His method of presenting what was decided is, however, disorderly in the extreme. Throughout all parts of the report, but particularly in giving the resolutions of the judges, his inexhausti ble learning breaks forth; "one case is followed by another, quotation leads to quotation, illustration opens to further illustration, and successive inference is made the basis for new conclusion; every part, moreover, being laden with conclusions and exceptions, or protected in a labyrinth of parentheses, until order, precision, and often clearness itself is lost in the perplexing though imposing array." How animating, therefore, is his assurance to the reader that "although he may not, at any one time, reach the meaning of his author, yet at some other time and in some other place his doubts will be cleared."1

In connection with his habit of editing the conclusions of the court in accordance with his own views of the law, it may be added that Coke is not always accurate. Sometimes, as in Gage's case,2 he gives a wrong account of the actual decision. Moreover the authorities which he cites do not always sustain his conclusions. This fault, indeed, runs through all his writings and has carried in its train some unfortunate consequences. For instance, in Pinnell's case, by giving a mere dictum the form and effect of an actual decision upon a point in issue he fixed upon English law the rule that a creditor who, on the day his debt falls due, accepts á smaller sum in satisfaction of the whole, but executes no deed of acquittance, is not bound by his agreement. The result has been, as Sir George Jessel ironically said in Couldery v. Bartrum,5 that according to English law "a creditor might accept anything in satisfaction of a debt except a less amount of money. He might take a horse or a canary or a tomtit if he chose, and that was accord and satisfaction; but by a most extraordinary peculiarity of English law he could not take 19s 6d in the pound." Yet the House of Lords in 1884 held that the error was so firmly estab lished that it did not come within their province to correct it. It may be added in further elucidation of the effect of such errors that the resolution of the judges in Pinnell's case as reported by Coke is not as absurd as some of the distinctions that have been

"

1 See Sugden on Powers 23, n.

25 Rep. 45 b; see 1 Salk. 53, and Will. 569.

3 See Jones on Bailments 41, as to Southcote's case, 4 Rep. 83 b, and 1 Inst. 89 a; Stephen's Hist. Crim. Law, ii. 205.

5 Rep. 117 a; Co. Litt. 212 b; see Foakes v. Beer, 9 App. Cas. 605.

engrafted upon it from time to time by judges who sought to limit the operation of what they believed to be an erroneous principle. Many questionable doctrines have in this way become firmly imbedded in the law. "I am afraid," said Chief Justice Best, "we should get rid of a good deal of what is considered law in Westminster Hall if what Lord Coke says without authority is not law." Still, it is less true now than formerly that his works have, as Blackstone said, "an intrinsic authority in courts of justice, and do not entirely depend on the strength of their quotations from older authorities."

1

The basis of the vast reputation that Coke's reports enjoyed for centuries is readily apprehended. The only other reports available in his time were Dyer, Plowden, and parts of the Year Books; in the preface to the third part of his reports Coke gives their number as fifteen. Coke's extensive reports, covering a period of nearly forty years, not only give a fairly complete account of the law during the reigns of Elizabeth and James I., but they made accessible most of the older learning which till then had to be laboriously gathered from the Year Books and the unsatisfactory abridgments. Lord Bacon admitted no more than the bare truth when he said, "To give every man his due, had it not been for Sir Edward Coke's reports (which, though they may have errors and some peremptory and judicial resolutions more than are warranted, yet they contain infinite good decisions and rulings over cases), the law by this time had been almost like a ship without ballast, for that the cases of modern experience are fled from those that are adjudged and ruled in former time." Moreover, his careless and disorderly mixture of things great and small is balanced by the grasp of his intellect and the often inimitable effect of his quaint style.2

There are several other brief collections of cases from Tudor times, chief among which is Dyer's (1513-82). Sir James Dyer presided in the Court of Common Pleas for more than twenty years, and his accurate, concise, and business-like notes have always been regarded as among the best of their class. Although these notes were taken by Dyer for his own use and without any thought of publication, they were edited from a genuine manuscript by his nephew, and were subsequently annotated by Chief Justice Treby. Moore's reports (1521-1621), the work of Sir 1 See also 17 Pick. 9.

2 For a detailed examination of Coke's reports see Wallace's scholarly work on The Reporters 165 et seq.

Francis Moore, the supposed author of the Statute of Uses and inventor of the conveyance known as lease and release, were edited from a genuine manuscript by Sir Geoffrey Palmer, a distinguished lawyer of the Restoration, with the assent of Sir Mathew Hale, who married Moore's granddaughter. Anderson's Common Pleas Reports (1534-1604), the work of a prominent judge, are quite full and circumstantial for their time. Jenkins's so-called “Centuries," a brief but accurate collection of notes of Exchequer decisions, contains some cases as early as the thirteenth century. Leonard's reports (1540-1613), dealing mostly with cases subsequent to the reign of Henry VIII., have been commended by Nottingham and St. Leonards. Benloe and Dalison (1486-1580), Keilway (1496-1531), Brooke (1515–58), and Benloe (1531-1628) are all of secondary value. The only connection between Benloe and Dalison is the fact that they were edited by John Rowe. The later Benloe, which is mainly a compilation, is often called New Benloe, to distinguish it from the former; Brooke is likewise called Little Brooke to distinguish it from the same author's abridgment. Although Keilway's reports are of uncertain value, they record many cases not included in other reports of this period. The volume bearing the name of Noy (1559-1649) is a collection of mere scraps of cases and dicta, with only an occasional statement of the facts involved. Noy was attorney-general under Charles I., and one of the six persons recommended by Bacon in connection with his plan for official reporting as being "learned and diligent and conversant in reports and records." This volume was probably an unauthorized transcript from his note-book. The reports of Brownlow and Gouldsborough (1569-1625) are the work of two prothonotaries of the Common Pleas; they are mostly practice cases. Owen (1556-1615), Goldbolt (1575-1638), Saville (1580-94), and Popham (1592-1627) are of little if any value.

Many of the reports just mentioned extend into the seventeenth century. On the other hand, there are several reports dealing principally with the reign of the first two Stuarts, whose earlier cases date, like Coke's, from Elizabeth's reign. Of these the reports of Sir George Croke, edited by his son-in-law, Sir Harbottle Grimston, master of the rolls, are of most general interest and value. Croke served with credit in a judicial capacity until his eightieth year, when, upon his petition that he might "retire himself and expect God's pleasure," Charles I. granted him a pension. His work is of the first importance whenever he reports a case fully; but the value of his reports as a whole is affected by the fact

that he gives not only cases in which he participated or which he heard, but many others not reported elsewhere, which were merely cited in argument or which were shown to him. However, when he takes a case at second-hand he generally states somewhere that he does so, and the discredit into which some of his work has fallen is due to some extent to his practice of printing a case in instalments and the consequent difficulty of reading him aright. As a rule his reports are too brief to be perfectly clear. These reports are always cited by the names of the sovereigns in whose reigns the cases were determined.

In addition to the standard authorities, Coke and Croke, the first half of the reign of James I. is covered by Yelverton (1603-13), the second half by Rolle (1614-25), and the whole reign by Hobart (1603-25). Yelverton's small volume ranks with the best of the old collections of notes. Yelverton was one of the ablest lawyers of his time, and although his notes are not very technically presented, being prepared for his own use, they are known to be authentic. Rolle's report is a genuine work by Cromwell's' able chief justice. Hobart's collection, published several years after the Chief Justice's death by a careless editor, but improved in a subsequent edition by Lord Nottingham, was a standard work of its day. Yet these reports are still very defective in method and precision, and are replete with legal disquisitions which have not served in modern times to add to their usefulness. Hobart includes some cases from the Star Chamber. There are several minor reports of this reign: Davies (1604-12), Lane (1605-12), Ley (160829), Calthrop (1609-18), Bulstrode (1609-39), Hutton (1612–39), J. Bridgman (1613-21), Palmer (1619–29), and Winch (1621-25). Davies was a well-known poet and a friend of Selden and Ben Jonson. Ley prints some cases from the Court of Wards. Calthrop deals mainly with cases concerning the customs and liberties of London; Winch principally with declarations.

Beginning in the last years of James I., but dealing mainly with the succeeding reign, is the collection by Sir William Jones (162041). These are accurate reports, from a genuine manuscript, of cases decided during this distinguished judge's tenure of office. They are among the most interesting of the old reports. In this reign, also, is the volume bearing the name of Littleton (162632); but the cases were probably not reported by him. They are concerned largely with applications for prohibitions. Latch (1625-28), Hetley (1627-32), and March (1639-43) are of small importance. Clayton's assize reports (1631-51) throw some light

on early practice. Aleyn (1646-49) contains loose notes of cases decided during the last years of the reign of Charles I., when judicial proceedings were disturbed by the turbulence of the approaching civil war.

There are few reliable records of litigation during the Commonwealth period. Style's reports (1646-55), which were published by the author himself, are valuable as our sole record of the decisions of Rolle and Glyn, the able chief justices of the Commonwealth. Hardres, Exchequer reports (1655-69) cover part of this period. They were printed from a genuine manuscript, and give fair reports of the arguments, but very brief reports of the judicial opinions, which are usually by Sir Mathew Hale. Siderfin (1657-70), who gives some cases from this time, is of little consequence.

Within the first decade after the Restoration there are several new reports, extending for the most part over the remainder of the Stuart period. Chief among them is Saunders (1666–73), who is universally conceded to be the most accurate and valuable reporter of his age. His work is confined to the decisions of the King's Bench between the eighteenth and twenty-fourth years of the reign of Charles II. Saunders participated as counsel in most of the cases, and he reports them with admirable clearness. In general his reports resemble Plowden's; but they are much more condensed. He gives the pleadings and entries at length, and follows in regular order with a concise statement of the points at issue, the arguments of counsel, and a clear statement of the grounds of the judgment. The work was subsequently enriched by the learned annotations of Sergeant Williams. Thomas Raymond's notes (1660-84) bear a good reputation. T. Jones (1667-85) and Ventris (1668-91) are of fair authority; about Levinz (1660-96), and especially Keble (1661-79), opinion is conflicting. It is unfortunate that we have no better record than these volumes afford of Sir Mathew Hale's decisions. The manuscript of Freeman's notes (1670-1704) was stolen by a servant and published without authority.

The so-called Modern reports (1669-1732), which begin in the first decade after the Restoration and cover a period of more than sixty years, are of considerable importance when due allowance is made for certain serious limitations. This work, originally composed of five volumes, was formed by combining in a series the work of different hands. It was subsequently revised and remodeled by Leach, who published a definitive edition in twelve vol