Difference between revisions of "Modern Reports"

From Wythepedia: The George Wythe Encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 18: Line 18:
 
}}Modern Reports is a title given to the twelve separately edited and published volumes of English common law following the close of the Year-Book period.<ref>John William Wallace, ''The Reporters'' (Boston: Soule and Bugbee, 1882) 347-48</ref> As a result, the works reflect both the trends of the earlier period and the more modern trends of the later period.<ref>Percy H. Winfield, ''The Chief Sources of English Legal History'' (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925) 183-84</ref> <br />
 
}}Modern Reports is a title given to the twelve separately edited and published volumes of English common law following the close of the Year-Book period.<ref>John William Wallace, ''The Reporters'' (Boston: Soule and Bugbee, 1882) 347-48</ref> As a result, the works reflect both the trends of the earlier period and the more modern trends of the later period.<ref>Percy H. Winfield, ''The Chief Sources of English Legal History'' (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925) 183-84</ref> <br />
  
The reports were compiled between 1669 and 1732 by various known and unknown authors.<ref>W. S. Holdsworth, ''A History of English Law, Vol. VI'' (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1924) 555</ref>  As with other reports, their accuracy and authority vary greatly.<ref>Ibid.</ref> In fact, some volumes were so ill regarded that courts would outright reject any citation to them.<ref>Percy H. Winfield, ''The Chief Sources of English Legal History'' (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925) 184</ref>  In the words of Lord Holt on use of the forth volume in court, “See the inconveniences of these scrambling reports; they will make us appear to posterity for a parcel of blockheads.”<ref>Ibid.</ref> Scholars have regarded other volumes as more accurate.<ref>John William Wallace, ''The Reporters'' (Boston: Soule and Bugbee, 1882) 55</ref> American scholar William Green claims, “I feel a gratitude to the unknown authors of them and consider that my success in life, which has been considerable, is owing in a great measure to them.”<ref>Ibid.</ref> Wallace 355. However, He goes on to explain that he does not regard all of the volumes equally.<ref>Ibid.</ref> “I am fond of examining the better volumes of Modern. The 3d, 4th, 5th, and 7th modern are but so so; 8th and 11th are execrable; but 1st, 2d, 6th, 9th, 10th, and 12th Modern deserve a place in the better class of the old Reporters, especially 2d, 6th, and 12th.” <ref>Ibid.</ref> Regardless of how these reports appear today, they represent a substantial improvement over the reports of the previous period.<ref>W. S. Holdsworth, ''A History of English Law, Vol. VI'' (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1924) 559</ref>
+
The reports were compiled between 1669 and 1732 by various known and unknown authors.<ref>W. S. Holdsworth, ''A History of English Law, Vol. VI'' (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1924) 555</ref>  As with other reports, their accuracy and authority vary greatly.<ref>Ibid.</ref> In fact, some volumes were so ill regarded that courts would outright reject any citation to them.<ref>Percy H. Winfield, ''The Chief Sources of English Legal History'' (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925) 184</ref>  In the words of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holt_%28Lord_Chief_Justice%29 Lord Holt] on use of the forth volume in court, “See the inconveniences of these scrambling reports; they will make us appear to posterity for a parcel of blockheads.”<ref>Ibid.</ref> Scholars have regarded other volumes as more accurate.<ref>John William Wallace, ''The Reporters'' (Boston: Soule and Bugbee, 1882) 55</ref> American scholar William Green claims, “I feel a gratitude to the unknown authors of them and consider that my success in life, which has been considerable, is owing in a great measure to them.”<ref>Ibid.</ref> Wallace 355. However, he goes on to explain that he does not regard all of the volumes equally.<ref>Ibid.</ref> “I am fond of examining the better volumes of Modern. The 3d, 4th, 5th, and 7th modern are but so so; 8th and 11th are execrable; but 1st, 2d, 6th, 9th, 10th, and 12th Modern deserve a place in the better class of the old Reporters, especially 2d, 6th, and 12th.” <ref>Ibid.</ref> Regardless of how these reports appear today, they represent a substantial improvement over the reports of the previous period.<ref>W. S. Holdsworth, ''A History of English Law, Vol. VI'' (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1924) 559</ref>
  
 
==Evidence for Inclusion in Wythe's Library==
 
==Evidence for Inclusion in Wythe's Library==

Revision as of 14:18, 20 February 2014

Modern Reports, or, Select Cases Adjudged in the Courts of Kings Bench, Chancery, Common Pleas, and Exchequer: Since the Restoration of His Majesty King Charles II

by

Modern Reports
ModernReports1725v1.jpg

Title page from Modern Reports, volume one, George Wythe Collection, Wolf Law Library, College of William & Mary.

Author Great Britain
Editor {{{editor}}}
Translator {{{trans}}}
Published In the Savoy: Printed by Eliz. Nutt and R. Gosling, (Assigns of Edward Sayer Esq;) for D. Browne ... [and 9 others]
Date 1720-33
Edition Third
Language English
Volumes 6 volume set
Pages {{{pages}}}
Desc. (32 cm.)
Location [[Shelf {{{shelf}}}]]
  [[Shelf {{{shelf2}}}]]

Modern Reports is a title given to the twelve separately edited and published volumes of English common law following the close of the Year-Book period.[1] As a result, the works reflect both the trends of the earlier period and the more modern trends of the later period.[2]

The reports were compiled between 1669 and 1732 by various known and unknown authors.[3] As with other reports, their accuracy and authority vary greatly.[4] In fact, some volumes were so ill regarded that courts would outright reject any citation to them.[5] In the words of Lord Holt on use of the forth volume in court, “See the inconveniences of these scrambling reports; they will make us appear to posterity for a parcel of blockheads.”[6] Scholars have regarded other volumes as more accurate.[7] American scholar William Green claims, “I feel a gratitude to the unknown authors of them and consider that my success in life, which has been considerable, is owing in a great measure to them.”[8] Wallace 355. However, he goes on to explain that he does not regard all of the volumes equally.[9] “I am fond of examining the better volumes of Modern. The 3d, 4th, 5th, and 7th modern are but so so; 8th and 11th are execrable; but 1st, 2d, 6th, 9th, 10th, and 12th Modern deserve a place in the better class of the old Reporters, especially 2d, 6th, and 12th.” [10] Regardless of how these reports appear today, they represent a substantial improvement over the reports of the previous period.[11]

Evidence for Inclusion in Wythe's Library

Description of the Wolf Law Library's copy

View this book in William & Mary's online catalog.

References

  1. John William Wallace, The Reporters (Boston: Soule and Bugbee, 1882) 347-48
  2. Percy H. Winfield, The Chief Sources of English Legal History (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925) 183-84
  3. W. S. Holdsworth, A History of English Law, Vol. VI (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1924) 555
  4. Ibid.
  5. Percy H. Winfield, The Chief Sources of English Legal History (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925) 184
  6. Ibid.
  7. John William Wallace, The Reporters (Boston: Soule and Bugbee, 1882) 55
  8. Ibid.
  9. Ibid.
  10. Ibid.
  11. W. S. Holdsworth, A History of English Law, Vol. VI (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1924) 559