The relationship between the Dominions and the Crown and the Imperial Parliament presents questions of great difficulty. At the present time the Dominions are, just as the Colonies, subject to the legal—though not to the political—supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Though this supremacy has for many years not been exercised positively, i.e. by the passing of Acts affecting a Dominion, except at the request of such Dominion, e.g. at the request of Canada to amend the British North America Act, 1867, yet it still exists, inasmuch as there are in force Acts of the Imperial Parliament (especially the Acts creating the Dominion Constitutions) which apply to the Dominions, and the courts would be compelled to hold any Dominion legislation conflicting with such Acts to be inoperative.

The recent case of Lynn v. Bamber has revived an interesting and undecided point upon the Statute of Limitations and has given McCardie J. an opportunity of exploring with his usual thoroughness a somewhat difficult region of law. In Lynn v. Bamber the plaintiff bought from the defendant young plum trees warranted to be ‘Purple Pershores.’ Some years later, on their bearing fruit, he found them to be ‘Coe's Late Red,’ a cheaper sort of plum. He sued the defendant for damages for breach of warranty and, as his suit was brought more than six years after he had bought the trees and would prima facie be barred by the Statute of Limitations, 1623, he alleged that the defendant had fraudulently misrepresented to him the nature of the trees and had fraudulently concealed from him the breach of warranty. McCardie J. found on the facts that fraud was not proved and that therefore the Statute of Limitations was a good defence, but held in a long and interesting judgement that if fraud had been proved the Statute of Limitations would have been excluded.

The aim of this article is to consider the relations of nuisance as a tort to three other branches of the law of tort:

(1) The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.

(2) Negligence.

(3) Trespass to land.