If they are irrelevant, or mere repetition of what is already in English authorities, the citation of them is of course a waste of time; so is the citation of irrelevant English authorities; but if they are relevant, they may be of the highest value, not only for the intrinsic excellence of the judgments, monuments often of industry, learning, and genius, but as independent commentaries on the principles of the English common law or equity developing under new conditions among a ' noble and puissant nation.' Lord Halsbury was of course quite right in declining to receive them as of equal authority with the decisions of our own courts; but this is no disparagenment to their juristic excellence, which, for the rest, has been many times acknowledged from the bench in reported judgments and dicta."
THE LAW SCHOOL
[These notes were taken by students from lectures delivered as part of the regular course in thie School. They represetit, therefore, no carefully formulated statements of doctrine, but only such informal expressionis of opinion as are usually put forward in the class-room. For the form of these notes the lecturers are not responsible.]
FORBEARANCE TO SUE AS CONSIDERATION FOR A PROMISE. - (From Prof. Keenzer's Lectures.) -The essence of coisideration is detriment to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has suffered detriment when he has given up a right. Therefore, whenever one has a right to sue, forbearance is a good consideration.
Now, when does one have a right to sue? There are three possible views.
(a) One view is that a man can invoke the aid of the law only when he has a good cause of action. He has no right to come into court unless he can succeed. The province of the court is simply to protect rights.
(b) The second theory gives a man a riglht to appear when the case is really doubtful, either in law or in fact. He can come into court and find out the truth of the matter. The court is an arbitrator to settle differences
(c) A third idea is that any man can appear in court whlo honestly believes that he has a cause of action. The court is bound to give a hearing to every man who appears bona fide
Historically the first view is correct. For a party coming into court has to succeed or pay costs. Costs are regarded as compensation for the wrong done to the opposite party in invoking the aid of the law against him witlhout any good cause of action. And in early times a defeated suitor had to pay a fine to the king in addition to the costs of the action.'[1]
The third view, however, is that on which the English courts act.[2]Callisher v. Bischofsheim[3] stands in England to-day for the proposi-
