbaae duty 1t, 18 to make the Record ot the raw. The first, or theae etatutea ••Jll that no record shall be detective on '2 aeaount or the m19pr1ston (errol') or a Clerlt. B1gh~J' yean later 1n 1421 comea the aecond hiah g1Yea the Judgea po r to amend the record• and procea• att,er 3 judgment and th1 was made perpetual 1n 1425 by the third ' ot the aeries. In 1429 a statute providea that no 3u4g .. ment, sball be reveraed on error, tor Gl'l'Ol'II hioh al:all ap pear f?'Om 1nterl1neat1ona, -aaurea. etc. but that the l igmore-Jno H. s lected Cases on Evidence 2nd ed.p 820 2 14 E4war4 III oap. 6 3 9 Henry V P• 4 4 4 Bem'J' V1 cap. 3 (20) Judgee shall enqu1 e into the tact and amend the record l acco?'d1ngly. Th1a at.atut baa been bald to cure a nr1- .2 anoe bet,ween the original 1t em final proo•••• and 1a p rhapa the aoarce ot the doct~ine ot D1acret1on o~ the Colll't which rulea our right to amend today. In 1'50 the proola:natt. on made by Cade at the onteet ot hi■ revel~ runs thua:~ •'l'he law eervyth or nought llya 1n these daJa but for to. do wrong, tor nothing la - aped almoat but talse matters b7 colo~ ot law tor mede, drede and taYolll'." ~be preamble or the · stat.ate 32 Henr7 the VIII oo.p. 30 aeta out ho the Common L& baa fallen into diarepttte on acca-unt, ot th etr1c:tnea11 h1oh ha obta 1n d nth regan! to amendments. It x-..enacta oll the former la ooncernblg Proceedare and enlarges the power to amend for miatokea ot form or aub. atance. 1nsutf'1c1ent pleading, eto; that History repeats 1taelt even 1D the Law needa no further demonatratlon. and the tac~ that men 1n lMO made ~he ■am comp:La1nta as they did 1n 1848 needs no further comment. That the same phenomenon occurred t irregular tnterval1, the Lan enacted ln the daJB ot Elizabeth, Cbarlea II and Anne, are proor. 18 Elizabeth cap. 1, l•J'II down the rule tbat no judgment abould be etayed or reveraed by .,...eon . of 1 8 Henry VI. cap. 12.15 2 Bicknell V. etherlll 41 Eng.Coc::cn La eport. 83? (21) a- ny imperfect retu n t .e heriff o ot er officor • but th1s did not nd to eot1on o, 1nro~-t1on upon any po u- lor o penal et tute. I. 1500, 27 11z bet oap. 5 e eta tl t afier d .u er jud ent a 10\lld be .- .. 1ven on t e 1: erits r1tlout ~ega ,1ng erect o nt of ro . in the 1t, a .. clarat1on or ot o.. le , e ccpt tl10s0 to w c tl e party s 11 esp oi -lly d u, nd t t after de~.,. ........ Court ~bould a end all · pe~fect1ons befo e oentioned other than tl10se to iol' t e arty a 11 espec1 ll~ ·.ur • The 4 ctntute .. -~nne cap. 16 1s the test of oll these statutes of Jeofails nd 1s t e r:'.Odel u on llich numbers of' tl e e 1can t tutes on t e subject .. e based. Its enoct ents e as rollo a:- 1. ~rte <l rer judgment shall be 1ven 1thout re- gard to o ~1se1on o~ defect in ny pleading except such as tl1 e crty shall dermr to especially. 2. That all t e st tutes of Jeofe1ls sl"l£1ll be e end ed to judgments entered upon confession, n1h11 d1c1t or non S\lt'l info. 1atus. 3. Atto ney 0 0... l int rr ust file .\is warrant end 11 ~ewise - .. ttornoy for vefendo t~ 4. Do.f endant 1n an ct ion " nd • lo 1nt1f f 1n . eplovin s 11 be ollow to pleod os r; ny c tters s e r,.ay deer:. nece sary. 5. If such I:Btter sl 11 upoD dOC1urrer be jud ed 1n- suf 1c1ent, coots si 11 be . ven at to e~et1on of the Court • • Provides fo_ vieu or lands t e title to in debate. C is 9. o dillato y leo el 11 be eceived 1t - 10ut p oor oft o trut tle~oof. (22) 12. In n action of debt upon 111 or juagment. poy ent or l'!\Onoy upon such b1ll or judgment . y bo pleaded in b r or the oct1on. 13. If endin an action u on ond 1tl pon lty_ the defendant b 1ngs into Court the pr1nc1 le oney 1th interest nd costs, such defendant sholl be di c .1 red fro t e sane. 17. A ctions or e -ans u eo ·uet e co enced it~ 1n six years fro tlo t1r:1e t e cause of action ace ue. 18. ut 1f t e erson entitled to suo o_ seanen• we es is at the ti :1e tl couse of net ion ace ued under t enty one reme covert, non compos :ent1s, 1n1p 1soned o · be ond seos, tl1 en tb.e period of gL~ yeas sboll be roc roned from the time of t cir beco ing of full a e, discovert, of sane ~ ooory, et la e, o_ eturned fro· beyond sens. 19. I.f any pe aon s all e be~ond oeae ot tle time tl1 e o use of oction accrues g inst hin, tl~ en the action nay be brou . t 1t .in six years ofter lds return. The reaSDn for tl1ese atte pts at bettering the La s of Pro ceodure neeos to cone bac .. to t 1St t1dvanced by Isaacs in t e ~ :1cl'ligsn · .1ch I hove quoted 1. ready, and lso trd:lt t e develo~ ment of tl-ie 1n ~ iad been nlwnys r..ore or leas one sided, that is to sa , that t l18 4 ww of Cont sets dcvelo ed much ~ore rapidly than ti1 e Proia< oeedural side end t t t eo~y outstrippe~ p.acticc. t·o one vill dis ute t e fact t t one reot quality of t e English is oonsez-vatis nd . .. ile in atters of co ~ erc1al ic:portance the1. development ea oo e rapid then toot of otler n t1ons o~ a ~uie. 1n ~ntto s of La t 1s co ser~ vat1s~ ttas c rr1ed o an unreasonable degree. (23) It is li rd fo the . o e student o le to dete 1ne hat tl1 e real rea one for tl e c n es l ic l • e otes or'e, lle can only u ~1so as I oin cl . ke a _ue s, ic 1s entitled to OS ucl cons1derat1o e t e 1d or ny otl1er .on s1~~11 '41 l cod, ut D. o . the ve y outset of t e1r l istory the fo l of overn ent in En~l nd .OS een one of Classes nd not of • sses. J.. 8 1"'8 81"'0 ... n r ~ae tl in s 'in tle development of their law or1c can only be explained rro r.1 tllis standpoint . 1 ~ or instance, 1.1le it took one hun- dred years to este lisl1 tl1e ·-:r1t of espaes on t JS ground forrne1"ly held by t e T iol by Bottle end ti«e ~ 1 it of ::ovel D1sse1s1n ae cure o t10 ever s~1s1 g quorrels over landed property, t ~ o t1 ,~e .. equ1.red to esto lisl1 t - e writ wt 1cl1 ave tl1 e 11le1n o eri1 edy e.goinst t1 o iO" le 1 o evict- ed 111m frorn r s fa ... as loniz. .. e J. • .!. Se f itlout eoson, as ~ore than t ice st e dog nd t ·e r~ o le tl e Gentle isn 1n 1450 just s e as in tl• e ea 1 - doys of the n!ne'teenth century. Still ""tany .ur1tons 1111 hes1tote to coll tl s selfislinesa but prefer to npply tlie adjective uconservat1ven to the fundament ls or t e situ tion. Crir1nols ere usu ally froo the lot er classes in En 1 nd and tl'L e conservat ve ness of the times cllo~ed the no itnosses, nor permission to 1ve evidence in tlei~ on belml until out or tl_ e very r:.1dst of tho ultra-conaerv t1vo ele ent itself tl.Lez-e a ose tter ords, like those of v de, 10:u t- ed t ·e m1nde or t ie le alp o esaion to tle a uses w ich ... ust be oo~_,:,,ecte 1f the p ~ores ion -.1s1 ed to live. (24) 11 .. e ultro-oo s01"vo ve . efo ... er o .e t t of the Co . . o to e o t1ce of t .. e · · e lrn. Jo.,.,e ~ y ,.,ent s o. tJ 1cl the laclstone t~o uthor nd, nd C.ief Jus t e irony o t 1n~s, one o _,l c stone's scliol re ,l10ae life or boco.1e un£11nc in o 1 0s tion to, - n c_ t1c1s or, lis r . 1asto 1 s 1 175G nd 1:od just reac ed l is ... njo t len lloc~stone ~ave to t 1 e iorld Cor.1r: ente_ ies, t t ool1sled ond so ... 1 rl :; treot1ee ic still is the od~~rat1on or t t e egol profession . In 1776 tl e youn . n ttac '" Od tl1 e Cor. ~•e ta ies nd until d ti eless in o1nt- 1ng out tl~e abs · d1t1ea of t .e Com· •on as applied to l codern s1tuot1ons ad in p eec ,1ng reforn . a The name of enthn i 'a ·ook s" sr.,,ment on ver .et" and in tl1e intro uction t e follo ·1ng ords occur l ich I tl _rur wort . y of re roduction . .. e e ns illustrating the oiaeion oft e1 uthor:- "If 1t e of ir:.Jortonce a d o use to · no tlie in ciples of tle ele ~ent e b eet.e, surel it is not of muc . less iw)ortonce, nor of ~uc . less use, to co prehend tlwse p inc1ples and endeavo,. ot t e irnprovooent of ou l · s by r 1cli alone ue b. eot e 1t 1n seoui~ity. If. ·to t 11s t,ndeBvor e s ould fancy any author, especially -ny author of g.oet name, to be, ood as fe o could in ~uch cnae be expected to avow 11meelf. a determined end perservering en eciy • 1:Ct woulct t1e say of l1io? l Hepburn,Chnrles .. cG. '?1 e istoriclll develop ent of ('lode n1eod1 g 1n n lend nd Ac1e ice 1897, f."' . P . J nderson Co. Cincinnati, O. (25) "te ould s y t 1St tb.e 1ntereeta of refo !&tion. nd through t . the elfa e or mankind ere inseparably oonneotcd 1th the downfall of 11s or : or a roat port nt lenst. oft e este nd 1~luonce 1ch tl1ese wo t-s 1 . t, • under teve title ve acquir- ed. ""ucl1 on en 1 1t l s been y 1sfortune and not mine only, to se , o fancy t le st I a· s , 1n the outl10r or e cele • ate Co • ente es on the La a or ~ ~ l · nd; an uthor t1hoso or a lu:ive ll8d be yond co · .. 1son. n m.o e extensive c1reulot1on, ve obt 1ned a . eaters sre of esteo., eppl use, nd consequently op influence ( nd t t y t1tle on can grounds so 1nd1s ut ble) t n ony ot or 1ter who on t t eu ject 3 ever yot p ed. It is on t 11s account t 10t I conceived. some time since tl1e desi n or po1nt1nrr out ocie of bat ap- peared to .. e tl1 e c . ital is es o t.lSt or·, part1cul 1~ t1is ---nd nd funda e tal one, Anti~ l, to . .; efo_ at,~?n•" In c. onsequence of t 1s 10v ont o .1c tl'e above a only tt1 e prolo ue, ond gal Englond tle e as o· .e c -ed into tle very oots of le iven tote nu 11c a oet of rules .. known as the 1 :11ary ~ ul s, 1c t ls end 1nsuff1c1- ent nnd only o l · 1 ... oe ift~ none t e less tood until t e radical cct of Judicstu.e in l 7~. 1fteen years after t ·e JU lication of tle ilary ,ules the Legislature of t e Yor .. enacted b t 1s mown as tbe ·e York Code. lA.is 1s conceeded by oll to hove been en epoc.h na1"1ng enactoent nd its 1 Plue ce m ust also e d l tted because 1t fet1 e ce tions the codes of tle different states as t ey no 1st, ere ada.tationa or t s cele~ brated or1g1nnl. The ode or e o l ae 11 ·e t e I 11 r Rules a response to the we1 ht of public op ion under t e lo des 1p of Ed e 1v1n. aton 1 soften c lled, nd 1tl reason. (2) t11e f.i ericon Bentlw • Tle word Code itself did not appear 1 our 1 ~ p 1or tote early years of t 1 e ninetoentl1 oentu · y, ond 1 appe a to nave been born 1 ,--.once snd to beve eaul.t d from t e re- vls!on 0£ to statutes oft t country by a oleon. 1v1n - ston used it 1 1.0u1s1ana ere .. e ten aysto of lo s at t e request of ette□pts ot e Jlein1 o e -1slature. me e ~ ve been I y t e ord ut t e est seems to r, ... e to e that of L ,r. cunderlend wt ich e ind at tle be ~1n- -- nlncr 0£ is excellent te t boo on oceedure:- "Tbe wo d Code as used l1as bot .. a broad and a narro s1. n1f1cntio. cu ently em loyed in ~ericen ~ tatutes. Droedly, it is a coop1lct1on in syste et1c fore of la a offeetin e :..,ivon subj oct ~ :atter. In t e nar. ro sense as used in . leading.•~~ oa~• is o par ticular statute or grou_ of statutes sffect1ng the subject of pleading, copied fro , or modified after the oodel of t _ o e o k ode of Civil ~roceedure or 1848; but tbe ord 'code' may ave not 1ng to do uitl1 nleedin nd may meen sinply the o "an1zed nd eystooet1c stat ent of the unrepealed le ialation of a state, in 1o sha e 1t ay include the lo a relating to Civil rocoedure. Code leod1ng .elates to le p 1nciples in all the codes or . rooeedure. 'The Code' as t e terra is used in Pleading is t e gene 1c aspect of the 1nd1v1dWll codes. It cannot be reduced to specific and re cise lo u o, fo t e l u - e of t ·~ e d __ fe •ent codea d1ffe:rs. The C-w is so:t r co -pos1te ide l de 1ved fro all t e codes at oo letely et .. odied 1n none. It consists 1n 1nc1plos, not ords. Underneath tle diverse lan iuage and independent of tbe phreaea trxe.-solves, co ~ .!on . r1nc1plee run throu!'r t ese vor1ous codes 1c constitute r.I: co ich the le der oust study. 1 l ~underl ndt Cnees on p.ocoedu.e, Intro uotion p.3 1910 ed. (27) Tl'Jo objections to tl o Co 1 ~ on 1n the moin tte follo 1n: < Jato . of le d n ere (o) (b) (o) (d) (c) er) (g) (h) (1) (j) Toot t .ie distinction et,ween ot1o s t ond uits 1n ➔quity as 1sle din~• That, t e Cor-1 on a -O s or ect1-0 sue 1 as s surnpsit Cose , r. os eso, .rovo, eplevin etc. ere o t1queted n effete. 11 t t e l n . ""'UOC'!& ed 1n tl1e old system il&a ro l, tecl 1oel, beflilde 1 _ nd useless, tend ing to confusion rat er t 10n to clarity. T r.t t e d1st1 ctions between tied rrerent 1nds or pleos £requent ·esulted 1 t e ~ ust_ation or justice. ~hat 11t1 at1on as encouraged end kept olive by 11m1t1ng tlo _1g t to join diff rent causes or oct1on 1n t e o . .. e co . :)lsint. t':!et orr and ecou ... ent ere, 1nadoquote rind should be enls?'ged. loodinga under t e old syst-eo ere construed t,oo strictly end technical objections often ob soured the ~er1ta. The Common ystera by t e use of f 1ct1ona and of untrue alleget1 na ob oured t e pleadings. 1ct1ons muat e abol1 hed. .1 t the General Issues by tle1: breadt helped t e pleader to conceal is real aerenses, here by his adversary rnirrht e token by surp~ise. rn. t oraendoents to leadi.~s a ould be ore generally ollowed. Taking t J.e,se ten articles o arra gnment as bao1a, mt are tl1e cl.ianges L.1c tr1 e Code l s r. ode in t -,e oetr10ds of Pleading used todoy oomp&red 1th t · ee hich existed prior to e1_ ~ teoo forty eir1ct? O f course ta fl st element of t te ans er ia that t e ode prescribed t t the a ffe enco bet1een 'suits 1n ~quity and ~ ctions at r.an lBl oeaao •, ond t .i.nt one om of 1 t1 ation shall enc er rtl e .. at ,11 .. 101... 1.s to e ca llea a I c 1 vil o.ot .. 1on 1 , oncl discussion. icl 11 co cl end ot'" b no: ... es of legal (20) If tl~e object of tl o Coue . a ·era as to destroy 11 and every d1st1nct1 n bot een t e ·ro uns is ad- -.it■ ... ministered nd qu1ty es1 es, t t esult liss been oo- co pl1shed, or tle some nor on todoy sits to e octiona ot lav and to ad nister equ1te le - relief . Lut if tle 1deo cs to llo o clow fo dana ea to be follo ed by a proyer · o an junction, t t object has n t been attain- ed, ond n nl1£ornia et least 1t l~s been eld tl1Gt an oct1on fo de ;agee can not be brou ht in tle saoe oonpla1nt l ns a p yer for ~n equitable reedy. n the ot er band. 1n a au t be, 1 ~un in equity, de ages al"e ecoveroble. ':L' e rea. -u icl seeme to have been prevalent hon the ~e Yor r Code was first promul ated t t t ·e ent re systet1 of - ro~ 2 ceedure lied ee overturned he.a proved groundless. The differences bet cen su ts in u1ty ond ~ ctions et continue to be definitely w_ ·ea fter nearly eeventy~rtve years of oppl cotion. ~he reason fort 1s 1s nerfectly plain nd is def nitely stated in tl e opinion of · ·ason J. iven in a loading te 3 Yo!"k Cane • l . ee tl e aeries o cases be inn .. ~~ it ,r e'78s • 1ttle· Yo k :1n1n o. 53 C l. ?cp.724-lullcon v. e ,1ngton 5~ Cel. :,ep. 56 eople v. Gold :tun itch :1n1n o. · 6 Cnl.- ep. 138-I~ lller v. :Fi 111.end itc C o. 7 Cnl. t ep. 4ZO. r.isey 20 now. 5r:;3 . 11111 v. .ccort y 3 • I • • C ode .eo. 49. (29) Thot leorn d Jude d ecusein the Code end het.e o not 1n its . ~eneral cl'le e it \1 s contra y to t e Co .on I in abol1e -in t e fo ences bet ee Ln ond quity ooys:- 0 The 253rd section of tl1 e Code prov _des tl10t on issue of roct s 11 be joined in an notion for the recovery of oney only, o of specific oe sonal or reel p~operty. 1t must be tr1e by ju y unless a jury trial in 1ved as rov1aed 1n sect1o~~ 270- 271; end tle 254th section provides t - t eve y other issue o fnct ·s 11 bet 1ed y t.e Court un less tl "'e ourt slw.11 ofer 1t ss provided by sections 2'70-271. It will ~end1ly be orceived u on a t10ment's reflec tion tlat t he effect of sections 253, 254 is to tliro tl1e tr1ol of ell questions o raet u on the Court nd t 1 e Ju y, nd ot t 1 e sac tine to throw tli.e trial OJ.. tl_e l10le class of quity suits upon tl1e Court nithout t e Jury, unless for sa:ie special reason t ~ o C ou 1 t shall orde sucl ise· ue to be tried by c jury. n In K noles v. Gee, Judge . lden o plained t e Code and what, in 11s op1 .ion, to intention or the eg1slatu e was, with re~erd to the C ocunon -e. t t e end of l_is discourse he sa1d:- "but 1 :ile 1t 1s concoeded t t tre ocir.'on Lav .. lead .. ing as a syete ., 1e sup lanted, it is unnecessary to adc1t tAat eve veoti e of its valuoble rules lws been. suept ay. It las een my object, 1n this brief end 1Clpe feet sketch oft e d1st1nguish1ng charooter1st1cs of tle too ayste a so to exhibit tl1e value of sooe of those rules, as to sl1ot1 that w1sdon re!luiros tl:em to be retained, and the :Leg .. !s'lotur✓e ·r:iust '"hove so Intende<l~ so ra~ as could be. done consistently 1th the main object 1n vie, to~ wit; that of sirn.l1fying t e ,od or pleading that it could not be Je!'Varted bi c i1oane y and cunning to pu oses of injustice". 1 1 s.no ,les v. Gee 8 I3orbour 300 (30) tt an<l Equity run p llel but li•e o l D a ote toy will not mix. ihere .... s on issue 1n "' u1ty just tr c sar.ie as at LB ond t e _ lea , c rrovern one overn 1 e ot er.. 1 The object of an action t l to scertain tl .. er fro tl e stetenent of tlle , fact the ir: t to brin the action re a_d. es 1n t e lointiff, but froo the standpo nt o !iqUity tl10 quest ion to be dete 4 1ned 1a, et ... ar, g nt ng t wt the acts es stated y r.1r: constitute a eeu e of eot1on 1n ·-s favour, ill : 1gtt ar..d Justice llow ' 1m to use _1a privilege unae all t e circumeto ces or t e case. 2 There 1s no need of' ttemptin. t-o deny that tle Code made a greet chsn~e :n the lav ~1v1ng t e true party 1n in~ terest tl e r1~ ,t to sue 1n his om1 nane, e r1._ t w ch the Conr.:on La l·ad ~1 oys den ea, the oason being. as the med• 1aeval la~yers nut it, that the acquisition 0£ the rig t to bring suit in l 1a own n e by t .. e ssignee ould infringe t e la. vs aga111st ~~1nta1mnoe. This idea seen1S to r10ve o 1 1neted in t e mind of Lord C oke 3 who first ~ave tout 1n - pet' see, but ~~. ~pence in ork on Equity Jur1aprudonce cells attention thot t .. _s ex pression of Co~e•s 1s founded on an e ror ond cites all 1 ,.1tro d's · ;qu1ty .1:le d1n a,_ J.yler's Ed.p. 83 2 t11th v.~ 1th 1897 up.Cou t So. rolina 50 .c. ep.54 3 10 Co e I s .ep .48e c 1 tod y , es 1n his .. ectures, on .. e cl 1sto .. y ond ·:!.scollaneous Eosaya notes to pp. 214 and 258 (31) l the cases to u o t 11 vi • Ja 10B raarl s on t ~.l1s po int a1"e: • 11 rn e t od1t1on 1 o· ini n t iot tl 1s ule l d it■ o.1~1n int e ove aion of tle ~ oges oft e v to o t ult1 11o1ty of oontent1one nd suit,s sl10 s tl1e po er or a reot no .e o tl e erpetuo t1on of error." 2 and l~w deenl t e error d au ~ into t e 1nds or those great 1n t e 1 u, _ ~urt er own by t e fact thot as lote , as 1844• t ' a ~reet iaster of tle Corn..on aron Parke• ruled t l at a ~uro ser froo a plodgor could not rnnin tain e action in his otID nome a oinst t e plod ee. The 3 Court in bane reversed t 1 e ruling; butt .ere are so~e de- 4 1ch tollo t~t case. c1s ions of tJ e : ssac · 1 usetts Court ·ie lmve so far re. o rded one groat ohan~e 1n t e .1. 1 oruma ot tle Le~ ad Equity wro gt byte Code, and lso as rest an innovation in its theo y; but ~1 t 1 to be said con cerning tle aurv1vel of t.c ~ oat oxec. ted rorms o C o l 34 r-en. VI.30-15; 37 IIen. VI.13-3; 15 IIen.VII~ .2 .. 3; South v. :arsh (1590) 3 Leon 234; 1 -Iorvey v . Beelanan (1600) oy 52; C d 1ck v.< --pr1te ro El. 821; enaon v.Iic~abed cro.El.170 (same co e 4 Leon 99) Barro v.Grny Cro.El.551; · obael v. 'J rden 1 Viner tb.296 1.12. Loder v.Cliesleyn l s1derf1n 212, l ~<ob. 744 2 A ,es Jas. Bnr ~ec~u e on egal f1eto y etc. p 211 3 Franl l1n v. leate 13 ·· &. •r. 4 l 4 Corpenter v. l O Grey 1~?• .ubbord v. Bliss 12 Allen 590 ,yers v. r1~ a ii .~ . I. 180; Jao v. Ee les 2 ~ llen ( •• ) 95. (32) Law lending n o t c Co pil r a not been able to _ enc t u 11 to reo rr nize 1 ocoodu e on tlis point see .s to ave been t e .a1n o jeot sou~ t y him? Tlle cry be o e 1840 os, t t t 11 Jazarda the Co ,on outs as 1011 s tle ~1ctions oft e old ~o ~a must be o - rogated • because tlie:=r l el ed t .e _ leeder to conceal 1s listen, I be~, to of Col1fo "n1a: - ve soy. Ont is point • Justice ~e : le of tle u_ e l e Court 11 Thot tl 1 e oor:1r.1on counts in assoops1t y be used 1n t.ia state 1 too well established to be no oolled into question. e j tte u e discussed in A odie v. Carrillo ,2 Col. 1?2. To justices ex ~essed t e opinion tr..at tb.e uoe of tL.e cocr:1on counts m:is incon sistent uitl tlie oo e provisions which r quire a porty in is P· lead1n to stete the facts constituting 11a cause of action. but t .ef ere of t e opinion that tbe. nraot1ce .as .. too c:1 established to" be held fuproper. In . several-cases s 1nce then t e u e of the comrJon counts boen unheld. In asta nino v. Delletta 82 Cal. 250 o discusnion 1s d as to the c1rcUC1Stances l icl 111 just1 y its use or tr e e covery o money due upon express contracts; and .se-0- tion 1042 of Greenleaf on Evidenc, e is cited as appli- oablo to our systera. In _le sant v. nruels 114 Col. ~4 it is said thnt tle cor.u-non ooUDt is ;ood e ainst o gene ... al dor.iu,.., e • n he e -v. UC er Co. lG d' l. 357 the same ulin 1s ~ de, ut it seems to be im• plied tl t ach a pleod1ng r.11,..l-t be lield 1nsuff'1c1- ent os a~oinst a oeciol deourrer that t e ple ding 1s e.nbi uous, uncert in ond un1ntell1 1 lo. Tl ere was not der.iu re le e, nd the irat po nt n1ust be over rulod..................... he iode of ple d ing is inconsistent u1t our code! nd y ea . t ter or regret th tit as evo to e.eted~ ut t ~ e 1nnov ·tion is n t so eat if 1t uet fall e ore a sneciel e t1 .. ,~er, 11.Lich is lil~e e rnotion to require (v ) o ple er to el·e hie leodin ore def 1n1 te • l.1cl practic rev 1le 1n sone at tes. l Tl e onl ,_1sto e e J Just1co me ple in tle a ove o - inion 1s to s t ~t ~ e o tert ins o doubt t t e o 1 1 dee1ur e nte of t .. o . r. 1 on Count oulcl be e e for 00 · 1 u1ty s e la 1 clea .. l settled t et even under 2 tl ose c re urt s to cee t io ... elic of nt1qu1ty 1s ~od. - P.s to "7 et e- t t ot 1.e ~ s1d C of o • .an 0 e . 1 , the - us use OJ. fict o s, os been clono a tl y t e Code let quote orton1 Jud e t ·i c t e follo 1-n~ fro on op1n1on of 11s iven _n t e 1nt Lou1 Court of ,. p ols 1n 1911. "Tlie countercla ... r a sto s on its ·ace t t the cause of action declored upo o :iose frorJ the tort of plaintiff 1n v1tbll0ld1ng possession of defer.tda t' s one-110rse store gon nd set of l !'Dees against her consent; but 1t revea a, too, thats e wived t e tort of conver ion, ond elected to ~uo as in assumps1t for t e reasonoble value e.na use at ).1 per day from cep. teraber 4, 1908, to J n. 26th, 909 , es on n account of 113 ee arate item consisting eoch of co penset1on fo_ a diffe.ent doy. There can be 110 doubt t wt in 11'.nny 1nsta oes 1t is competent fo a_ rty to n1ve the tort ~nd sue in assumps1t or the roasona lo v lue of the article l r 1 01~ V • ldr1d e 1808 ~,up. ourt ~-- lifo. ia 12:; 1.1 7 2 Thomson v. 'loun of· ~lton (1901) 109 ;is.589-f in,ball v. Lyon (l 93) 19 Colo. 266 1oneer uel co . v. I ger (1894) 57 I. 1nn.7 - enn.r ut.L1fe lne . co . v .c oug y (1898) 54 l eb .123-rmri.er v. Dotming (1901 J 9 Ore n so4 ... · 11 v. a!~ arston 17 .•aos.574-- 11en v. o.tte son 7 - j. Y. 476, 56 ~ c. ec. 542 nd ote. -e v. Zadig 171 Cal. 2'73 le e v. Eu elta Endo ~.ent J\sso .100 vol .429-~ -· ""O 1eld V. reenhood 29 Cal .597- ut 111 v. eo ody 19 Cal . A P• ~04 . (34) "or tl in o t .. e use t14o eo o l11ch defendant by ld.a wrongful e.c-t :hes dep 1ved ond appropriated its benefits bimselt.. tit s cocpetent for defendant to ive t e tot ond 8Ue tlerero e in oonvers ion in tl1 e o esent inst, ce, nd inste d ola1m t ere one le value or tle u e of the gon and harness du~1n t e t1 e the dete d nt retainod it• is ,.not t:_o., ~e _9.uest1oned 11 • l Fro~ these to excerpts it 1s e .!tted for us to onder vllet!--er as t e Code 1m lies, t11e old fo .. of oct1on novn as Trover_ s otuolly een e laced y tle Civil .ction prescribed. .o now t t ..... ssurnpa1t e 1sts in spite of the efforts to e.ed1oato it. ond _f ofte end1n Judge rorton1 ~e still doubt, let us rood t e opinion or the Court 1n ;11son v. r.urne w e~ '"' • Justice Cro1 ode- livered it a oke in the follow1n~ o?'da:- 11An action fo money. had and received ever one person hos ~eceived money. t1ce. belongs to another, ond ich, r1ght, slx,uld be returned. n 2 ill lie hen h1cl1, in jus in justice ond In Allen v. te ner t e Court discussing the same question sn1d:- "ss\lt'lps1t al\7 ye lies to .ecover coney due on simple cont_act. ·nd thin •ind of Equitable ~ct1on to re cover bee raoney ,1ch ou ct not, in justice to bo kept, 1s very beneficial ond t ere.fore -uch encouraged. It lies only for rr10noy wllich, ex aequo et bono, tl1e defendant ou ht t,o refund. The scope of the action llas been enlarged until 1t embraces e great variety ot oases, the uaual test being, does the money 1n justice~ belong to the pla1ntllf, and bas the defend ant received t e money. nd s~nuld he 8 in justice nnd r1 t 1,,eturn it to the plo.1nt1ff'. 3 l Jensen v. Dolon 157 .1 sou 1 , ponls 32. 2 :ilson v •• rner 164 Ills. l.c. 403 llen v. te~ner 74 Illa. 119 (35) ,. • Ar:ies I opinion 1a tl · t se . ps!t ond rover re o ect1 .. celly concu ont cct1one 1n di ferent fields. Ic sos:- 11The career o:r 'i'rovor int e field or Torts is mote .. ed only by t .. t of ~ ssu ps1t, t l1e ot r sneci 11zed fo : of ction on tle case, in tle do1;1s1n of contract. £.e pare lel bet een Trove ad ~ssui o1t holds good not only in t e success ,:1t h1cl1 they tool' tho lace of tt. e otl e co :~on l u octi ns, ut lso 1n t · e1r ueurpot1on_ in cert 1 oases o le function or ills in equity. ► • defendDnt 1 o 1 as acqu_ .. ed tl e legal title to the lo1ntiff 1 s proierty b fraud or du eas 1a pro · erly desc" bod · s a const uct1ve t stee for the plaintiff. ·nd yet 1f the res so acquired is money. tl1e plaintiff cay liave an action of assurJps1t for' money bad end received to l11s use: and 1f the res 1s o ctinttel ot er than t1oney tl e pl 1nt1ff 1s al10· et!, o~*Jj)~,P.t µi t -1a countrz to sue tl1 e def~nd. ant in Trover. I · ' Nov let us compare t e d_ffercnt steps of pleading at C om mon Low ond tl1at \7h1ch the Codes not only reco nize but insist upon . Bot system s require ·so e , species o -it to begin the action. Todey it is celled a w:m~ s, but in ancient t'im es it nae nemed a Praec1pe; then con1e the dif ferent pleedin::.,s 1_.ich at Co,:w:on Lew were the Declaration, on the side of the · lc1nt1fr , to which the Defendant opposed his Plea; then the e 11cot1on was given ·h1ch was contro verted by tl e J - ejoindor. I£ tl1 e l a int ff ~ ished to nsv.rer tl11s re inte:roosed the sur.qejoinder. If tl e discuscion necessitated another otep it as cailed tl e _ ebutter Elnd the ans~er to tlls on plsint1ff 1 s part aa the sur-Lebutter. Under the Galifo_nia C ode the system is not very different; l /t,:. es, James narr-~ect res on Legal l istory nnd ~ .1scell eneous Essays 1913, p.87- endling urn.ber Co. v. Glen ood Lwnber co . 153 Cal. 411. (36) we be in r:ith t e wru • . ons rte wl ic tl ... e la1nt1ff files his Cociplaint, in ordinary and concise len ue o. The De fondant's reply, provided e does not raise a question or law. is called tl1e A ns er. l. is is all 1 ... 1c at 1rst glance tl .. ere appeor to be left of t e old fo s ancl our 1ncl1n$t1on is to cdept the fact tattle pruni g or t e old syste · by riodorn le 1alot1on llSs been moat t lO ou h ond satisfactory. r.~ e sl1 test ins ect1on 111 reveal however tl10t all the steps of tl1 e Co .. on La riay be round 1n the modern plendinga if we o ly lool closely enou_h. or in- stance tho General Issue. t t detested and illusory fo l tt .. 1ch origiruites 1 the Co ~ on Le is stUl raised in this 1 ege of p..i. e-ciaion and 1mproven.ent by an unverified answer. The 1llatory Pless, another abl orrenee or the Cor.t on La ract1ce may gtill be raised in tle modeMl rectice by 2 rneanc or t e A nswer. In fact_ und-er the Code. t e .. nswer aee,:,.s to contain all the former pleoaings vl1icl1 ot first lance e t ink hove l Code of C1v 1 Proceed ~e of tle tete of C el1forn1e 1 adopted I , re 11. 1872 1t amendments up to nd 1n- oludi g those oft e forty-firth session of the ~et1s lature, 1923. Edited by Joa • • Dee in. nncrort- ·ih1tney co. an rsncisco~ 1923, section 437 sub. 2. ~urr1ss v. People's ~1tch eo. (1894) 104 Col. 248- t e deniol 1n t is case t ou argumentative was l.1.eld sufficient to ra!s on 1ssue. 2 :. eed &. Co. v la s 1011 (1910) 12 Cal. P• 697 (37) bee11 abro~sted. mhe Code or ·1v11 p_ ceedu~e o · a 1 a st tea:- "The ens er of tl defendont sl'1flll cont 1n (l) a general or pec1f1c d n1al of tle , ter1ol allega tions of the Co pl int cont· verted by tle efendant. (2) e st,o~ ent of ne jotter const1tutin a defense ore counte claim. 1 The Counterclaim H ent oned in st,ction 437 must be one existing inf vo~ of defendant and sg inst a plo1n t1ff bet een l • om o severol jud - ... ent micrht be bad in the ction snd ar1 1n. out of one of t 1 e follo ing causes of acti n: (1) ceuse of ectio a,1s1ng out of t he t na ct1on set fort_ n t e cot la1nt as le found tlon or the ple1nt1ff 1 s cl ir:~, or connected it the subject of the ction. (2) In en action eris 1n cause of eetion 1 in in et tle cotll!lenc ent upon contract; an olso uoon contract .. of the action. 2 otter nd ex1at-- The defendant moy set forth by a e er s n defenses end counterclai .. s she □oy rave. 4 · e ,. ust be sene rately stated and tl1 e seveI- l derens s c ust refer to tho causes of action hich trey re intended to ans e, in e anne y h1ch they fi ay e 1ntell1 1oly dist in u- 1sced. The defendant ay also ons er one or ~re of t e sever 1 ooueee of oction stated _n tle complo1nt and d~ur to tl~ e residue. 3 ·r hene-ve t e defendant see1-s aff1. tive relief n ninst any norty. rel ting to or depend~ns upon tl1e cont.act, transaction, • attar, hop,penin~ o occident upon .. .. 1c. the action 1e broug t,, o o rec tin t e p :'Operty to 1lich t he action el tea, e may, 1n addition to his answer, file at t 1 e som e time, or by pe '1sa1on of the court subsequently, cross~eocpl 1nt. Trie cross~co ,. ploint ust e served upon the p -rties ffected t ere by, and sue·. partie, s may dewur or ens er t ereto as to the 01-..1 1nel co r. plaint. If any of the p rties 2 Code or Civil roceedure sec. 438 3 Code of C1v11 Prooeedu e sec. 441 ef':footed y tlie cross-co pl int ve not ppeared 1n t e notion. o summons upon cro e~co plaint must be issued nd served upon t-•-u~ n tr e se e :-.. enner as upon t e co enc .ent oft e ori inol ction. 1 J.he le ad t~1tor or t.e Col n1a Codes, I • Je ea eer- 1ng, int e notes o t e 11story of eac ect1on. sllo s us t .~t tlle '•t tutes cover1n tl e C unterclaic1 ere not or1 in- o.lly co e 1ended in ou- ode. o e co froc t e at1endrnents of 1867 to the Co e of 1v ... l P oceedure or le York .. , r. Just1ce i~ott in l.1s o 1 ion, 1n tl e c se of : abcoe v. ~ sxwell , tells us that "in Calif rn1o no re 1 1s allo - 2 ed 0 , h1ch appears to conf1r an idea 1ch occurred to me uhile studying this su jact, bier 1a_ tl t at tl1e out set the Corapilers of the Code trimmed off tle excressences o"" tl1e Cor:,mon Lav too closely• and ave since been forced to plac. e · _ loo 1 3 f1cet1on. practic lly here it stood before odi- On the subject of leed1n~ t e words oft e Code of Civil ~oceedure 1"6 flell worth rep1"'oducing. T ey ar, e as f'ollo s: - "The pleadings are the formal alle .at1ons by tl~e part ies of their respective cl 1ms an defenses 6 forte j ud __ .ent. or the ourt. 4 l Code of Civil 2 nbooc1 v. M ode of 1v11 oeedure sec . 442 ell l ~ -8 21 · ntana 507 ooeodure sec. 420 4 ode or C1v11 Proceedure sec. 421 (39) "tj_te ro r.s of ple !n j c v1l ctione nd tl e "'"ules b ,lie tle aufficienc or t e le 1 . is to e dote ,: nocl c_ e thooe o esc "ibod y .. is code. 1 he onl le din llo od on t e rt o · the nl 1 - tiff e (1) tle C o .nl 1nt ( 0 ) tle d l.u er to the .nswer, (3) t ... o demt: ... o- to l1 e C ose-Co . plo1nt (4) tl~ .n gcr to tle ro s- 0 1pla nt . ,_ nd on .. c art or tt. e _ fenaent, ( 1) 1 C de uU- rer to t 18 vO • lo t ( 2 ) t e Lns or (3) tle ross-C011 1 nt (4) tea .1 ' ... ro ... tote ns er to e C oss-G o r.:, l 1nt." 2 ~ t Co .rron L t7 tl ere were s even steps; today t 1ere n e eight, end notl n see~s to l · ve been eined except t t tle C'ltatutea on C ounter--Cl 11 llo ob lance o ac ount, 3 if any e, 1st, t o be recovere in tl4 e e-0 e action. Tte object of t he ode bein to s1apl1fy liti~ t1on. ue raey e pern .. 1tted to doubt hether this objeot has een at tained hen e vie the diversity of op1n1 n which exists over the application or tle ri~ t to br1n ountercl im. Lawyers seam to have forgotten the difference between this right ond Croascompl int, so that e have a are mixture not only or causes of action , but also of subjects of action ~s a result. Atternptrs ore j 3de to u in le actions in ejectment with counter claims er1s1n out or collateral contracts, but the Courts 1n otnte have re~l ly refused to allow posses ory actions to l Coda of Civil Proceedure sec. 422 2 Code of Civil roceedure p. 212 note to < <ec. 422 ° er-t!sl tionu. - 3 .tate v.Ar anss rick · .lf O .co. 1911 98 ~ rkansaa 125 (40) be nixed up uit ect1ons on t e c se ~or da , gea. tter:pts 1 ve e n :ede to countercl i f a mo l 1o1oua er- rest 1n an ot1on for res ae , t t ie C o ts lold t t sue a c e does not corae under t ho urv1e of th C. de of Civil 0 roceedure. In on 1nteroetin :e Yor · ese, tte cut held tlet ss r r ae a art 1s concerned t.e only 1~ -t or counte clo1rn a r ises l1en vehicles eol'!le to :..,et e nco1- 2 dentallyJ lnte in tle see opinion. v ~ e Jud ~e conceeds t t t~o ~ en co in to~et e ni t n1ve rise to t£e oct1on - tl10ut:?h the c se of Bro stet tor v. lU! e fro t e s ame juris diction reacl e, s a different result. or course e m ust always e .enber t t 1n t t 1s ~et country thee are forty.ei _ht fferent st tee, in eacl o Judges .. ve t e 1gl1 t to 1nterp et the lsv acoordin to tl'1 e individual learniru? and c pac1ty of eec 1 person undertal:ing the 1nter-oretet1on • .. ence on the subject of inconsistent defences, though the b-as 1c lew 1e t he totute 4 Anne cap. l , · e see t e ourta of Ca l if rn1a on tl\e one hand holding that "t. o :-1_ !t to set u numerous defenses in e suit •••••••••• , is on abso- luto rig t given de£endant by l 3 old es t h. e Co o Le itself 0 , I nd tle ~ri c1ple is as end the upre.e Court of 1 LOS . .. o11nos Lond Co. v. f,: c - y 175 Col.305,. 1 · •r.: ?ac 92 ·· Zettle v. 01llme1ster 222 ao.645- E .. i1"e Inv. Co. v • .. ort 169 C l 738-Imperiol .ater Co v • . eserve 217 c 548 2 dam s v. ~cr wartz (1910) 137 t .Y. p.Div.2io ~ · anta v. ille (18 8) 121 1. 414 ( 1) Oregon erguin on tl_e oth r side that t e object of the Code as to ollo t .e pleader to use sue defenses onl as did 1 not contradict each otler. The rule oft .e Cor.mton 7 · 1a:- "Plead n s .ust not be insensible or repugnant". 2 Is it not t~e a -re as an.ounced byte Ore on ourt in tle case above c1ted? The low as announced by the Oregon ~ u re e Court io e old low se it stood before t e Code , 1le the ooe1t1 n oft e .. California Court 1s a 11ttle more modern , thou~ - it 1s ased on the sace statute as the • Other p s1t1on. ut the ~upreme Court or this stttte ello s a leader to plead s ~ ny do-· fenses es he las, on t e round that at the trial~ he may abandon 11ny wh1c11 are s vm to be reolly false vithaut pre judice. because in so .e coses it 1s imp soible, be o e the adversary develops h1s evidence, to se~tle upon any de inite line of defense. If not ta en advantage of at the trial 3 inconsistent defenses ere waived. The idea that inconsistent defenses could be tolerated per force under the C ode 1s an 1dee sdvenoed by r . o .eroy in section ?22 0£ his boo on ~ eIJed1es and emed1al - 1S?hts • 1 .. ~ eettle -etional Bonl v. Ce.rter(l895) 13 .ash. 281 2 Oomyns 1 est, Pleader (023)- ·:y~t v. laud l al?eld 324 .oymond v. ~eo - le 9 Ill. pp. ~ 4- r er v • .._.mi ers - 5 1 c ~. 339 1 :e ett v. rown 21 · 1 1nn 163- Uridios • , ... orrell 25 Cnl.31• ~ link v. ohen 13 Cal . f:,83 (42) in t1h1c.. e y tl, t t '"o re t e1 t of is 1n ovor o it. T is notio 1 1 t er 0 0..LS 880 t t t or .._Jo :-d Co e Concer in,.., •. · : 1 ta1 ce -nd for _otto, id not Co.1 1L r ie e esely u hold 1• ". liere C ·tl e no ett e illustr tion of the ct t t des 1te t 8 ode, t e o . -:on fl is t ll it~ , u in 11 its is- tine -1?0 , t n t e o 1 1 n o t .. e 1 ourts 1 ne 1 11 jur1ad1ct1ons iven on tl e u ject o at constitutes a . ood and t a defect ve co L ,pla1nt. 'il e Cor.:.mo con- d e r.ixi ed du licit. , r~u ,ent tive ole din- • tle ple din of evidence o c ,clr ions f le na 1n t ·is respect t e words of Jud ~..,e ~ elden t ~ t tl e le ,.~ a· era o todoy 1d not intend to e syster7! ere The cs e o te n of t L.e enef1c1al rules o t ·e old u at nt1 ted. en v. . . ~ erson dee ded y tl e runre e ourt o.... re~on in 18 9 s 10 s t e s ave ity of t e ourts hen cases (. re presented 1n 1r _cz otto. neys tt~-mpt to dcp rt to pieces tbe out seys:- u It 1s ,.., nu .~. ea in or'"-"ument t t co_ pl 1nts li e the one un e_ eons1derat1on a e euste1ned y adjudica tions in other states. under codes s11i.lor to ours; end o rticulo reference is • de to the st te of ~ ew ~ ... o ". f: care ul ex u 1n t1on of be cases .cited in supnort o this :'0 os1t1on , ill s that it 1s not c "!"I .;~ct.'' · .nee 1 ~ of 1·0 case o ◄llen v. )atter on 7 • • _ . 476 .,._ the Court ton verely cr1t1c1see it in thee 1orde:- (43) nTl e opin o assumes, out r .ent nd 1thout c1t1n ny utl10 1ty tin,. to tte co et uction oft e . odern code, t t e et te .ent tl t t ~ e defendant is indebted to tle l 1nt1rr in o certain sum, 1e a st te.ent of ct. The stet ent t t t e defendant is 1, de tea tote ol 1 t f 1s su st nt1- ally tle conol s1on to be round b t e jur ot tl ~ t -e 1nvest1 et1 n. c on , u t be -stated, s contrad1st1n~u1shed fro . low, f o .c r:.r ent, f o . .. conclusions.. d fro the ev1d nee requ1 to prov t e acts. 1 In lcCsug ey v. <;ct uet te tl e "- upre •~e ourt of c 11 ... 1a after reeding co rrpl int in h1ch evidence i · s pleaded suetoined ad u re to its yin:• "c-uoh plesd1n os ad t Co mmon e nd is none t .1.e less so under our syste ·• ~ lo u .,l10ld sucl1 plead1n 1s to encourage v~ol1x1ty, and a ide departure rro tlwt definiteness, cert inty, nd persniouity, w ich 1t qss ono of the pa 8fi i.ount objects sought to be en forced by the code ete~ of pie ding, and t t, too, uith no resultant effect, except to enctu ber the re cord with verb1e e, ond ent ce t~e oost of liti~a~ t1on.,, 2 But, that t l:ere a e o.no ol1eo in pleed1ng just as there are in the other rencLea of t ... e la r1 ust be od.J .itted, r1 en we find the ssm e C o ur - t u ~holdin t.te cese of E 1n~e · v. -· endl'•ic "• .. ypotheticnl ave1"fflents in 3 The rule of the C om~on Law equ1r1n1 tl t the p rty answer- l oowen v. ,,erson 3 re~n 452- 'ory~l v. a1n 16 el.571 2 ~ :0Ceugl1ey v. cl1 uette 117 Cel.223-.11les v. • C e_ .-ott 31 C ·el. 2?1- hot!!as v. es ond ·s Col .42u .. C'1ter v .Jewett 33 Col.92- ecou1llat v •. ene 32 c 1.450.Getes v. ~ltton 46 c 1.~s1. ilaon v. level nd 30 1.192- n Joaquin Co. v. B udd 9o Cal.47- reder1c·s v.m .acy 98 al ~ ss-c1ty of LOs .. n eles v. 1 t ~ o Col .298. 3 ppin er v. :e 1ck 14 C l. 20• 1 U r1ss v. eople 1 s - 1tc Co. 104 , l.~4 ( 4) 1ng as either tot~ v re or to confess nd avoid is still ~el1ed unon, ond t 1m or Code le din is still to brin tl:o perties toe 1ssuo end to do it s eed1ly end econo- r.i1cally as possible. Unde t e old s sten" tee ·e t1ve regnant ~es o pleading nd under t tor tod y it is 1 equally 1nocce. table. ,:e m1r.1l1t o on indef 1n1tel , 1f e cl10se to icl out and n1er eapeotally the loces 1 ore the rules of the C o .. on Law still control our le or . roceedure, ut tat ould be too 1 n end ould spin out. t 1s lreedy too volu inoua paper to d1sproport1onete lent, but be ore e leave tl s part of our au ject ~e are forcod to ad it t ~ t t e Code end the Jud es hove vorked in harmony 1n t e etter o~ al lowing omendments to pleed1n~s. nd tl t tte e is no loner need of t e l. · tatutes of J eofa 11a. In .;oDoneld v. !ulet the ~ upl''e e Court of elifo n1a sa:rs:- "It seerr.s to be tl1 e opinion of many trial jud es that a~endCTents s ould seldo8e be llowed ~endin~ tle t 101 . Y.hy not in ell proper coses? ~le object of t~e t 1el ie to settle nd dispose of t .. e issues, end ell .- ~ otters connected it the case 1n one action. ~1e rule has often ee st ted ero, tbot dur1n~ tl'e trial, t1e court, 1n furt-er • Ce of justice, should allow .endt!enta 11 erelly, in order l eters v . ; c l1erson 62 ·· oh. 496 .. r .. inney v •. ~ e.ryland Cosuslty Company 15 C 1. , .071- cott v. unerior ~ -unset 11 Co. 144 Cal. 140 to mould end direct its proc ed1ngs. o e to d1epo e of coses upon tl1 e1r eu st ntial .er1ts end 1tl10ut un reasonable delay, re in ere tee 1cel1t1es so - stacle to ovoided, tor l n e incip es to hich eft ct 1 to be iven 1n d ro t1on of su t t• 1o 1 1-'1 t." l Pro ehly tle ~O t 1nte est ng c ee deal n~ 1t t s auest1on is Jetes v. ul ec1ded in 90v byte ~ u rer:1 e C t of :1sconsin 1n \1 licl1 Jud e ~· 1tc ell, a e oi .... o '" t e Co rt soys:- " ,ithout ta ~·nJ t et m e to _efer to t r (tt e c sea cited by t l1e ros po dent) in detail e · 111 s&y t... t not one oft er:. holds tl t 1t 1s n tint e pq@ or o tr1 1 oourt to ello co ,.ploint to be ame ed eo es to recover u· on o di erent cause o ection than the one or11nally sued on. if it 1s 1th1n t e scope or t ~ e cont over y hich tle pleader had in n1nd at tl1 e ou~set. ·ant f r is one t lin~• 1m roper administ ation of po er is enotl~er. C see holding toot a ecovery io 1r:1 ro )er if no emendment 1s made• to cu the defective pleadin, nd cAees here n rnendment was- ap 11;00 .fo~ 'l ond dissllo e-d nd it es eld on P• . eal thot tl:L e dis l l o ,once es ro r thou h judicial po~er existed to 11 or disello t es ne. hove no loce in ou discussion. ;.· e fact s t t tl~ e 'l"\urts of l ew Yor • 1ve t e po .er of a endrnent of pl86d1ngs under th. e code t uc l~ :~o der sco e tl n 1e . iven t ereto here, and so do m ost code states hav1n pro~ visions on tl e su jeet si: 11 to our o n. L re e - an lea fro. 1 ew o _k 1111 suffice et tis point to o~~tme1ze ot e itve 1d. In tre cose of uesdell v . bourke 145 . Y. 12, 40 ·~ .E.83 cited by counsel tlie action .ias one sot1nd1n in .i.·ort. 1 ~ recove y was allow .. ed 1n the lo er court on C ontr ct. nape 1 tl t as held error I but beoe u~e t ~ _ e co, J) 1~ ~nt we s not a c ended in the court belo • -;. as y no meann l1e o sug .. ges'ted £Eat tl tri 1 court coµld __ !loj,_ ~ve permi~ted on e - .. endrr:.ent if n o lie t1on therefor bid been inooe, end then hove rented jud . ent. ~.,uch en a. endment ould not be allo able in t~ia state, because of the errect tlereof to clnn~e tle c use of action froc one sound1n 1n tort to one on contract. ~ ot o, l over, l .c ,onold v. let 132 C l. 1i:::4 (4 ) in le Yo1~k. · e court a id: ' · 1e ct1on is osed on Fraud, -nd tle pl 1nt1f · before he c n ecover, > uat vrove the co l 1nt o substitute not er 1n its place • . Tl t is e d1ly underslooo . lien e Jieep 1n v1ev thst tl e court ay, in e ·or . e p o e case, allow euch subst1tut1on. ounsel cite ree.an v. Gr nt 132 ~.Y. 22, 30 •• E . 247. ..n e, a !, nation or t t dis- closes pl 1nly toot tle court eco 0 n zed 1upicial po .er $'Vep u, on t 1=E?l of ~n ... ct1oP. to eilo a _ endce~t ·entirely c;li,~ar~i the oouse or octlon OS to ro I • '!i.'liat: :JiJY not ordinar l, be~on e trial ~ ins trie objection of the other a ty' said the court. I L on v. ~eicrh 49 r • Y. 78 nower to . cheni:?e t e hole o or t ie ac.t1on nos distinctl y held. In Ilopf v. nited ~totes · o. 21 D.Y. cupp 509, a r ecent cose, tle su j oat o the power of the Court to grant arnendment to plead · n s, as understo d 1n ? ,e Yo 1111 e found discussed at much length, the conclue1on eaohed be1n t tit y oe ex ercised in a proper case lo the ~xt nt of c n ~- 1ng ~ tireli the osuse of eot1on, so lon eo t he rea! contro versy bet een"the--. rtles 1 not lO-lY dep rted fro·= that 1th such limit t1on & e use or action in o uity may be clienged to one at law, d J. c e ouna 1ng 1n tort changed to one on contract •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '1he only lin 1tet1on of judicial o er under sec.tion 2830 (tis. CodeJ es to llow1ng a oowpl int to e rJend ed is that tl1 e claim" of tl1e plaintiff .. .11 not e substant1slly ohen. ed, and . sound jud1c1al di!!eret1o 1n the eiatter hell not be overstepped. 1 h e be 1n of . such limitation upon c n ing the cause of action uithin tlie aoope of t e ola1t1 hoe been too long settled here to be now opened ror serious diacuss1on. It may be that 1t was a mistake to hold, as tis court did, ve yearly after the code was ado~ted here, trot e c.nen e 1n the form of tho sct1o 1s a substantial cban e in tt claim w1 thin the r:1eenit1g or tl1e ste tute. ( o ,. 1cbsel v • ... r .. gard 52 1 • is. 607} Certs inly the t is out of ermony with J:lew York, tr~ e bome ot' the ode, e we l ve seen. But it 1a too late to c n e tb practice not1. It seems clear however., trl8t if t e fre l ers of the Code had in tended tr1et, in a general sen e o. co • pl int should not be emended under section 2830 chsn 1n the cause of' action therein, lengu ge ould hove been used tot t effect, instead of language erely eventing the Court from allo 1ng the plaints.tr, 1 amend1n hie lead1n· • to go subatentielly outside the scope or his claim dis closed in such pleodin. In Aost coos o chen e of the form of an action itliin the sco e of tl .. e contro. vera:, set fortl~ 1rJ tlle com lo1nt would violate t ho l (47) as to tre 1nd1n" eff ct or t cl . o1oe or or.ediee , nd t 1 t a ve bed e e feet" in· · 1· · n the jud1c11 l1oy oft is cou t ~ t uc · a c n 1a it11n tle in 1b1tion or the statute. In ny event subject to tl one 11 ~ 1 t1on mentioned in , .. 1ohael v. erd , 1n. . ony it tl e p ct1ce 1 ork tl e · o .er o men ent es to tl e co,.1 . le1nt .. section 2 •o ~ 1t11n t e soo e oft e cl 1 disclosed 1n 1 1 t di leodt1 1 ng ~• _.¼tl out ~1rn1_ t ~xcept, that ~f. J,~!- o a soA,e n. .1. :-ilrave a ubts ove been o . ~eased r:lOng the eatest f "lends 4 -of tl:e Codes s to " .. e:.,, er o n. t tl ey l ve been sueces. s- ful. nd in I s OZ'lt OD tl1e :..ule .::., inst : .:>e petu_t1es , ro-. fes~o o.y le tl.e e r .. _ "ct t 1e rd to understa d ·· ou n y C ou t \7 .. 1 ~111 in t ·e freedo~ of t ~e 0. on u can co sent to ut its nee"• un e t 1 e yo ·e of the te ri o~~ t t- 2 utes; end I tl 1 ,,. tlmt on t is su jeot tl e syste _ of t e n .. lis .. v.y e cor. nored to end t t we pe hops may learn a lesson i~ J- In 1840 t .ere - .as ei.1. et nds . ~reat 1ue and cry fo a o nd erica, as 1a l~e.. t1ont • ju cd f 1 .. st into t e breocl1. · J.he Code or ren Yo:l wa b . rn nd s lmd a ,.o .. entous ca eer. If an~~ r:!1sta "es sve been L. de t le:, e occu ed e ce, r~o nn e.trov ant desi to efor thet n ic~ in itsel.£ boulde ed t e ree~ons1- b111ty o tl1e change o. cl ofte '88.i."S of un~ling, he1"' C ode las reac ed sue p1~0oort1on ns to l "" ve becor::.e un eldy 2 G tes v. 0 ul 117 1a. 170-··1sohe v . • 313- o t v • Cnr.rpbell 110 ·:1a. 378 f'o it fu ther r , Jol 1 men, The -lll ~oinst er t 1t1es P• ( ) beceuae thore l s bee so muc of that sort ot t in that, th profession p ere to ~an it, !'Otesque a it 1a. than to run t e 1 ' of furt er .. lte tion · • . :eant1l ile cu En 11sh cousins fter pas t- in tbe Lila y ules ello~ed us to ma 'e all t o expe •icent , nd in 1873 passed their '."Oco. edu · 1s n thing •ore o le~ than tl o ule n entloned y , · • Just oe · 1tchell ln toot t e ov;er of . r · ·nt nP- e~ .. e d enta 1s n tee v. Poul , itod a de- pende solely on the discretion of tl e jud es. J.. us after centu·,1 ..... s of p1eoe ~eal alte e"1on n or" i.;nr,linfl al ng' tl e -,ule of co .. .. ... n sense has been 1,..e 11zed. If e re see 1 1 fo ~ener l rule to eid us to dist-n5uich that t1h1c £ is a ·ro _ roted y t t e odes fro t t uh1c1 t e custon or judges s erused to set as1c1e, I thi tl t no better f?u:ae c n e ound tl1.0n tl1 e ti e ono e LS of 'on- -" ven1ence l.1ch fo ar.1es ltlS t·o 1 ed t"·· ou,,l1 out he o_ ld to abror- te tl t "1l11cl 1e o longe_ nec~ssory ond to p .. eserve thot · · ~ t\seful. ;,,: 1s law l s nor "ed n ,ony natonces of . ioh t r"e la 1ng aside r t _ )l"deo.la nd of tl.te r. .• ,.,101 ~ottle o~~ e note- rrortl· 9 e o plea . In 1660 enotl10r 1 st nee -ay be chronicled wl en tr e " eudol Tenure ) o l eel tu."1es tlw f l eod of tl1 e cor ner \1.·ich tl e · uildera lmd built" 1elded !ts lace to tl1e cl 1a tel" place in oday ~e o •e eco 1n a cl nae t e LO of P -ceedu1.,e, b«~ use e need of ou c1v1l1zat1on ( 9) 1 ve outstripped tlo fo 11cm o~ t e old suit .of clo~hea ic legal proceed1n a used to ea. ur air.i 1s to et everytl1ng before t e C ourt 1n as slnrt e ti ,e ea osa1 le, and therefore the e test cl n~e wrou ht by the Codes 1s man fested in e ctly t . ee · oints of pl ed1, hie a e no lon"er adapted to ou~ needs, ·hie 1s to soy. t mt e have no tit e to bot -er 1th theo y ofte 1t ceases to be useful . ur C odee say. c ust t averse or bring 1n n ~ atter 1n conress1 n and vc · ,· o ce . ..t ow on ~ n tbe Absque . Ho·o wos tl~ e .ost ele . nt forr.; icl t e ple, der could ima -ine to sua. est no~ matter . ioday e can no lon~er botl1 e. ,;.1th t10re elogonce thnn 1s an absolute necessity nor do fie give 11 color 11 int e old form in order afte ards to den our o. n olle~ tions . In the studv of t - e tl 1s :- , I ve ~ound no true .. ta 1 than

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Inception of the federal judiciary

PDF

Counterclaim and cross-complaint under the codes and advantages of consolidating the two

PDF

The three fourths jury in criminal cases not involving the death penalty

PDF

The legality of exclusive agency contracts

PDF

Domestic infelicity in Los Angeles county as exemplified in the records filed in the office of the county clerk from January 1, 1923 to July 1, 1923

PDF

Law and progress

PDF

Corporate combinations mergers and consolidations

PDF

To what extent may the state impair the property rights of the individual

PDF

Public utility valuation: a study of the problem of determining in public utility rate cases the "rate-base" upon which a fair return should be predicated

PDF

The law of aerial navigation

PDF

The doctrine of "equitable restraints in land."

PDF

The freedom of speech and of the press in the United States: extent and limitations

PDF

The historical development of municipal corporations

PDF

Chinese immigration

PDF

Unreasonable searches and seizures

PDF

Public service legislation in the state of California

PDF

Opinion evidence and its moral aspect

PDF

The judicial settlement of labor-capital disputes

PDF

The doctrine of equitable estoppel

PDF

The privilege of a corporation against self-incrimination

Asset Metadata

Creator Lord, Arthur Power (author)

Core Title The Code and the common law

School School of Law

Degree Juris Doctor

Degree Conferral Date 1925-05

Publication Date 05/15/1925

Defense Date 05/15/1925

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Civil procedure -- United States,common law,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Digitized in 2022 (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112719586

Unique identifier UC112719586

Identifier Law JD '25 L866 (call number),etd-LordArthur-1925.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-LordArthur-1925

Document Type Thesis

Format theses (aat)

Rights Lord, Arthur Power

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230127-usctheses-microfilm-box6a (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu