REVIEWS. ^39
letter wm received the goods were shipped, and the delendanti refuted to receive them. Held^ that, in the alraence of any evidence that any other order wai given, the laDKuage of the letter must be regarded as referring to the order of which a mem- orandum was made by the plaintiff's salesman, and so constituted evidence suffi- cient to go to the jury, as a memorandum in writing complying with the Statute of Frauds. Louisville AsphaU Varnish Co. v. Lorick, 8 S. E. Rep. 8 (S. C).
There is an able dissenting opinion. See also Blackburn on Sale*. 2d ed. 44.
Statute of Limitations — Owner's Lack of Possession — Interval BETWEEN Successive Disseisins. — Under the Statute of Limitations of 3 & 4 Will. IV., c 27, when a disseisor abandons land of which he has taken possession, the seisin thereupon revests in the lawful owner without entry on his part, and the statute ceases to run against him. If, therefore, after an interval . in which the land is not occupied, a second disseisor enters, the Statute of Limi- tations begins to run against the lawful owner only from the time of the entry of the second disseisor. Semble^ however, that if the possession of the two dis- seisors had been continuous, the statute would run from the entry of the first disseisor. Agency Co. v. Shorty 13 App. Cas. 793 (Eng.^.
That, under this statute, if the second intruder disseises the first, and does not represent the same persona or estate, the statute will run against the owner only from the entry of the second disseisor, even though the two disseisins are con- tinuous, see lecture note, i Harv. L. Key. 248, at 249.
For the distinction between the Statute of Limitations of 3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 27, which has been followed in some of the more modern American statutes, and that of 21 Jac. I., c. 16; from which they are more commonly copied, see lecture note, supra; also Langdell on Equity Pleading, § ill et seq. ; and ikapin V. Freeland^ 142 Mas*. 383, digested I Harv. L. Rev. 48.
Trade-Marks — Right to Use after Dissolution of Partnership. — Setnble^ that a retiring partner who assents to the continuance of the business by the other partners at the old place of business and under the old firm name, retains no interest in the good-will of the business, and has no right to use a trade- mark which belonged to the old firm. Menendez v. //oli^ 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 143; s. c. 39 Alb. L. J. 7.
Wills — Power of Appointment — Execittion. — The testatrbc, having general power to appoint certain real estate by will, devised her property as fol- lows : ** I hereby devise and bequeath to my two youngest daughters all my property, real, personal, and mixed, and all my estate of every kind whatsoever and wheresoever situate." She had a Hie interest in the property, but apart from that and from her power of appointment she had no real estate, ffeld^ that her intention to execute her power was plainly apparent, because otherwise the will would be inoperative as to real property, and therefore the will was a valid exer- cise of the power. Balls v. Dampman^ 18 Md. Law Jour. 774 (Md.).
��REVIEWS.
��A Treatise on the Law of Conditional Sales of Personal Property. By Charles R. Miller. Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Co., 1888. 8vo.
With such predecessors as Lord Blackburn and Benjamin, Mr. Miller has not succeeded in adding anything of value to the law of sales. The last American edition of Benjamin by Judge Bennett has so thoroughly exhausted the subject, that there is little room for discus- sion which will be of service to the profession; and the author has not discussed mooted questions at all, but contented himself with the collec- tion of authorities. Although he apparently intends to treat the subject of conditional sales exhaustively, he does not cite some of the cases which are landmarks in the field; e, ^., Rugg v. Mineity 11 East, 210; Turley v. Bates, 2 H. & C. 200; Whitehouse v. Frost, 12 Eas^ 614, and others. This may be due to the author's inclination to rely exclusively on American cases, which is evident throughout the whole book ; but such a feature is not commendable to a thorough student of
