Page images
PDF
EPUB

limited, she could not be heard to complain as against the principal that the agent had, without her knowledge, exceeded his authority. In such a case it is open to the principal to dispute the extent and the existence of the authority, and to deny that the agent's act was done for his benefit, and such a defense is a complete answer unless the doctrine of estoppel prevents him bringing forward such evidence. To take a conveyance of property in his own name is clearly not within the ordinary duties of a clerk, and no one could be heard to say that he or she believed it to be so-unfounded or unreasonable belief by persons as to the duties of a solicitor's clerk cannot. enlarge the agent's authority.

Mr. M.-That seems to clear me of all liability with regard to Mrs. Buxomer. W. S.-Yes.

Mr. M.-Well, there's another case. W. S.-You didn't mention that in your letter.

Mr. M.-No, I only heard of it yesterday. It seems that this precious rascal, without my knowledge, saw and advised a Mrs. Hugon about raising a mortgage on her shop. She left the title deeds with him. It seems that he prepared and engrossed himself a conveyance to himself and forged her signature and the name. of a witness, and sold the property through some London auctioneers in his own name. Mr. Snark has her case also in hand. How do I stand here?

W. S.-How much this time?
Mr. M.-About £500.

W. S.-Well, I suppose the same principle applies—the act must be done for the master's benefit.

Mr. M.-Ah! but I read Farwell's judgment, and he said if she had handed the deeds to the clerk for him to advise on and deal with in the usual way, the principal might have been liable. What did his Lordship mean by that?

W. S.-Difficult to follow, isn't it?

Mr. M. Very difficult-in a sense Mrs. Hugon handed the deeds to my clerk to advise on and act, but what he did was not for my benefit.

W. S.-True-if the act must be for the master's benefit, it looks as though a solicitor is practically under no liability for the acts of his clerk, for a solicitor's clerk, when he does a swindle, always does it for his own and not the solicitor's benefit.

Mr. M.-Just what I was thinking. W. S. Of course, there is our old friend Limpus v. L. G. O.,2 a case where the tortious act was done in the principal's interest, and the principal held liable, but it is difficult to imagine a case where a solicitor's clerk would misappropriate moneys except for his own benefit. Of course, a devoted servant might do it for his master's benefit, but such a case would be rare.

Mr. M.-Yes, but to get back to my two cases.

W. S.-Yes. I should say that, since this case, you are not liable in either case, for in neither case was the act done for the master's benefit, and this is "an integral part of the law of agency." I suppose practically you will have to meet them, won't you?

Mr. M.-Yes; I suppose so, only I want to understand my legal position. Of course, it's all right, and I'm pleased to find I'm not liable, but for my reputation I shall have to make it good. To be quite frank, I feel a bit guilty—I've slowly let that fellow get too much power, and I shouldn't be a bit surprised if the court did not take the same view.

W. S.-Well, in this case, Lloyd v. Grace, Smith & Co., Lord Justice Vaughan Williams dissented from Lord Justice Farwell and Lord Justice Kennedy.

21 H. & C. 527.

Mr. M.-Ah! ah! I'm not wholly surprised.

W. S.-Yes, Lord Justice Vaughan Williams said that in his opinion there was evidence that there was such a holding out as to estop the defendant from asserting that Sandles-the clerk in that case had no authority to receive the deeds and take instructions, even though at the time that he received the deeds and took the instructions he was minded to commit the frauds. It was plain also that the defendant held out Sandles as his agent, from whom his clients might receive advice. Lord Justice Vaughan Williams said that personally he should hold the defendants liable.

Mr. M.—Will it go to the Lords?
W. S.-I don't know.

Mr. M.-If the act must be for the master's benefit, I almost agree with you that practically a solicitor will never-or hardly ever be liable for the fraudulent acts of his clerk unless in some way he is estopped-perhaps by his own negligence -perhaps I've been a bit negligent letting this chap get so much power and letting him see and advise clients in this way.

W. S. That may be what Lord Justice Farwell meant, and is what Lord Justice Vaughan Williams said. After all, this case only follows out to a logical conclusion the principle that a master is liable for the fraudulent acts of his servant committed within the scope of the servant's authority, provided that when the servant committed such act he intended the master to benefit, and the

master did, in fact, derive benefit from such act.

Mr. M.-Well, to be on the right side and run no risk of estoppel by negligence, I shall have to stop all this interviewing of clients. In future only my son and I must see clients-in fact, we must do more work and less motoring and golf, for although I am not liable. yet I must pay, for my reputation's sake I must pay. I can't help thinking that masters ought to be liable for the frauds of their servants if committed within the scope of their authority, and this whether the master derived benefit or not.

W. S.-Well-well-it's a debatable point-rather a tall order.

Mr. M.-And now I'll be off. How do you keep?-all right?-that's good. We want you to come down to our Flower Show. You generally do. We'll put you up.

W. S.-I shall be very pleased; let me know the day.

Mr. M. I'll write you. Good-bye. I must catch my train.

W. S.-Good-bye-good-bye. Mr. M.)

(Exit

W. S. (sol.).-Old Meadows must have got a nice little fortune together. He takes a loss of a few thousands as coolly as I should a few pence-wish I had been a good old country and county solicitor they have a jolly life and make pots of money-but wait a bit-didn't the old boy marry well?-of course he did almost wish I had done so myself. (Left wishing.)

What One Has to Learn to be a Lawyer

By EDMOND IRVING LA BEAUME

W

WHEN a boy begins to think about choosing his serious vocation in life, he finds very little definite information to help him in making the choice. Most of us waste a lot of time before we hit upon the occupation for which we are best fitted. This is often unavoidable, but in the case of the professional man there is very little time to waste. The purpose of this article is not to draw men into a somewhat crowded profession by extolling the glories of a life at the bar, but to show those who are thinking of becoming lawyers some of the difficulties they will encounter, with hints for overcoming them. And when I say, "those who are thinking of becoming lawyers," I mean lawyers who intend to practice their profession. I have not the space to speak of the law as an asset to the business man or the politician.

First, what are the natural qualifications that a lawyer should possess? Conversation with those who are preparing men for the bar shows that the lay mind is permeated to an absurd extent with the mistaken idea that the argumentative boy is cut out by nature for a jurist. "I receive letters from fond parents almost every day," said the dean of one large law school, "telling me that their sons will make fine lawyers because they are always arguing. There never was a greater mistake. These people think that a lawyer spends his time disputing in a courtroom. As a matter of fact, even court lawyers, who are a very small part of the legal profession, do about four-fifths of their work outside of court."

Remembering, then, that the mere fact that you are fond of contradicting your elders, and that you sustain your contradictions with aggressiveness and skill, does not necessarily signify that you will one day be a member of the Supreme Bench. Let us inquire into some of the things that are really essential to the successful lawyer. The authority just quoted gave as the mental attributes the lawyer should possess "the power of clear, logical thinking, with the intellectual grasp that enables one to take in many sides of a situation readily, and to distinguish between problems which look alike, but are not, a keen sense of justice, and enough common sense to know instinctively, at least in a general way, what is right for a man to do and what is wrong."

A writer in a legal periodical says: "The law is an intensely intellectual profession, and the successful study of our jurisprudence requires the mastery and control of one's intellectual processes, and the development of one's reasoning faculties, to a degree that is ordinarily attained only after long disciplinary study." Thus we see that success at the bar rests upon something more solid than an unwillingness to admit oneself in the wrong and an ability to give to the wrong the semblance of the right.

Accepting the idea that the law is a scholarly profession, how shall we prepare for it? There are two roads open. You may prepare You may prepare for your bar examination either by attending a law school or by "reading" law in an office. The former method is preferable, and to-day about seventy per cent. of our lawyers

come to the bar by way of the schools. In many cases, however, the latter method is the only practical one. It is a good one, too, under proper conditions, and it will be discussed later.

For those who can do so it is advisable to take a college degree before entering the law school. The Harvard and Columbia schools demand this. Some of the other institutions require two years, others one year, of college work, and the rest simply enforce, in a more or less scrupulous fashion, the presentation of some proof of a high school education or its equivalent. The law school course usually covers three years. There are some schools in the South which offer a two-year course; but, although they have some warm defenders, all that can be said in favor of the short course seems to be greatly offset by the fact that there is much talk among the larger schools of lengthening the course to four years.

A quotation or two from the writings of legal educators will explain why a college degree is preferable. We find this in the article just quoted: "The law teacher realizes, more keenly, probably, than any one else, because his attention is constantly challenged to the fact, that, as a rule, the strongest students in law are those who had an extended and systematic preparatory training." Another writer says: "We take it to be conceded, at least among our brethren, that there is no profession or calling which requires a broader, deeper, fundamental knowledge than the profession of the lawyer. The various and diverse phases of life with which it deals necessarily require this for the successful practitioner, so that to-day there is a universal demand and a general trend among the law schools of our country requiring a broader fundamental knowledge and a higher mental training on

the part of the student who desires to pursue the law course."

The belief has been expressed that it does not make any difference what the boy who intends to enter the law school studies in college, as long as he gets the mental training that comes from following any systematic course of study. It seems to be the more general opinion, however, that a knowledge of certain definite subjects aids materially in the study of law. Most of these would almost surely be included in any wellrounded college course, so that the boy who goes through college before entering the law school gets his mental training and his useful knowledge together. But for the boy who has only the time and money to go through high school, or at most to spend a year or two in college, all the knowledge he can acquire, which bears either directly or indirectly on the study of law, becomes doubly important.

To understand the law one must know something of its historical development. The law is not a set of rules written out in statute books, which can be learned and applied like mathematical formulæ. It is a living thing, that is subject to change like all living things. In order to understand it, one must be familiar with the processes of change and development through which it has passed in arriving at the point where it is to-day. A lawyer who knows simply the law of the community in which he practices is like an engineer who knows his formula by rote, but knows nothing of the mathematical principles involved in their derivation. But just as it is impossible for an engineer to carry all the necessary formulæ in his head, it is impossible for the lawyer to carry in his head the whole body of law that he is called upon to use. Both have their books to fall back upon, and both

are helpless without them; while the lawyer, who understands the principles upon which his formulæ have been built up, can construct the law or the formulæ in an emergency.

At best the man who knows only rules can approach the likeness of a machine which is useless if one of its parts is lost. The man who knows principles can learn the rules with less effort, and if he lose one of them he is no whit dismayed, for his mind is stored with resources for meeting such a contingency. To be successful, a lawyer must be resourceful. The law is not an exact science, like mathematics. It is more subject to change, and for this reason it is all the more important that you who intend to use it should understand its principles, so that you will not gape stupidly if a rule is wiped away and even your books do not give you the new one. And, as we have said, these principles can only be understood in the light of their historical development. In an address made as president of the Association of American Law Schools, Prof. W. P. Rogers said: "The development of civilization and the advance of civil government are so interwound with the growth and development of the law that, in pursuing either, one cannot avoid the other, and the student who has completed a course in history is delighted and charmed later with his legal studies, when he discovers himself frequently crossing and traversing familiar paths." You who wish to be a lawyer cannot acquaint yourself too thoroughly with history-particularly social and constitutional history.

The so-called "common law," which is the law of all but one of the states of the Union, is based upon the common law of England, which in turn goes back to Roman law for its inception. Thus we may narrow down the most impor

tant part of our program of historical study to that which deals with Rome, England, and the United States, as far as it is possible to study the history of one of these without reference to that of neighboring civilizations.

Probably the subjects of next importance in leading up to the study of law are economics and social and political science. At least an introduction to these studies is found among the courses provided for the freshman or sophomore year in most colleges, but they are seldom taught with anything like adequacy in the high school. It is for the student who must combat the disadvantage of not having a college education to gain by private study as thorough an insight into them as possible.

Attention to the art of written and oral expression cannot be too strongly urged. The former is necessary to all lawyers. The latter is necessary to some, and is a useful accomplishment to all. To quote Professor Rogers once more: "We should all agree that one cannot take too much of what is generally designated as the course in English, for the lawyer who can use with fluency. and accuracy the words of the English language is well equipped for the law, though he may be ignorant of other languages."

Of oral expression he says: "And to every young man, who contemplates a life at the bar, I would say, miss no opportunity to cultivate this art. Take advantage of every occasion which gives you a chance to think and talk in public."

As accuracy is one of the pre-eminent requirements of the legal practitioner, mathematics, and other studies which induce it, are of great importance as mental training. When you present a case or draw up a brief, the watchful adversary will take advantage of any in

« PreviousContinue »