Torts — Malicious Abuse -of Process — Satisfaction. — The defendant ma- liciously directed an officer to levy an attachment on the goods of the plaintiff, who was not his judgment debtor. The plaintiff replevied the goods from the officer, and in the replevin suit obtained a judgment against the officer for damages, which remain unpaid. Held, that the return of the goods is not a bar to this action against the defendant for malicious abuse of process. Vincent v. McNamara, 39 Atl. Kep. 444 ( Conn. ). It is se'ttled that an action for malicious abuse of legal process will lie where a wrongful attachment is levied. Recovery was therefore properly allowed for damages to the goods and business losses sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the attachment. Zinn v. Rice, 161 Mass. 571. The decision is correct also on another ground. The return of the goods alone was only partial satisfaction, and therefore, according to the weight of American authority, was not a bar to the present action against a joint tort- feasor. Lavijoy v. Murray, 3 Wall. i. For this reason the result in the principal case seems preferable to that reached in Karrv. Barstow, 24 111. 580. The court there decided that a recovery in replevin with a return of the goods is a bar whether the damages awarded in the replevin suit be paid or not, because " the return is a satisfac- tion for the trespass." Trusts — Gift of Chose in Action — Book of Accounts. — An intestate delivered to the plaintiff as a gift his book of accounts. In an action against the ad- ministrator to recover the proceeds of the accounts subsequently collected by him, held, that the plaintiff is entitled to recover. Jonei Admr. v. Moore, 44 S. W. Rep. 126 (Ky.). It was held in Ashhrook v. Ryan, 2 Bush, 228, that a gift of an ordinary depositor's pass-book is not a valid gift of the deposit. A pass-book is generally regarded as not sufficiently resembling a specialty obligation to make its transfer a transfer of the debt. This reasoning seems to apply equally to an account-book. The principal case may be supported on the theory that the delivery of the book vested in the donee an implied Eower of attorney to collect the debt for his own benefit, which power was irrevocable ecause coupled with an interest, viz., legal title to the book. The term " legal interest," however has hitherto been restricted to something necessary to the collection of the debts ; nor have the courts regarded these transactions as transfers of powers of attorney. REVIEWS. Law and Politics in the Middle Ages. By Edward Jenks. New York: Henry Holt& Co. 1898. pp. xiii, 352. This book is a valuable contribution to legal history. It is a lucid exposition of those ideas and institutions which have had an abiding influence upon law and government. In the first two chapters Austin's doctrine, that law is the arbitrary command of the State, is shown to be untrue as regards the Middle Ages. The leges barbarorum and the feudal custumals were more or less declaratory of existing usages. Changes or reforms were adopted in practice and then declared to be law. It is not until England produces the first national law of medieval Europe, after the establishment of Parliament by Edward I., that Austin's doctrine becomes approximately true. In succeeding chapters the writer traces the early history of the State and of the administration of justice; the origin of the village, the hundred, and the shire ; and the inception of our ideas of property and contract. Chapter V. contains an admirable account of how the local districts in France and Germany became fiefs, while in England the Anglo-Norman kings converted the shires into State districts administered by royal officials, and thus succeeded in reconciling a strong monarchy with local government. Students of legal history will
