attempt has been made to cite only those which directly support the propositions in the text. As many of the judgments are of great length, I have in general referred to the particular passage founded upon. Every practitioner knows the irritation produced by having to run over twenty pages in the search for an isolated dictum. The first page of the report may always be found by referring to the Table of Cases. I have sometimes adopted the method of stating a case as an illustration, partly for the greater brevity attained by using the form of a rubric, and partly to avoid the tedious iteration of long relative clauses introduced by phrases such as, “in a case in which," &c., &c. A separate chapter gives an outline of the English law of Husband and Wife, and I hope may be found useful as a guide to the authorities. In some parts of the subject it may be thought that I have quoted English authorities with dangerous freedom. In questions properly consistorial, where the English cases are applications of rules derived from the canon law, it cannot be doubted that they are entitled to great weight in Scotland, in the absence of any conflicting Scottish authority. In Collins v. Collins, 1884, 11 R. H.L., at p. 23, it was remarked by Lord Blackburn: "Even now, if any principle to be found in the canon law has been worked out in modern English jurisprudence, or any foreign jurisprudence founded on the canon law, so as to come to an approved result, I think it is not to be too hastily assumed that the result has been rejected by the Scotch law. The same considerations which have led to its being retained and adopted in the English or foreign jurisprudence, may show that it ought to have been retained in Scotch law, and if it be not clear on the Scotch authorities that it has been before now rejected, it may be proper even now to adopt it." Similar considerations apply to the cases on private international law, in which the English Courts have laid down or applied principles of general jurisprudence. In this branch of the law there are many recent English judgments of great importance; and although some of the results arrived at in that country may not be followed when the question arises in Scotland, the arguments and authorities considered in the judgment cannot fail to be fully examined. A reference to an English or American case is likely to be of more service than the citation of the conflicting speculative opinions of foreign jurists, however eminent. The nebulous condition of a good deal of this branch of the law has made it necessary to treat it with somewhat disproportionate fulness. After consideration I have omitted the subject of marriage contracts, which belongs rather to conveyancing than husband and wife. It would be impossible in a short statement to do more than repeat what is to be found in the works on conveyancing, while any attempt at a detailed examination of the cases, many of which are extremely special, would have been inconsistent with the scope of my book. In conclusion, I desire gratefully to acknowledge the kind assistance of my friends Mr. John Harvey, Mr. William Hunter, and Mr. J. S. Taylor Cameron, advocates, while this book was in the press. Mr. Harvey very kindly read most of the proof-sheets, and not only verified the references, but made many valuable suggestions. F. P. W. EDINBURGH, October, 1893. |