Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. The Cambridge Law Journal
  4. Content listing
Journal Home

Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals: Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies: Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

9363 results in The Cambridge Law Journal

Page 465 of 469

  • A Text-Book of Roman Law

  • F. de Zulueta
  • Journal:
    The Cambridge Law Journal / Volume 1 / Issue 2 / July 1922
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    16 January 2009, pp. 166-176
    Print publication:
    July 1922

  • There have been, and are, good manuals of Roman law in plenty which might seem to render superfluous the publication of yet another. But, after all, they are foreign, sind what is more (ranitas canitatum!) however carefully later researches are digested in successive editions, there are changes of point of view which cannot be adopted in this fashion. What one may look for in a new manual is, besides a synthesis of recent work, the specification which that work lias undergone in the author's mind, also his general point of view and the special qualities which give his work individuality.

  • Contributory Negligence

  • J. C. Macintosh
  • Journal:
    The Cambridge Law Journal / Volume 1 / Issue 2 / July 1922
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    16 January 2009, pp. 185-191
    Print publication:
    July 1922

  • In an article on “Contributory Negligence” in the January number of the Law Quarterly Review, the learned writer, Lord Justice O'Connor, draws attention to the state of confusion which a study of recent cases reveals as reigning with regard to this subject, and concludes by suggesting that the bare question should be put to the jury, “Whose fault was it?”. This article is not intended as a criticism of that thesis. But if the condition of principle is such that experience suggests its total abandonment, it is surely high time that Theory bestirred herself. The following observations constitute an attempt to apply the current formula to a particular class of cases—those namely which may be described as collision and running down cases—with the intention of showing that the formula does adequately cover the cases.

Page 465 of 469