English rule in Washington

1933That the American courts have not followed the English rule, is quite clearly demonstrated by the language of Judge Cardozo in In re Melrose Avenue , 234 N.Y. 48 , 136 N.E. 235 , 23 A.L.R. 1233 , where, in deciding a somewhat similar question, he said: "Escheat, as it survives in the Constitution of New York, preserves the name but ignores the origin of its feudal prototype.

1933That the American courts have not followed the English rule, is quite clearly demonstrated by the language of Judge Cardozo in In re Melrose Avenue , 234 N.Y. 48 , 136 N.E. 235 , 23 A.L.R. 1233 , where, in deciding a somewhat similar question, he said: "Escheat, as it survives in the Constitution of New York, preserves the name but ignores the origin of its feudal prototype.

1968Stat., § 1210 [P.P.C. § 38-1]) provides that “Every person of sound mind and suitable age and discretion, except as hereinafter provided, may be a witness in any action or proceeding.” We later in the same opinion quote State v. Soyka, 181 Minn. 533 , 233 N.W. 300 , on the “Lord Mansfield rule”: “Dean Wigmore has made a very destructive analysis of the ‘dogmatic’ pronouncements of the English rule.

1968Stat., § 1210 [P.P.C. § 38-1]) provides that “Every person of sound mind and suitable age and discretion, except as hereinafter provided, may be a witness in any action or proceeding.” We later in the same opinion quote State v. Soyka, 181 Minn. 533 , 233 N.W. 300 , on the “Lord Mansfield rule”: “Dean Wigmore has made a very destructive analysis of the ‘dogmatic’ pronouncements of the English rule.

1961In 1925, the New York Court of Appeals decided Ader v. Blau, 241 N. Y. 7 , 148 N. E. 771 , 41 A. L.

1961In 1925, the New York Court of Appeals decided Ader v. Blau, 241 N. Y. 7 , 148 N. E. 771 , 41 A. L.

1957Jur. 969 , Contracts, § 391, summarizes the situation: “An anticipatory breach of contract is one committed before the time has come when there is a present duty of performance, and is the outcome of words or acts evincing an intention to refuse performance in the future.” The English doctrine was transfused into the main current of American law by Chief Justice Fuller in Roehm v. Horst, 178 U. S. 1 , 44 L.

1957Jur. 969 , Contracts, § 391, summarizes the situation: “An anticipatory breach of contract is one committed before the time has come when there is a present duty of performance, and is the outcome of words or acts evincing an intention to refuse performance in the future.” The English doctrine was transfused into the main current of American law by Chief Justice Fuller in Roehm v. Horst, 178 U. S. 1 , 44 L.

1951For this reason, which, it is submitted, is the underlying basis of the English doctrine and the better American *522 view, the instant case [ Penington v. Commonwealth Hotel Const. Corp., 17 Del.

1951For this reason, which, it is submitted, is the underlying basis of the English doctrine and the better American *522 view, the instant case [ Penington v. Commonwealth Hotel Const. Corp., 17 Del.

1937Sweet v. Lowry, 123 Minn. 13 , 142 N. W. 882 , 47 L.

1937Sweet v. Lowry, 123 Minn. 13 , 142 N. W. 882 , 47 L.

1928For these and other reasons, we are persuaded that the English rule above quoted, if applied to the full extent of its words, would be against public policy, and would produce results contrary to the real understanding of parties more often than the reverse.” Miller v. Hoeschler, 126 Wis. 263 , 105 N. W. 790 .

1928For these and other reasons, we are persuaded that the English rule above quoted, if applied to the full extent of its words, would be against public policy, and would produce results contrary to the real understanding of parties more often than the reverse.” Miller v. Hoeschler, 126 Wis. 263 , 105 N. W. 790 .

1909As regards matters of defense arising out of collateral transactions, a holder unaffected with actual notice is as free as if he had taken the paper before maturity.” And many cases are cited to support the text, among others National Bank of Washington v. Texas, 20 Wall. 72 , 22 L.

1909As regards matters of defense arising out of collateral transactions, a holder unaffected with actual notice is as free as if he had taken the paper before maturity.” And many cases are cited to support the text, among others National Bank of Washington v. Texas, 20 Wall. 72 , 22 L.

1909Its limitations are defined in the case of Merritt v. Graves, 52 Wash. 57 , 100 Pac. 164 .

1909Its limitations are defined in the case of Merritt v. Graves, 52 Wash. 57 , 100 Pac. 164 .

1906Paul etc. Lumber Co., 19 Wash. 537 , 53 Pac. 727 , Dunbar, J., after discussing the history of the doctrine of fellow servant, and commenting on the fact that the principles involved had by some courts, by inharmonious and indiscriminate application, been made productive of oppressive wrong, said: “It is gratifying, however, to observe that recently judicial opinion seems to favor a restriction of the doctrine of non-liability for the actions of fellow servants, and the English rule, that a servant in command is a fellow servant, has been repudiated by a great majority of the American cases, a

1906Paul etc. Lumber Co., 19 Wash. 537 , 53 Pac. 727 , Dunbar, J., after discussing the history of the doctrine of fellow servant, and commenting on the fact that the principles involved had by some courts, by inharmonious and indiscriminate application, been made productive of oppressive wrong, said: “It is gratifying, however, to observe that recently judicial opinion seems to favor a restriction of the doctrine of non-liability for the actions of fellow servants, and the English rule, that a servant in command is a fellow servant, has been repudiated by a great majority of the American cases, a