Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Departure From Precedent, H W. Humble Apr 1921

Departure From Precedent, H W. Humble

Michigan Law Review

With the death of the reason for it, every legal doctrine dies.' * * * The fact that the reason for a given rule perished long ago is no just excuse for refusing now to declare the rule itself abrogated, but rather the greater justification for so declaring; and if no, reason ever existed, that fact furnishes additional justification. The doctrine of stare decisis does not preclude a departure from precedent established by a series of decisions clearly erroneous, unless property complications have resulted and a reversal would work a greater injury and injustice than would ensue by following the …


Damage Liability Of Charitable Institutions, Carl Zollman Feb 1921

Damage Liability Of Charitable Institutions, Carl Zollman

Michigan Law Review

The question of the liability of charitable institutions to actions for damages presents great difficulties. This is not due how- -ever to a lack of cases. The question has peculiarly "engaged the attention of the bench and bar of the country. The problem has been scrutinized from every conceivable viewpoint. The arguments for and against have well nigh been exhausted, and little, if anything, new remains to be advanced".' In their opinions the courts have frequently gone back to certain English cases disregarding the points decided but stressing certain dicta which have been uttered by the judges which decided them. …


Bringing Third Parties Into Actions At Law—Set-Off Against The Assignor, Edson R. Sunderland Jan 1921

Bringing Third Parties Into Actions At Law—Set-Off Against The Assignor, Edson R. Sunderland

Articles

It frequently happens, in an action by an assignee, that the defendant wishes to use as a cross-action a claim against the assignor. This results in no diffiulty unless the amount of the set-off against the assignor is greater than the claim of the plaintiff, or unless the cross-action calls for a specific remedy against the assigner in addition to its defensive effect upon the plaintiff's demand. In each of these cases we have a three-sided controversy. In the first, the set-off operates against the plaintiff to the extent of his claim and against the assignor for the balance. In …