Negotiable Instruments and the Federal Courts in Antebellum American Business

1976 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 435-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tony A. Freyer

That human needs and social realities are the roots of all systems of jurisprudence is nowhere more demonstrable than in the evolution of the law of business. Professor Freyer shows that neither the English common law of negotiable instruments nor the modifications made in it in the colonial era were adequate in the lusty, far-flung, and rapidly growing young nation that the Constitution of the United States created. Innovation, he reveals, promptly followed.

Author(s):  
Julius Henry Cohen ◽  
Kenneth Dayton

This article focuses on the federal arbitration law. On February 12, 1925, President Calvin Coolidge signed the United States Arbitration Law, which became effective on January 1, 1926. This act reversed the hoary doctrine that agreements for arbitration are revocable at will and are unenforceable, and in the language of the statute itself, they are made “valid, enforceable and irrevocable” within the limits of federal jurisdiction. There are three evils which arbitration is intended to correct: (1) the long delay usually incident to a proceeding at law, in equity or in admiralty, especially in recent years in centers of commercial activity, where there has arisen great congestion of the court calendars; (2) the expense of litigation; and (3) the failure, through litigation, to reach a decision regarded as just when measured by the standards of the business world. The article then argues that the proposed law rests upon the constitutional provision by which Congress is authorized to establish and control inferior federal courts. It also contends that sound public policy demands specific enforcement of arbitration agreements by the law.


2019 ◽  
pp. 173-212
Author(s):  
Lawrence M. Friedman

This chapter discusses the law on marriage and divorce, family property, adoption, poor laws and social welfare, and slavery and African Americans in the United States. In the colonial period, the United States had no courts to handle matters of marriage and divorce. Marriage was a contract—an agreement between a man and a woman. Under the rules of the common law, the country belonged to the whites; and more specifically, it belonged to white men. Women had civil rights but no political rights. There were no formal provisions for adoption. A Massachusetts law, passed in 1851, was one of the earliest, and most significant, general adoption law. The so-called poor laws were the basic welfare laws.


1979 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 211-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. M. C. Gummow

The Federal Court of Australia has only the jurisdiction conferred on it by statute. However, many disputes falling within that jurisdiction, particularly in trade practices matters, will also involve elements of common law or other State or federal statutory law. Section 32 invests in the Federal Court additional jurisdiction in some such cases in respect of “associated matters”. This may be compared with “pendent jurisdiction” developed by the federal courts in the United States. The object of this article is to analyse the meaning of the term “associated matters” and to consider the bearing it has upon the future relationship between the Federal Court and the various State courts.


Author(s):  
David FAVRE

The focus of this article is to track the progress that has been made on behalf of<br />animals within the legal institutions of the United States. While there is an obvious focus on<br />the adoption of new laws, there are many steps or changes that are necessary within broader<br />legal intuitions if substantial progress is to be made in the changing and enforcing of the<br />laws. For example, at the same time that legislatures must be convinced of the need for<br />change, so must the judges believe in the new laws, otherwise enforcement of the law will be<br />not forthcoming.<br />Besides the court and the legislature, legal institutions include law schools, legal publications,<br />and the various associations of lawyers and law professors. What is the visibility and<br />credibility of animal issues within these institutions? Without progress within all aspects of<br />the legal community, success on behalf of animals is not possible. We in the United States<br />have made progress, particularly in the past ten years, but we have much yet that needs to be<br />done. By charting the progress and lack of progress in the United States, the readers in<br />Brazil and other countries will have some landmarks by which to judge the progress of the<br />issue of animal rights/welfare within their own country.


Author(s):  
Nicholas Ravotti

The practice of law requires not only an understanding of the law itself (i.e., what the law “says”), but also the ability to conduct proper legal research to formulate cogent legal arguments in support of one's case. For attorneys practicing before state and federal courts in the United States, this is accomplished through the use of legal research databases that catalog and archive nearly all state and federal trial court and appellate court opinions. For attorneys who practice before the 573 federally-recognized Indian tribal courts, this task is far more complex. This chapter discusses the need for a culturally-appropriate legal research database to bridge the digital divide in tribal courts.


1977 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 270-295 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry J. Bourguignon

In an article published in this Journal in 1932, Professor Edwin Dickinson pointed out that the Supreme Court, in the first thirty years of its existence, dealt with 82 cases which raised questions of international law. The Court and counsel before it repeatedly cited the familiar writers on the law of nations: Grotius, Pufendorf, Bynkershoek, Burlamaqui, Rutherforth, and Vattel. As Dickinson pointed out, “It is an ancient doctrine of the Anglo-American common law that the law of nations is incorporated in and in some sense forms part of the national law.” Largely through decisions based on the principles expressed by the classical writers, the law of nations was early incorporated as part of the law of the United States.


AJIL Unbound ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 107 ◽  
pp. 23-30
Author(s):  
Andrew Sanger

As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., claims brought under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) must “touch and concern the territory of the United States … with sufficient force” for federal courts to recognize a federal common law cause of action for violations of international law.


2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jr. Richard J. Hunter ◽  
Henry J. Amoroso ◽  
John H. Shannon

In Part III of our study, the authors describe the types of transactions that are most common in products liability cases and also delineate the parties to the transaction.  This article concludes by discussing some “special topics” in modern product liability law: enterprise liability, alternative liability, and market share liability.  The article relies on references to the Uniform Commercial Code, the Restatement of the Law of Torts, and cites the major common law cases that have impacted on these important issues. Key Words:  Products Liability; Bailments; Franchising; Used Goods; Enterprise Liability; Market Share; Alternative Liability


1931 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-96
Author(s):  
A. H. Feller

To the ever-increasing confusion of doctrine which makes up the law of sovereign immunity, the courts of the United States have added procedural complications which, though not as weighty, are nevertheless as puzzling as any of the substantive rules. Of recent years the United States Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts have often had occasion to consider the method whereby the question of immunity was raised. The result has been the evolution of a set of rules so vaguely defined in the decisions as to offer little guidance to the bench and bar, and withal of interest to the scholar who finds that these rules exist in no other judicial system.


1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 805-813 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan I. Charney

Disputes with foreign policy implications have often been brought to the federal courts. These cases call attention to the tension between the authority of the political branches to conduct the foreign relations of the United States and the authority of the courts to render judgments according to the law. How this tension is resolved, in turn, bears directly on the commitment of the United States to the rule of law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document