146 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. but not all of it ; the king will come round for his share. The king has a right . . . call it governmental, call it proprietary, call it what you will, it ends in bread and beer ; and that is where the cultivator's right ends." 'I'his is good reading and good thinking. If any one deem it baseless conjecture, brilliantly expressed, let him look at the Appendix. This oc- cupies more than half the book, and records a patient and exhaustive investigation into the history of the Cambridge fields and houses from Domesday to this century, with a few careful notes on the history and in- stitutions of the borough. Professor Maitland's thought is clear and his style graceful because he has made his investigation and formed his con- clusions before he has attempted to write his book. j. h. b. A Treatise on the Law of Negligence. In two volumes. By Thomas G. Shearman and Amasa A. Redfield. Fifth edition. Substantially rewritten. New York: Baker, Voorhis, & Co. 1898. pp. ccii, 1,427. This work requires no general introduction; and the reviewer's attention is now to be confined mainly to the changes and additions which appear in the fifth edition. Negligence so pervades the different branches of the law that any treatment of it must be rather disjointed. The same general principles, however, run through the subject; and Jjy setting forth these' principles in the first chapter and following them throughout, the authors avoid the error of making a mere collection of authorities. This prelim- inary is clearly and acutely written, although it is believed that complexity would have been avoided if, instead of three degrees of care, simply due care under all the circumstances had been used as a basis. Accuracy of definition avoids much of the danger caused by this complexity. But the preliminary statement of principle is little changed from the fourth edi- tion, and hence is not directly under consideration. From 1,429 pages of the fourth edition the two volumes have now reached a total of 1,629 pages. Some sections are altered, some entirely rewritten ; and a very complete collection is made of cases decided, even during the last year, on almost every conceivable point or diversity. The late cases are, as a rule, carefully classified, although occasionally a case is not given its full significance. Spade v. Lyim &" Boston R. R. Co., 168 Mass. 285, for instance, — a case decided hardly more than twelve months ago, — is the first case cited as showing that damages cannot be re- covered for mental suffering negligently caused ; whereas in fact the case was the second in America to raise the doubtful question whether dam- ages can be recovered for actual physical injury resulting from mental shock. The rule laid down by the court, that there can be no recovery for such an injury, by no means follows from the rule discussed in the text ; yet this further question is not touched upon. This oversight, how- ever, is exceptional, and the references are generally well made. The chief alteration in the present edition is in the treatment of that exception to the fellow-servant rule known as the "Vice- Principal" doc- trine. Such a doctrine, the authors state, has become generally accepted since the publication of the last edition. This statement at first reading is startling ; and although it is modified by careful definition so that the word " vice-principal " assumes a meaning not generally attributed to it, the statement seems somewhat too broad. Starting with the opinion that such a rule ought to exist, the writers are inclined to take their point of
