446
The Green Bag,
Purchasers' Act and the Registry Act. The only statute which bore his name, however, was the act enabling the Chancery Courts to give damages in lieu of specific perform ance or injunction. Hatherley (i868-'72j sustained on the woolsack the reputation which he made as Vice Chancellor. He was an accurate and sound judge, although somewhat over shadowed by his distinguished contempo raries. He thought so quickly and ex pressed his opinion so readily (he always delivered oral judgments) that his opinions lacked form. Lord Campbell, on appeal, once commented strongly on the "prodi gious length" and slipshod style of his judgContracts — Cundy v. Lindsay, 3 A. C. 403; Rossiter v. Miller, 3-1129; Husseyz'. Home-Payne, 4-316; Brogden v. Metropolitan Ry. Co., 2-672; Rhodes т. Forwood, 1-261; Thorn v. Mayor of London, 1—126; Lakeman v. Mountstephen, 7 E. & I. App. 20. Torts — Metropolitan Ry. Co. v. Jackson, 3 A. C. 196, Hawkins v. Rokeby, 7 E. & I. App. 753; Bridges v. No. Condon Ry., 7-537; Hammersmith Ry. ->. Brand, 4-215; Rylandst/. Fletcher. 3-330; Prudential Ins. Co. v. Knott 10 Ch. App. 144. •VUls — Fulton z». Andrew, 7 E. & I. App. 456; Omahoneyz'. Burden, 7-392; Hill v. Crook, 6-283; Harring ton •'. Harrington, 5-103; Suck ville West r. Holmesdale, 4-571; Bowen v. Lewis, 9 A. C. 904; Singleton v. Tomlinson, 3-413; Thomson v. Eastwood, 2-227. Mercantile law — Bowes v. Shand, 2 A. C. 455; Good win p. Roberts, 1-488; Ward v. Hobbs, 4-19; Steel». State Steamship Co., 3-75; Vyse v. Foster, 7 E. & I. App. 728; Morgan v. Laixviere, 7-429; Shotsman v. Ry. Co. 2 Ch. App. 332; In re Agra& Masterman's Bank, 2-391. Miscellaneous — Lyon v. Fishmonger's Co., i A.C. 670 (riparian rights); Swindon Waterworks Co. v. Nav. Co., 7 E. & I. App. 701 (do); Kendall v. Hamilton, 4 A. C. 512 (joint and several liability); Doherty v. Allman, 3-716 (injunction); Singer Mfg. Co. v. Wilson, 3-381 ( trade mark ); De Thoren v. Atty. Gen., I-6S8 (Scotch marriage); Clarke. Adié, 2-317 (patent); Harrison v. Anderson Foundry Co., 1-575 (do).; Corser z/. Cartwright, 7 E. & I. App. 734 (estate); Nickalls т. Merry, 7-538 (broker); Shropshire etc. Co., v. Queen, 7-504 (equitable mortgage); Beattie v. Lord Ebury, 7-108; Lamaire v. Dixon, 6-474 (specific performance) Ferguson v. Wilson, 2Ch. App. 77 (do); Maxwell v. Hogg, 2-307 (copyright); United States v. Wagner, 2-582 (foreign state as plaintiff); Patch v. Ward, 3-203 (fraud); Lloyd v. Banks, 3-488 (notice); Parker v. McKenna, 10-114 ( trustees); Wilson v. Merry, i Sc. & Div. App. 328 (fellow servant); Redsdale v. Clifton, 2 P.D. 276; Attwood v. Maude, 3 Ch. App. 369; Gisborne v. Gisborne, 2 A. C. 300.
merits. He was amiable and exceedingly religious. "The monotony of his character," said Westbury, "was unrelieved by a single fault." 1 Sir John Romilly (i85i-'73) presided over the Rolls Court during this period, when the work of the court was rapidly increasing. His numerous decisions display industry rather than breadth and grasp. His haste in disposing of cases led him sometimes to decide without sufficiently considering the principles involved and the precedents by which they were governed, and he %vas often reversed on appeal. Vice Chancellors of various degrees of ability served during this period. Upon the promotion of Knight Bruce in 1851, of Turner in 1853, after a short service as Vice Chancellor (i85i-'53) to the Court of Appeals in Chancery, and of Rolfe (i85o'5i) to the woolsack, the office was held during the next fifteen years by Kindersley (i8si-'66), Stuart (iS^-'fi) and PageWood (i8S3-'68). Kindersley was a sound equity lawyer, whose decisions were seldom reversed. His opinions are, as a rule, based upon broad principles, and bear the impress of a supe rior mind and sound judgment. Stuart was the weakest of the later Vice Chancellors, and was generally reversed on appeal. A witty counsel once placed an appeal from his decision on the calendar of motions of course. Page-Wood was one of the most competent and satisfactory judges who held this office. It was as Vice Chancellor that he laid the basis of the reputation in equity which led to his appointment as Chancellor. 'Gastrique z1. Imrie,4 E. & I. App. 414; Barber:'. Meyerstein, 4 do. 317; Aister v. Perryman, 4 do. 521; Knox v. Gye, 5 do. 656; Daniel v. Metropolitan Ry., 5 do. 49; Overend v. Gurney, 5 do. 480; Rankin r. Potter, 6 do. 83; Bain v. Fothergill, 7 do. 170; Orr Ewing?'. Colquhoun, 2 App. Cas. 839; Thorn т. Mayor of London, i do. 120; Rhodes v. Forwood, I do. 256; Bowes v. Shand, 2 do. 455; Brogden v. Metropolitan Ry., ido. 666; Rossiter г». Miller, 3 do. 1124; Kendalls. Hamilton. 4 do. 504; Sturla v. Frécela, 5 do. 623; Harrod v. Harrod, i K. & J. 4; Reade»: Lacy, I J. & H. 524.
