Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Boycott - Medical Association, Horace Lafayette Wilgus
Boycott - Medical Association, Horace Lafayette Wilgus
Articles
The opinion of McCardie, J., (without a jury), in Pratt v. British Medical Association (1919), I K. B. 244, (noted in the MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW, June, 1919, p. 704), brilliantly reviewing the English cases, merits a fuller statement of the facts and principles involved than was possible in a short note. The action was by Doctors Burke, Pratt, and Holmes, against the British Medical Association and four of its officers, for damages for conspiracy, slander and libel.
Authority Of Allen V. Flood, Horace Lafayette Wilgus
Authority Of Allen V. Flood, Horace Lafayette Wilgus
Articles
In the case of Allen v. Flood, one of the Lords asked this interesting question, "If the cook says to her master, 'Discharge the butler or I leave you,' and the master discharges the butler, does the butler have an action against the cook?" This, Lord Shand said, was the simplest form in which the very question in Allen v. Flood could be raised.4 And, like the original question, it puzzled the judges and Lords very much to answer.
Incidental Injuries From Exercise Of Lawful Rights, Thomas M. Cooley
Incidental Injuries From Exercise Of Lawful Rights, Thomas M. Cooley
Articles
In the present paper those cases will be considered in which one person suffers an injury in consequence of the exercise by another person of his legal rights. Many such cases occur in which, although the injury may be severe, the law will award no compensation, there being no tort in the case because there is an absence of that wrong the concurrence of which with damage is essential to an action. Negligence might supply the wrong, but we now speak of cases of which that is not an element.
Incidental Injuries From Exercise Of Lawful Rights, Thomas M. Cooley
Incidental Injuries From Exercise Of Lawful Rights, Thomas M. Cooley
Articles
In the present paper those cases will be considered in which one person suffers an injury in consequence of the exercise by another person of his legal rights. Many such cases occur in which, although the injury may be severe, the law will award no compensation, there being no tort in the case because there is an absence of that wrong the concurrence of which with damage is essential to an action. Negligence might supply the wrong, but we now speak of cases of which that is not an element.