While there may be some inconsistencies, we still think that, considering the difficulties of the subject, Professor Minor has produced an admirable work and one which should be in the lawyer's library. M. I. ST. J.

The Law of Torts. By MELVILLE M. BIGELOW. 8vo. Buckram and sheep, $3.00 and $3.50. Co., Boston, 1901.

Pp. xxxi + 438, Little, Brown, &

This is the seventh edition of what was one of Little, Brown, & Company's "Students' Series." These publishers have begun reissuing several of that series, enlarged and improved.

Mr. Bigelow, Webster, is professor in the Boston University law school, the author of several texts. His "Torts" was published in 1878 and reissued in 1882, 1886, 1891, 1894, 1896 and 1901. This book is so well known that an extended review is not necessary.

Formerly 12mo., it is now 8vo., much enlarged, of 820 sections, having indented side notes, and set in the regular long primer. The press work as a whole is beautiful.

In the previous edition, Mr. Bigelow's divisions of the subject were these: Part I., Breach of Duty to Refrain from Fraud or Malice; Part II., Breach of Absolute Duty; Part III., Breach of Duty to Refrain from Negligence. His divisions now are: Part I., Lawful Acts Done by Wrongful Means, or Malice; Part II., Unlawful Acts; Part III., Events Caused by Negligence. This divisional change is in nomenclature only; the real divisions remain the same.

The Introduction, which, on account of the involved English, we always considered the weakest part of the former editions, is entirely rewritten and enlarged from 14 pages to 51. Maliciously Procuring Refusal to Contract (Ch. IV., Part I.) and Procuring Breach of Contract (Ch. IV., Part II.) are new chapters. The other new matter is chiefly in the Introduction and in Part III. Perhaps in no way is the book more improved than in the notes, which are brought up to date, and cover a very wide field.

We have always considered Bigelow's "Torts" one of the very best preliminary treatises on the subject. The present book is undoubtedly, considering size and price, the best companion for his cases. that a student can have.

Covenants which Run with the Land, Other than Covenants for Title. By HENRY UPSOM SIMMS. Pp. xxxi + 288, 8 vo. Sheep, $3.50. Callaghan & Co., Chicago, 1901.

This book fills a gap in the texts on the law of Real Property. Mr.

Sims, Choate, '90, now of the Birmingham, Ala., Bar, has written an admirable treatise. A graduate of the Harvard law school, he has applied the ideas of the school to a scholarly treatise, which well supplements Rawle's fine work on "Covenants for Title." The breadand-butter lawyer may find fault with the book, in that it reminds him in places of the days when he tried to understand Digby; but Mr. Sims writes directly at a point, and cites early, common-law principles, statutes and cases only to illustrate what follows. As to what covenants "touch the land," Mr. Sims says no definite statement can be made, and refers to our old friends, the cases, bearing in mind National Bank of Dover v. Segin (N. J.), where it was held that trade covenants "touched the land." He concludes that covenants properly drawn and of proper subject matter should run with the land, and carry both the burdens and the benefits. Party-wall covenants, covenants by and with railways, covenants restricting the use of property, etc., are well treated, as are also covenants in leases and the rights and liabilities of the parties to leases. Authorities are cited, the list of cases, both early and modern, is ample, and the index is excellent. The book is very scholarly and very practical, and the forms, though few, are good.

The Law of Unfair Trade including Trade-Marks, Trade Secrets and Good- Will. By JAMES L. HOPKINS, Cooley '91. Pp. xliv +437, sheep, $6.00. Callaghan & Company, Chicago. The above book, written by a member of Cooley chapter, is one which has long been needed by the members of the profession who are practicing in the specialty to which it relates.

It is a regretable fact that the judges, more especially those of the Federal courts, should be called upon to decide cases involving such specialties as admiralty, patents and trade-marks without previous experience in litigation in these fields, because, while in any particular instance the judgment of the court is apt to be correct and to do substantial justice in the case at hand, yet the opinions in such cases when written are apt to be poorly considered and at variance with the current of the best authority.

In no department of the law has this been more strikingly illustrated than in cases involving the element of unfair-trade competition. Such cases have frequently been treated as though they related solely to trade-marks and in order to do justice, the principles of trade-mark law have been seriously departed from and doubt and uncertainty caused to arise where, from the simplicity of the case, there should be definiteness and prompt decision.

Much of this difficulty has arisen from the fact that before the publication of Brother Hopkins's book, there has been no treatise which has drawn the proper distinction in principle between cases of unfair competition and cases of trade-mark infringement.

It is apparent from an inspection of the book in question that its author has actually been engaged in litigation involving the principles which he has outlined in the book. It is a matter of experience among the older members of the Bar that those treatises which are in effect the outgrowth of briefs designed to influence courts and to be subjected to the adverse criticism of well-equipped opponents in law, are those books which stand the test of actual use and the wear and tear of practice.

The book treats in a prefatory chapter of much that is historical, tending to explain the nature of trade-marks and the limitations of the rights based thereon, and it draws attention to the fact that the subject of unfair-trade competition is the wider one, the infringement of trademarks being but one branch thereof.

This part of the book is so good that the general practitioner will wish that there were more of it, as it gives him what no treatise has heretofore done, i. e., a proper outlook into the field showing the principles underlying a great mass of adjudicated cases.

The book then goes on to treat of the acquisition of trade-marks, their nature and how to distinguish those which are valid from those which are not, and to show how the right to a trade-mark can be lost and how the entire subject is interwoven with the rights based upon good-will and trade secrets.

The question of infringement is then discussed in several of its varying phases and the book concludes with a consideration of the remedies afforded to protect rights against unfair competition of different kinds. There is an appendix giving in full the Federal statutes covering the subject of trade-marks, and several forms and precedents which will be found useful to the practitioner and the whole is provided with a bibliography of the American and English literature on the subject, which while by no means complete, is selected with unusual care.

The book is on the whole so good and such a valuable addition to legal literature in the field which it covers, that criticism is at once disarmed, but we suggest to the author, in the event of a second edition being called for, that an analysis of the contents of the book would prove a valuable aid in showing the relative relation of the parts and that the wider subject of unfair-trade competition might be

treated to advantage at first, leaving the infringement of trade-marks, the violation of good-will and the unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets to follow as divisions or departments of the one general subject.

W. R. B.

We have received the following: A Treatise on the Law of Wills. By WILLIAM Herbert Page, Swan '93. W. H. Anderson & Company, Cincinnati, 1901.

A FEW FEES.

Joseph H. Choate, Ambassador to England, once said that the largest annual retainer paid to a lawyer was paid by the Sugar Trust to John H. Parsons. Mr. Parsons received not less than $100,000. There are several lawyers in New York city who have received fees bigger than the one paid to Mr. Parsons by the SugarTrust. Lawyers, especially those whose offices are in the Wall street district, have been devoting a large share of their attention to promoting. The joining together of great syndicates has proved more beneficial from a monetary point of view than any other branch of law practice.

Secretary of War Elihu Root drew the Astoria gas bill. Just how much Mr. Root got for drawing this ingenious measure is not generally known. Wall-street lawyers figure that if Mr. Root was paid cash his fee was about $25,000, and if he was paid in stock that he received at least $50,000.

One of the most successful lawyers of the Wall-street district is said to be John C. Tomlinson. He represented the Havana Commercial, the biggest tobacco syndicate in the world. He succeeded in bringing eighteen of the largest tobacco growers in Cuba together. For this service Mr. Tomlinson received a fee of $300,000. Denver Gas paid him $100,000, while Denver Water netted Mr. Tomlinson a fee of $50,000.

It is known that Fish, Richardson & Storrow received a fee of $50,000 from the General Electric Company for looking after one single case for that corporation. George Nelson Bromwell, who succeeded in reorganizing the copper mining syndicates with which Mr. Rockefeller is connected, is said to have received a fee of $400,000. -Philadelphia Press.

THE American Lawyer, in commenting on the overcrowded condition of the Bar adds this to the above: Viewing the matter from a pecuniary standpoint alone it seems well to call attention to the $260,000 received by William Nelson Cromwell in the Decker, Howell & Co. case, to the $250,000 paid to John E. Parsons by the Sugar Trust, to the $150,000 paid to Henry L. Clinton in the Vanderbilt will case, to the $75,000 received by Joseph H. Choate for the A. T. Stewart will-settlement, and to that princely fee, the exact amount of which is, however, unknown, recently received by James. B. Dill for settling the Carnegie-Frick controversy.

In Lighter Vein.

WON THE COURT.

He had just been admitted. When nervous he was liable to stammer; it was his first case, and he began: "M-m-my p-poor c-cl-client your Honor. My p-p-p-poor c-c-c-client, y-y-your Honor, m-m-my poor c-c-c-." Then his Honor remarked: "Go on young man, so far the Court is with you."

PROTECTED.

Nobs. "Say, what kind of a lawyer is Jones, any way?"
Bobs. "He's a patent lawyer."

Nobs. "He'll have a

patent expires."

hard time to make a living when his

WOMEN-LAWYER YARNS.

The ladies, God bless 'em-may the earth and the fullness thereof be theirs. If the young male lawyer has a hard row to hoe, what must be the task of the young woman lawyer? In spite of this we must have our jokes about them. The following were told by four who sat at a table at a recent Phi Delta Phi Club dinner-affidavits will be forwarded for the first two:

1. The girl-tailored gown, willowy figure, master's degree, devotee of Mills and Jevons, etc.—had started medicine but gave it up and took to law because of its logical allurements (so she said). She loved Contract and Tort, felt a bit dubious on Bills and Notes, and stood Evidence pretty well until she met matters that would tend to complicate the issue and hearsay exceptions. This was too much and she indignantly informed the professor that she was through with law for her mind demanded logic. So she departed, and a legal luminary

was lost.

2. A woman lawyer sued a male client for professional services. The judgment for $45 was returned unsatisfied. But the lawyer knew her code, so she applied, under section 3221 of the New York code to have the man arrested. The section allows arrest where a judgment under $50 is unsatisfied and is for the "enforcement of judgments against working women." The judge saw the humor of the thing and allowed the arrest. The section applies to domestics.