816 V. BENCH AND BAR Under the service of Esher as master of the rolls his principal associates were Lindley (1881-99) and Fry (1883- 92) in equity, and Bowen (1882-94) and A. L. Smith (1892- 1900) in common law. After a laborious career at the chancery bar Lord Lind- ley spent six years as a judge in the Court of Common Pleas, and thus came to the Court of Appeal thoroughly equipped. Had other judges been equally well trained. Lord Selborne*s original scheme for the consolidation of law and equity might have been realized. As it happened, Lindley found his sphere of usefulness in the chancery division of the Court of Appeal, where for twenty years his accurate and methodical mind set a high standard of efficiency for his associates. As a spe- cialist he completely mastered the law relating to companies and to partnership. His opinions are logical, comprehen- sive and convincing, and the only criticism that the most cap- tious could make is that when any of his brethren dissent he is apt to wander off in all the by-paths of the subject in his evident desire to fortify his conclusion.^ Lord Justice Fry was one of the greatest technical masters of modern equity, App. 83; Hollins v. Fowler, 7 do. 762; The Parlement Beige, 5 P. D. 197; Bridges v. No. London Ry., 7 E. & I. App. 213; Bank of England V. Vagliano, 61 I.. T. 420; Medawar v. Grand Hotel Co., 64 do. 851; R. V. Barnado, 64 do. 73 ; Castillian v. Preston, 49 do. 29 ; Ballard v. Tom- linson, 52 do. 952; The Pondita, 51 do. 849; Macdougall v. Knight, 55 do. 274; The Moorcock, 60 do. 654; Searles v. Scarlett, 66 do. 837; Cam- pania de Mocambique v. British So. Africa Co., 66 do. 773; South Het- tor Coal Co. v. News Asso., 63 do. 293; Meux v. Great Eastern Ry., 64 do. 657; Wakelin v. London & South Western Ry., 65 do. 224; Seton v. Lafone, 57 do. 547; Walter v. Everard, 65 do. 443; Salmon v. Warner, 65 do. 132; Cleaver v. Mutual Life Asso., 66 do. 220; Royal Aquarium V. Parkinson, 66 do. 513; Turton v. Turton, 61 do. 571.
- R. V. Keyn, 2 Ex. D. 63; The Bernina, 12 P. D. 58; Angus v. Clif-
ford, 6 App. Cas. 779; Scaramanga v. Stamp, 4 C. P. D. 316; Hollins V. Mernev, 13 Q. B. D. 305; Tod Heatley v. Benham, 40 Ch. D. 97; Dashwood v. Magniac, (1891) 3 Ch. 306; Allcard v. Skinner, 36 Ch. D., 145; Maxim-Nordenfelt case, (1893) 1 Ch. 631; Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co., (1893) 1 Q. B. 265; Dalton v. Angus, 6 App. Cas. 740; Smith V. Chadwick, 20 Ch. D. 67; Stuart v. Bell, 64 L. T. 633; Red- dawav v. Hemp Spinning Co., 67 do. 301 ; Whitwood Chemical Co. v. Hardman, 64 do. 716; Re Piercv, 78 do. 277; Re Perry Almshouses, 79 do. 366 ; Lyons v. Wilkins, 79 do. 709 ; Pemberton v. Hughes, 80 do. 592; Low v. Bonvifere, 65 do. 533; McClatchie v. Hasham, 65 do. 691; Ballard v. Tomlinson, 52 do. 942; White v. White, 62 L. J., Ch. 342; I>emmon v. Webb, 63 do. 570; Hudson v. Ashby, 65 do. 515; Powell v. Birne Vinegar Co., 65 do. 563; Macduif v. Macduff, 65 do. 700; Har- dacker v. District Council, 65 L. J., Q. B. 363; Speight v. Gaunt, 23 Ch. D. 727.
