210 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. the common element and differentiating its field from the others. Of course more writers than one have recognized the propriety of treating "Justifications" under one head; but they have regarded them as more or less appurtenant to specific injuries, instead of looking for whatever common element there might be and analyzing them with reference to each other as well as to the different injuries associated with them. The article by Mr. Justice HOLMES suggests the practical usefulness of work in this direction. It has not been possible in the allotted space to explain difficult points, or to anticipate questions and criticisms naturally raised by the subject. What has been written will serve, perhaps, as a sug- gestion for those who have come to believe that there is still room for a theory of the law of Torts which shall, in a greater degree than now, be built up inductively from the cases themselves and yet bear a scientific form. No opinion is expressed, it should be added, as to whether it is possible or desirable to teach the law of Torts to-day according to the above grouping. Jolm H. Wigmore, Northwestern University Law School, Chicago.
