[11] Cf. Gray, supra, sec. 634; Salmond, "Jurisprudence," p. 143; Gény, op. cit., vol. I, p. 324, sec. III.
[12] "Common Law and Legislation," 21 Harvard L.
R. 383, 406.
[13] Supra, sec. 634.
[14] Edelstein v. Schuler, 1902, 2 K. B. 144, 154;cf. Bechuanaland Exploration Co. v. London Trading Bank, 1898, 2 Q. B.
658.
[15] Cases, supra.
[16] Mercer County v. Hacket, 1 Wall. 83; cf. Chase Nat. Bank v. Faurot, 149 N. Y. 532.
[17] Lewy v. Johnson, 2 Pet. 186.
[18] First Nat. Bank v. Farson, 226 N. Y. 218.
[19] Irwin v. Williar, 110 U. S. 499, 513; Walls v. Bailey, 49 N. Y. 464; 2 Williston on Contracts, sec. 649.
[20] Cf. Gény, op. cit. , vol. I, p. 319, sec. 110.
[21] Dillon, "Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America," p. 19, quoted by Pound, 27 Harvard L. R. 731, 733.
[22] Printing etc. Registering Co. v. Sampson, L. R. 19 Eq. 462, 46S.
[23] Cf. Brütt, supra , pp. 161, 163.
[24] Hobbes, vol. II, p. 264; quoted by W. G. Miller, "The Data of Jurisprudence," p. 399.
[25] Sir James Parke, afterward Lord Wensleydale, in Mirehouse v. Russell, I Cl. & F. 527, 546, quoted by Ehrlich, "Grundlegung der Soziologie des Rechts" [1913], p. 234; cf. Pollock, "Jurisprudence,"p. 323.
[26] Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U. S.
205, 221.
[27] 9 Modern Legal Philosophy Series, pp. 159-163, 172-175; cf. Ehrlich, "Die juristische Logik," pp. 215, 216; Zitelmann, "Lücken im Recht," p. 23; Brütt, "Die Kunst der Rechtsanwendung,"p. 75; Stammler, "Die Lehre von dem richtigen Rechte," p. 271.
[28] Kiss, "Equity and Law," 9 Modern Legal Philosophy Series, p. 161.
[29] "Grundlegung der Soziologle des Rechts" [1913], p. 234.
[30] 19 L. Q. R. 15.
[31] Enzyklopadie, Bd. I, D. 10; Philosophy of Law, 12 Modern Legal Philosophy Series, p. 58.
[32] Supra , p. 133, et seq.
[33] "System des Rechts und Wirthschaftsphilosophic."Bd. 3, L 28.
[34] Pound, "Administrative Application of Legal Standards," Proceedings American Bar Association, 1919, pp. 441, 449.
[35] Ibid. , p. 451; cf. Pound, "Mechanical Jurisprudence," 8 Columbia L. R. 603.
[36] "Sociological Method," transl., 9 Modern Legal Philosophy Series, p. 131.
[37] Gmelin, supra ; cf. Ehrlich, "Die Juristische Logik," p. 187; Duguit, "Les Transformations du droit depuis le Code Napoléon,"transl., Continental Legal Hist. Series, vol. XI, pp. 72, 70.
[38] Op. cit. , vol. II, p. 92, sec. 159.
[39] Vol. II, p. 91.
[4O] Pound, "Juristic Science and the Law," 31Harvard L. R. 1047, 1048.
[41] Cf. Duguit, supra .
[42] Haines, "The Law of Nature in Federal Decisions,"25 Yale L. J. 617.
[43] Hough, "Due Process of Law Today," 32 Harvard L. R. 218, 227.
[44] Cf. Hough, p. 232; also Frankfurter, "Const.
Opinions of Holmes, J.," 29 Harvard L. R. 683, 687; Ehrlich, "Die juristische Logik," pp. 237, 239.
[45] 198 U. S. 75.
[46] P. 75.
[47] P. 76.
[48] Noble v. State Bank, 219 U. S. 104; Tanner v. Little, 240 U. S. 360; Hall v. Geiger Jones Co., 242 U. S. 539; Green v. Frazier, 253 U. S. 233; Frankfurter, supra .
[49] Burgess, "Reconciliation of Government and Liberty."[50] Adams v. Tanner, 244 U. S. 590.
[51] People v. Williams, 189 N. Y. 131.
[52] People v. Schweinler Press, 214 N. Y. 395.
[53] Muller v. Oregon, 208 U. S. 412; Pound, "Courts and Legislation," 9 Modern Legal Philosophy Series, p. 225; Pound, "Scope and Progress of Sociological Jurisprudence," 25 Harvard L. R. 513; cf.
Brandeis, J., in Adams v. Tanner, 244 U. S. 590, 600.
[54] U. S. Const., 14th Amendment.
[55] Holmes, J., dissenting in Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U. S. 1, 27.
[56] Montpellier, Coulet et fils, éditeurs, 1910.
[57] "There is now a tendency to consider no contract worthy of respect unless the parties to it are in relations, not only of liberty, but of equality. If one of the parties be without defense or resources, compelled to comply with the demands of the other, the result is a suppression of true freedom."--Charmont, supra , p. 172; transl. in 7 Modern Legal Philosophy Series, p. 110, sec. 83.
[58] Klein v. Maravelas, 219 N. Y. 383, 386.
[59] Cf. Frankfurter, supra ; McCulloch v.
Maryland, 4 Wheat. 407.
[60] Munroe Smith, "Jurisprudence," pp. 29, 30;cf. Vander Eycken, supra , pp. 383, 384; also Brütt, supra, p. 62.
[61] Kohler, "Interpretation of Law," transl. in 9 Modern Legal Philosophy Series, 192; cf. the Report of Prof. Huber on the German Code, quoted by Gény, "Technic of Codes," 9 Modern Legal Philosophy Series, p. 548; also Gény, "Méthode et Sources en droit privé positif," vol. I, p. 273.
[62] Munroe Smith, supra .
[63] Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113.
[64] German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Kansas, 233 U.
S. 389.
[65] German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Kansas, supra .
[66] American Coal Mining Co. v. Coal & Food Commission, U. S. District Court, Indiana, Sept. 6, 1920.
[67] L. 1920, chaps. 942 to 953.
[68] Since these lectures were written, the statutes have been sustained: People ex rel. Durham Realty Co. v. La Fetra, 230 N. Y. 429; Marcus Brown Holding Co. v. Feldman, 256 U. S. 170.
[69] Green v. Frazier, 253 U. S. 233.
[70] Transl., Continental Legal Hist. Series, vol.
XI, p. 74, sec. 6, et seq .; for a more extreme view, see R. H. Tawney, "The Acquisitive Society."[71] Otis v. Parker, 187 U. S. 608.
[72] The Germanic, 196 U. S. 589, 596.
[73] "Die Kunst der Rechtsanwendung," p. 57.
[74] Missouri, K. & T. Co. v. May, 194 U. S.
267, 270; People v. Crane, 214 N. Y. 154, 173.
[75] Cf. Collins, "The 14th Amendment and the States,"pp. 158, 166.
[76] Learned Hand, "Due Process of Law and the Eight Hour Day," 21 Harvard L. R. 495, 508.
[77] Cf. Laski, "Authority in the Modern State,"pp. 62, 63.
[78] Knowlton, J., in Anchor Electric Co. v. Hawkes, 171 Mass. 101, 104.
[79] Cf. Laski, "Authority in the Modern State,"p. 39. Notes to Lecture III [1] Seaver v. Ransom, 224 N. Y. 233.
[2] Fosmire v. National Surety Co., 229 N. Y. 44.
[3] Cf. Duguit, op. cit. , Continental Legal Hist. Series, vol. XI, p. 120, sec. 36.
[4] Wood v. Duff Gordon, 222 N. Y. 88.
