ISLAND. In 1784 the Proprietaries of West Jersey granted this island, describing it as situate in Salem county, New Jersey, to persons whose title became afterwards vested in Dr. Henry Gale of that state; and in 1831, the same state, by an act of its legislature, relinquished to Dr. Gale whatever interest it might have in the island. It had previously declared that its western boundary, at this place, came to the middle of the main channel of the Delaware river, a location which, as the main channel was then supposed to run, included the Pea-Patch Island as within the territory of New Jersey. In 1813, the state of Delaware, by an act of its legislature, conveyed the island to the United States, who soon after took possession of it and began to erect a fortress upon it. In consequence of these two grants, a controversy as to the right to the island began between Dr. Gale, claiming under the title of New Jersey, and the United States elaiming under that of Delaware. This dispute brought in question the boundary between the states of New Jersey and Delaware; and public attention was moreover directed to the matter from the accidental position of the island itself. Above it lie many principal towns or cities of the three states of Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, which could be readily devastated by an enemy's fleet unless the river was protected from below; while, from the width, the course, or the shifting character of the Delaware channel, there is scarcely any point either above or below, that offers a place where adequate defences could be erected for any of them. This island, however, constitutes the key of defence of the whole river. It stands just in the centre of its entrance, and commands its two channels, of which the deepest runs close along its side, and the other is so curved as to lie for a great distance directly and most favorably exposed to its guns. A fortress had been partially erected on the island by the United States during the war of 1812, but was destroyed by fire some years after. The towns along the Delaware River, whenever there was a rumor of danger of a rupture with either of the great naval powers, were constantly imploring congress to complete or rebuild the fortress upon this island; while at the same time the New Jersey claimants would appear with assertions of title to the island, fortified by written opinions from the law officers of the government itself, and by remonstrances from citizens of New Jersey against such an unlawful invasion of their territory as was contemplated by assuming possession of the island, except under grant of the individual proprietor. The contest had been diligently pursued for thirty-three years. It had occupied the attention of congress, and opinions, of directly opposite conclusion on the title, had been given by the best lawyers in the country. Two conflicting judgments in two different circuits of the United States had been obtained, and under them the harmonious operation of the federal courts was made the witness of a marshal of one district turning out of possession the tenants who had lately been put in by the marshal of another.

In this state of long protracted litigation and treaty, on the 8th of August, 1846, when the Oregon question had lately been giving to our relations with Great Britain a menacing aspect, congress passed an act authorizing the president of the United States to take such steps as he

may deem advisable for adjusting the title to the Pea-Patch Island.' In pursuance of this authority, communications were had between the presi dent, in behalf of the United States, and the Hon. John H. Eaton, counsel of the New Jersey claimant, by which it was agreed to submit the question of the title to arbitration."

Hon. John Sargeant, of Philadelphia, was appointed sole arbitrator, with full power to settle the case; his decision and award made in writing to be final and conclusive. The hearing, which lasted twenty-one days, was had in public in Philadelphia. John M. Clayton and James A. Bayard, Esquires, of Delaware, appeared for the United States, and George M. Bibb, Esq., of Kentucky, and John H. Eaton, Esq., of Tennessee, for Dr. Humphreys, in whom Dr. Gale's title had become vested. The case was elaborately and ably argued, and a vast amount of documentary evidence was put in on both sides, consisting of title deeds going back as far as the grant by Charles II. to the Duke of York, in 1633-4, and of numerous legislative enactments of New Jersey and Delaware. There was evidence also that New Jersey had exercised jurisdiction over the Delaware river, and that Delaware had had, for a long period, jurisdiction de facto over the Pea-Patch Island. On the 15th January, 1848, Mr. Sargeant made his award: "that the title to the Pea-Patch Island is in the United States."

The general appearance of the volume is highly creditable both to the reporter and the publishers. Copious side notes make reference to the subjects in evidence or under debate, easy. The statements are concise and clear, and no extraneous matter is admitted. From this specimen number, we anticipate much pleasure from the forthcoming volume, to which this case forms an Appendix.

THE LAW OF DEBTOR AND CREDITOR, IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA. BY JAMES P. HOLCOMBE. New York: D. Appleton & Co. Boston: Otis, Broaders & Co.

The only limitation upon the form of state governments, is, that they shall be republican; the only limitation upon state legislation, is, that it shall not conflict with the constitution or the laws of the general government. Hence, nearly all the laws regulating property, real and personal, its modes of acquisition and transfer, its descent and distribution, are within state jurisdiction. And as the states were originally settled by emigrants from different nations, bringing with them different habits and customs, and affected by various circumstances of soil, climate and pursuits, there is great diversity in the laws regulating property and its incidents. Especially is this true in respect to laws regulating the relations of debtor and creditor, their rights and obligations, and the remedies afforded to creditors against debtors who refuse to perform their obligations. These laws, under the appropriate title which we have placed at the head of this notice, are the subject of Mr. Holcombe's book.

Such are now the facilities of intercourse between the different states, that there is hardly any person engaged in the active business of life who does not

hold the interesting relation of debtor or creditor to citizens of other states than his own. It therefore frequently becomes necessary for business men to ascertain what course they can pursue to recover debts due from persons in other states, whose failure or negligence compels a resort to the laws of the place of the debtor's residence. For all such persons the book will be found a most useful and convenient manual. "Remedies to collect debts," "Proceedings in civil suits," "Attachments," " Assignments by insolvent debtors," and "Effect of death upon the rights of creditors," are some of the titles into which the work is subdivided. These and kindred subjects are treated of separately, as they exist in each of the several states, the District of Columbia and the Canadas. The design and execution of the work is such as to commend it to all who have occasion to examine the subject of which it treats, especially to merchants and lawyers, to whose wants it is more particularly adapted.

COMMENTARIES ON STATUTE AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION, containing an Examination of Adjudged Cases on Constitutional Law, under the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the respective States concerning Legislative Power; and also the Consideration of the Rules of Law in the Construction of Statutes and Constitutional Provisions. By E. FITCH SMITH, Counsellor at Law. One vol. pp. 976. Albany: published by Gould, Banks & Gould, Law Booksellers, 104, State street; and by Banks, Gould & Co. 144, Nassau street, New York. 1848.

In addition to the subjects mentioned in the above extended title, there are chapters upon the origin and history of legislation among the ancient governments in England, and in the colonies of Virginia, New Plymouth, Massachusetts Bay and Connecticut; upon the legislative powers of the states and the bills of rights of the respective states, and upon legislative authority irrespective of constitutional restrictions. These restrictions are arranged in three classes; the first, including those contained in the federal constitution, and applicable to the federal government; the second, those in the federal constitution, applicable to the state legislatures; and the third, those in the constitutions of the respective states, and applicable only to the legislature of the particular state. This third subdivision, being new, is discussed more at length than the other branches of constitutional law. The learned author is, we believe, the first in this country to throw into the form of a text book the decisions upon the construction and interpretation of statutes; and in this he has done good service. If there were a table of the cases cited, it would be of great assistance in referring to the points adjudicated upon. We hope this omission will be supplied when the work reaches a second edition.

The work contains much valuable matter. The author is a strict constructionist of the constitution, and also conscientiously opposed to "the progress of the political pestilence of excessive and unconstitutionali legislation."

REPORTS OF CASES ADJUDGED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. From January Term, 1799, to January Term, 1803, both inclusige; together with Cases determined in the Court for the Correction of Errors, during that period. By WILLIAM JOHNSON, Counsellor at Law. Second edition, with many Additional Cases, not included in the former edition, from the original Notes of the late Hon. Jacob Radcliff, one of the Judges of the Supreme Court during the time of these Reports, with copious Notes and References to the American and English Decisions. By Lorenzo B. Shepard, Counsellor at Law. Vol. II., pp. 595; containing the Cases from October Term, 1800, to October Term, 1801, inclusive. New York: Published by Banks, Gould & Co., Law Booksellers, No. 144, Nassau Street; and by Gould, Banks & Gould, No. 104, State Street, Albany. 1848.

This is a valuable reprint. The fact that these cases contain the opinions of Chancellor Kent, then a Judge, is sufficient to give a permanent value to the work. The additions by the editor appear to be well done.

THE LAW OF INFANCY AND COVERTURE. BY PEREGRINE BINGHAM, of the Middle Temple. Second American, from the last London edition. With Notes and References to English and American Cases, by E. H. Bennett. Burlington: Chauncey Goodrich. 1849.

So far as the work of Mr. Bingham is concerned, it is so generally known to the profession in this country, as to require little to be said. It is, perhaps, one of the best works upon the subjects there discussed, yet still far from what is desirable upon so important departments of the law of the domestic relations as are infancy and coverture. The author announces, in his advertisement, that the entire subject of the conveyance of land by deeds of lease and release, and whether such an act by an infant is void, or only voidable, is wholly omitted, out of deference to the opinion expressed by Mr. Preston in his late Treatise on Conveyancing, vol. 2, page 248, wherein he questions the soundness of the leading case of Zouch v. Parsons, 3 Barrow, 1794. But this case has certainly been followed in the American courts to a very great extent. Bost v. Mix, 17 Wendell, 119. But as a text book for learners, and a manual for the practising lawyer, the work of Mr. Bingham is, perhaps, as good as any. The editor, Mr. Bennett, who is, we believe, a son of Mr. Justice Bennett, of the Vermont supreme court, and now a resident in Massachusetts, has performed his part of the work with creditable care and ability. Mr. Bennett has here presented the profession with extended notes, upon all the more important subjects discussed in the principal work, with a systematic arrangement and thorough exhaustion of everything important to be known in regard to those matters, which compares advantageously with the best Boston or New York editions of English elementary law books; and with very extended references to the American cases, and most of the late English cases. We think the present edition a very considerable addition to the facilities before at hand, in regard to the subjects there

treated. The mechanical execution of the work is certainly very creditable to the publisher, although inferior, as we think, to the professional ability with which the work is edited.

A TREATISE ON THE LAW ON EVIDENCE. BY SIMON GREENLEAF, LL.D. Emeritus Professor of Law in Harvard University. Vol. I. Fourth Edition. pp. 743. Boston: Charles C. Little & James Brown. London: Stevens & Norton, 194 Fleet Street.

1848.

Our exalted opinion of this Treatise upon Evidence has been too frequently expressed upon the appearance of the several editions, to need repetition here. The extended and increasing sale of the work among a cautious and discerning profession is its best praise. This new edition is not a mere reprint of the former editions, but the work has been again carefully revised and corrected, and all the decisions in England, Ireland and America, published since the last edition, and which seem to affect the text, have been referred to, and new matter has been added which will increase its usefulness to the student and to the profession.

A DIGEST OF THE LAWS RESPECTING WILLS, EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS, JURISDICTION AND PRACTICE OF THE COURTS OF PROBATE AND EQUITY, IN RELATION TO THE ESTATES OF DECEDENTS. Also, the Law of Descent, Distribution, Dower, and Guardian and Ward, including the Statutes and Decisions of the High Court of Errors and Appeals of the State of Mississippi, and the Judicial Decisions of other States of the Union on the same subject. By. JOHN M. CHILTON. Vicksburg Printed by M. Shannon, for the Author. 1846. One Volume. pp. 528.

Aliscellaneous Intelligence.

PATTEE v. GREELEY.- In the November number of the Reporter we published some comments upon this case from a western correspondent. We give below some remarks upon it from a source nearer home; merely restating that the decision was, that a bond made on Sunday and not being a work of necessity or charity, is void under Rev. St. ch. 50, § 1.

The question for consideration is, "Did the legislature intend to prohibit such kinds of business as the executing of bonds on the Sabbath?" For if they did, the conclusion logically follows, that such instruments are void. The execution of an instrument in legal intendment, is something more than the mere manual act of signature and delivery. It may fairly include the negotiation of the contract, the settlement of the