B004E3WO62 EBOK

by Morton J. Horwitz

  4. 0. W. HOLMES, The Path of the Law, in COLLECTED LEGAL PAPERS 167 (Harcourt, Brace & Howe 1920).

  5. This was Holmes's "favorite phrase," according to Professor Paul Freund. See Freund, Oliver Wendell Holmes, in 3 THE JUSTICES OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, 17891969, at 1756 (L. Friedman & F. Israel eds., Chelsea House 1969). The "cosmos" was a frequent topic of discussion between Holmes and William James. See, e.g., 1 R. PERRY, THE THOUGHT AND CHARACTER OF WILLIAM JAMES 504-6 (Little, Brown 1935); Holmes used the phrase "twist the tail of the cosmos" late into his life. See, e.g., Letter from O. W. Holmes to John Wu (May 14, 1923), reprinted in THE MIND AND FAITH OF JUSTICE HOLMES 420 (M. Lerner 1st ed., Little, Brown 1943)•

  6. Recent excellent articles on Holmes include White, The Integrity of Holmes' Jurisprudence, to HOFSTRA L. REV. 633 (1982); Toaster, Holmes a Hundred Years Ago: The Common Law and Legal Theory, to HoFSTRA L. REV. 673 (1982); Gordon, Holmes' Common Law as Legal and Social Science, to HoFSTRA L. REV. 719 (1982); Grey, Holmes and Legal Pragmatism, 41 STAN. L. REV. 787 (1989).

  7. O. W. HOLMES, THE COMMON LAW 5 (M. Howe ed., Harvard Univ. Press 1963).

  8. Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

  9. See White, The Rise and Fall of Justice Holmes, 39 U. CHI. L. REV. 51, 61-65 (1971) (stating that, by 1941, "Holmes had emerged as a 'deity . . . an Olympian who in judgment could do no wrong. . . .. " (quoting Hamilton, On Dating Justice Holmes, 9 U. CHI. L. REV. 206 (1957)).

  10. 0. W. HOLMES, supra note 7, at 38.

  11. Id. at 37.

  12. Id. at 40.

  13. Id. at 41.

  14. Id. at 40.

  15. Id. at 37.

  16. Id.

  17. Id. at 41.

  18. Id. at 42.

  19. Id.

  20. Id. at 38.

  21. Id. at 66.

  22. Id. at 66-67.

  23. Id. at 85.

  24. Id. at 88.

  25- Id.

  26. Id.

  27. M. HOWE, supra note 3, at 151-53, 169-72, 202-4.

  z8. Chancellor Kent, in 1832, proposed the orthodox view that "the plain intent" of the parties to a contract should prevail even "over the strict letter of the Contract" and that "[tjo reach and carry . . . the mutual intention of the parties . . . into effect, the law, when it becomes necessary, will control even the literal terms of the contract, if they manifestly contravene the purpose." z J. KENT, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW 554, 555 (zd ed., O. Halsted 1832). See generally M. HORWITZ, THE TRANSFORMATION OF American Law, 1780-1860 ch. 6 (Harvard Univ. Press 1977). See also the discussion of objectivism supra ch. 2.

  zq. See Horwitz, The Legacy of 1776 in Legal and Economic Thought, 1q J.L. & ECON. 621 (1976).

  30. 2 T. PARSONS, THE LAW OF CONTRACTS 3-4 (1st ed., Little, Brown 1855).

  31. See M. HORWITZ, supra note z8, at 258.

  32 See, e.g., Proprietors of the Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of the Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 420 (1837) (property rights redefined in order to encourage economic development); Losee v. Buchanan 51 N.Y. 476 (1873) (holding the defendant not liable for a non-negligent boiler explosion: "We must have factories, machinery, dams, canals and railroads. They are demanded by the manifold wants of mankind, and they lay at the basis of all our civilization."). See generally Horwitz, supra note 29, at 624-627; M. HORWITZ, supra note z8, passim.

  33• See infra text accompanying notes 140-49 and 97-102.

  34. 0. W. HOLMES, supra note 7, at 37.

  35. See id. at 77-78 ("The undertaking to redistribute losses simply on the ground that they resulted from the defendant's act would not only be open to [the objection of being inefficient] but, . . . to the still graver [objection] of offending the sense of justice.").

  36. Id. at 43.

  37. See infra text accompanying notes 39-50.

  ~8. S. GREENLEAF, TREATISE ON THE LAW OF EVIDENCE (1st ed., Little, Brown 1842).

  39. T. SEDGWICK, A TREATISE ON THE MEASURE OF DAMAGES (1st ed., Baker, Voorhis 1847).

  40. See M. HORWITZ, supra note 28, at 82-84.

  41. F. HILLIARD, LAW OF REMEDIES FOR TORTS 6oo-6oi (2d ed., Little, Brown 1873).

  42. Eliot, Exemplary Damages, 20 AM. L. REG. 570, 573-74. (1881)•

  43. Id.

  44. Maxwell, Exemplary Damages, 7 S.L. REV. 675, 681 (1881).

  45. Id.

  46. Letter to editor, 6 CENT. L.J. 74 (1878) (signed "G.K.").

  47. Id. at 74-75.

  48. Fay v. Parker, 53 N.H. 342, 382 (1873).

  49. Id.

  50. Id. at 397.

  51. Murphy v. Hobbs, 7 Colo. 541, 551 (1884).

  52. Id.

  53. 1 T. SEDGWICK, A TREATISE ON THE MEASURE OF DAMAGES 515 (A. Sedgwick & J. Beale, 8th ed., Baker Voorhis 1891).

  54. See, e.g., 1 T. BEVEN, NEGLIGENCE IN LAW 20-50 (zd ed., Stevens & Haynes 1895) ("[t]here is no matter within the range of jurisprudence that had given rise to more controversy than that which is concerned with determining what degrees of negligence are recognized by law.. . ."); F. WHARTON, A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE 21-58 (2d ed., Kay 1878); 1 S. THOMPSON, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE IN ALL RELATIONS 18-22 (Bowen-Merrill 1901); 1 T. SHEARMAN & A. REDFIELD, A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE 48-57 (4th ed., Baker, Voorhis 1888).

  55. Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Ld. Raym. 909, 92 Eng. Rep. 107 (Q.B. 1703).

  56. F. WHARTON, supra note 54. See also i S. THOMPSON, supra note 54, at 18-22 (of Holt's three-part division of negligence, Thompson writes, "[i]t is plain that such re finements can have no place in the practical administration of justice." Id. at 18. Of the state of the law he writes, "[II]o effort can extract from the current American decisions the conclusion that there are three degrees of culpable negligence." Id. at 19). But see 1 T. SHEARMAN & A. REDFIELD, supra note 54, at 48-57 (arguing for "three degrees of negligence" and applying the standard of "great care" to passenger carriers).

  57. See e.g., T. SHEARMAN & A. REDFIELD, A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE 21, 25-26 (2d ed., Baker, Voorhis 1870) (stating with regard to railroads, "from those whose business or occupation necessarily involves great risk of life, it demands a peculiar degree of vigilance, and sagacity, sometimes called the utmost care"). Francis Wharton, who sought to eliminate three degrees of negligence, feared the strict liability implications of "slight negligence." "[T]here exist . . . certain necessary though dangerous trades, of which we can say statistically that in them will be sacrificed prematurely the lives . . . of third persons. . . . Yet in such cases (e.g. gas-factories and railroads), we do not hold that liability for such injuries attaches to those who start the enterprise forseeing these consequences." F. WHARTON, A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE 61-62 (1st ed., Kay 1874).

  58. See, e.g., sources cited supra note 54.

  59. See generally R. WIEBE, THE SEARCH FOR ORDER, 1877-1920 (Hill & Wang 1967); C. FREDRICKSON, THE INNER CIVIL WAR: NORTHERN INTELLECTUALS AND THE CRISIS OF THE UNION 166-8o (Harper 1965).

  6o. See, e.g., z T. PARSONS, supra note 30, at 3-4.

  61. O. W. HOLMES, supra note 7, at 1o1.

  62. G. FREDRICKSON, supra note 59, at 176-77. See also E. WILSON, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in PATRIOTIC GORE: STUDIES IN THE LITERATURE OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR 743 (Oxford Univ. Press 1962).

  63. See Touster, In Search of Holmes from Within, 18 VAND. L. REV. 437, 449 (1965).

  64. See generally C. COOK, THE AMERICAN CODIFICATION MOVEMENT 23-45 (Greenwood Press 1981); Gordon, The American Codification Movement: A Study of Antebellum Legal Reform, 36 VAND. L. REV. 431 (1983).

  65. See id. at 46-66; L. LEVY, THE LAW OF THE COMMONWEALTH AND CHIEF JUSTICE SHAW 196-202 (Harvard Univ. Press 1957).

  66. THE CIVIL CODE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPORTED COMPLETE BY THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE CODE iii (Weed Parsons 1865) (quoting the act of April 6, 1857 appointing the commissioners) [hereafter CIVIL CODE].

  67. EIGHTH REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE CODE-PENAL CODE lxiv, 406, clxvii (We
ed, Parsons 1865) (completed draft of the code); FOURTH REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS OF PRACTICE AND PLEADINGS-CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IXXXi, 263 (Weed, Parsons 1848). The criminal code was enacted into law thirty-three years later, 1881 N.Y. Laws 442.

  68. THIRD REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE CODE xlvii, 607 (Weed, Parsons 186o) (containing the text of the political code that was never adopted).

  69. See CIVIL CODE, supra note 66.

  70. Id. at xxxi.

  71. Id.

  72. On the creation and history of the California Civil Code, see Pomeroy, The True Method of Interpreting the Civil Code, 4 W. COAST REP. 145 (1884); Harrison, The First Half Century of the California Civil Code, 10 CALIF. L. REV. 185 (1922); Van Alstyne, The California Civil Code, in WEST'S ANNOTATED CALIFORNIA CODES: CIVIL CODE 1-43 (West 1954); Englard, Li v. Yellow Cab Co.-A Belated and Inglorious Centennial of the California Civil Code, 65 CALIF. L. REV. 4 (1977).

  73. ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO URGE THE REJECTION OF THE PROPOSED CIVIL CODE app.

  (n.p. 1884). For a general discussion of the Bar Association's opposition to codification, see G. W. MARTIN, CAUSES AND CONFLICTS: THE CENTENNIAL HISTORY OF THE ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 143-157 (Houghton Mifflin 1970).

  74. J. C. CARTER, THE IDEAL AND THE ACTUAL IN THE LAW 10 (Dando 1890).

  75. Id.

  76. J. C. CARTER, THE PROPOSED CODIFICATION OF OUR COMMON LAW 83-84 (Evening Post 1884).

  77. Id. at 6.

  78. Id.

  79. Id. at 6-7 (emphasis in original).

  80. J. C. CARTER, supra note 74, at 11.

  81. Id. at io (emphasis in the original).

  8z. Id. (emphasis in the original).

  83. J. C. CARTER, LAW: ITS ORIGIN, GROWTH AND FUNCTION 85 (G. P. Putnam's Sons 1907).

  84. J. C. CARTER, supra note 74, at 18.

  85. J. C. CARTER, supra note 76, at 40.

  86. J. C. CARTER, supra note 74, at 28.

  87. Id.

  88. Id. at 22.

  89. Id. at z 1.

  90. Id.

  91. Id.

  92. Id. at 22.

  93. R. HOFSTADTER, SOCIAL DARWINISM IN AMERICAN THOUGHT 6o (rev. ed., Bacon Press 1955)•

  94. Id.

  95. Id. at 6o-61 (quoting W. SUMNER, The Absurd Effort to Make the World Over, in i ESSAYS OF WILLIAM GRAHAM SUMNER 105 (A. Keller & M Davie eds., Yale Univ. Press 1934)).

  96. J. C. CARTER, supra note 83, at 141.

  97. See M. CAPPELLETTI, JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD 32-43 (Bobbs-Merrill 1971).

  98. See P. J. KING, UTILITARIAN JURISPRUDENCE IN AMERICA: THE INFLUENCE OF BENTHAM AND AUSTIN ON AMERICAN LEGAL THOUGHT IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY ch. 5 (Garland 1986).

  99. Maine, the founder of legal anthropology, wrote his Ancient Law out of an evolutionist perspective. See Elliot, The Evolutionary Tradition in jurisprudence, 85 COLUM. L. REV. 38, 41-46 (1985). See also J. W. BURROW, EVOLUTION AND SOCIETY 137 (Cambridge Univ. Press 1970). For Maine's influence on Holmes, see M. HOWE, supra note 3, at 148-150.

  100. J. C. CARTER, supra note 83, at 141-42.

  poi. Id. at 143.

  102. Id.

  103. J. C. CARTER, supra note 74, at 10.

  104. M. HOWE, supra note 3, at 63. See also Holmes, supra note 1, at 4.

  105. Holmes, supra note 1, at i.

  106. 0. W. HOLMES, TOUCHED WITH FIRE: CIVIL WAR LETTERS AND DIARY 71 (M. Howe ed., Harvard Univ. Press 1946), quoted in G. FREDRICKSON, supra note 59, at 170.

  107. L.R. 3 H.L. 330 (1868), See generally C. Dalton, Losing History: The Case of Rylands v. Fletcher (unpublished manuscript).

  108. See, e.g., Brown v. Collins, 53 N.H. 442 (1873); Losee v. Buchanan, 51 N.Y. 476, 484 (1873)•

  109. O. W. HOLMES, supra note 7, at 86.

  110. Id. at 77.

  111. Id.

  112. Id. at 78-

  113. Id.

  114. Id. at 129.

  115. Id. at 118.

  116. Id. at 31.

  117. Id. at 32.

  118. Id.

  119. See A. PAUL, CONSERVATIVE CRISIS AND THE RULE OF LAW: ATTITUDES OF BAR AND BENCH, 1887-1895 (Cornell Univ. Press 1960).

  120. O. W. HOLMES, supra note 7, at 78.

  121. 0. W. HOLMES, supra note 4, at 182-83.

  122. See, e.g., J. SALMOND, THE LAW OF TORTS 20 (1st ed., Stevens & Haynes 1907) (arguing that the objective theory is based on "a defective analysis of the conception" of negligence. Negligence "cannot be ascertained save by looking into the mind of the defendant in order to see what his mental attitude was towards the act and its consequences."); J. SALMOND, ESSAYS IN JURISPRUDENCE AND LEGAL HISTORY 159 (Stevens & Haynes 1891) (stating that liability should be restricted "to the person actually in fault."); Bohlen, The Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher (pt. 1), 59 U. PA. L. REV. 298, 313 (1911) ("To be of any service as a test of liability, fault must be used in its actual, its subjective meaning of some conduct repugnant to accepted moral or ethical ideas.. . ."); M. BIGELOW, THE LAW OF TORTS 19 (8th ed., Little, Brown 1907) ("[N]egligence is a state of mind; a fact obscured by the circumstance that stated external standards are applied to the proof of it."). But see Isaacs, Fault and Liability, 31 HARV. L. REV. 954, 974 (1918) ("I find it impossible to fence off a field of law in which liability is based exclusively on fault. In the first place, even in those cases in which fault is admittedly the basis of liability, it is not the individual fault of the particular culprit, but rather a type of culpable conduct that must be considered. Take for example the case of negligence.").

  123. Ames, Law and Morals, 22 HARV. L. REV. 97, 99 (1908-09).

  124. Id. at 103.

  125. Id. at 99.

  126. See supra note 122.

  127. Isaacs, supra note 122, at 974.

  128. Id. at 975.

  129. Id. at 976.

  130. Seavey, Negligence-Subjective or Objective, 41 HARV. L. REV. 1, 27 (1927).

  131. Id. at 27-28.

  132. Id. at 28.

  133. Id.

  134. Id.

  135. O. W. HOLMES, supra note 4, at 187.

  136. Id. at 182.

  137. See Rogat, Mr. Justice Holmes: A Dissenting Opinion, 15 STAN. L. REV. 254 (1962-1963).

  138. O. W. HOLMES, Privilege, Malice and Intent, in COLLECTED LEGAL PAPERS, supra note 4, at 117 (reprinted from 8 HARV. L. REV. 1 (1894)).

  139. Id. at 129-130.

  140. O. W. HOLMES, supra note 7, at 167.

  141. Id. at 163.

  142. Id.

  143. Id. at 167.

  144. Id.

  145. Id. at 167.

  146. Id. at 173-

  147. Id.

  148. Id.

  149. Hohfeld, Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning, 23 YALE L.J. 16 (1913). See also Singer, The Legal Rights Debate in Analytical jurisprudence from Bentham to Hohfeld, 1982 Wis. L. REV. 975. See also the discussions of Hohfeld supra ch. 3 and infra ch. 6.

  150. O. W. HOLMES, supra note 7, at 8o.

  151•. Id. at 5.

  152. Holmes, book review, 14 AM. L. REV. 233, 234 (188o).

  153. Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

  154. See infra notes 215-221 and accompanying text.

  155. O. W. HOLMES, supra note 4, at 183-

  156. Id. at 182.

  157. Id. at 181.

  158. O. W. HOLMES, supra note 138.

  159. See C. GREGORY & H. KATZ, LABOR AND THE LAW ch. 2 (3d ed., W. W. Norton 1979).

  i 6o. O. W. HOLMES, supra note 138, at 119.

  161. O. W. HoLMES, supra note 7, at 115.

  162. Id. at 128.

  163. O. W. HOLMES, supra note 138, at 126.

  164. Id.

  165. Id. at 125.

  166. For an overview of the development of the balancing test around the turn of the century, see Aleinikoff, Constitutional Law in the Age of Balancing, 96 YALE L.J. 943,
952-63 (1987).

  167. See, e.g., Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919); Standard Oil v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911); Terry, Negligence, 29 HARV. L. REV. 40 (1915) (which was reflected in Learned Hand's opinion in United States v. Carroll Towing, 159 F. zd 169 (2d Cir. 1947)); Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, z6o U.S. 393 (1922). For an early influential jurisprudential justification of balancing tests, see Roscoe Pound, A Theory of Social Interests, 15 PAPERS & PROC. AM. Soc. Soc'Y 16 (1921), published (with revisions) as A Survey of Social Interests, 57 HARV. L. REV. 1 (1943).

  168. Temperton v. Russell, 1 Q.B. 715.

  169. 0. W. HOLMES, supra note 138, at 127.

  170. Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, 23 Q.B.D. 598 (1892).

  171. 0. W. HOLMES, supra note 138, at 128.

  172. Id.

  173. Id. at 129.

  174. Id.

  175. See infra text accompanying note 193.

  176. O. W. HOLMES, supra note 138, at 129.

  177. Id.

  178. Id.

  179. 0. W. HOLMES, supra note 4, at 184.

  18o. O. W. HOLMES, supra note 138, at 130.

  181. Id. at 124.

  182. O. W. HOLMES, supra note 7, at 104. On Holmes's shift, see Lundquist, Comment, Oliver Wendell Holmes and External Standards of Criminal and Tort Liability: Application of Theory on the Massachusetts Bench, 28 BuFF. L. REV, 607 (1979)•

  183. Id. at 111.

  184. Id. at 45•

  185. Id. at 110.

  186. Id. at 45.

  187. 167 Mass. 92, 44 N.E. 1077 (1896).

  188. Id. at 95.

  189. Id.

  190. Id.

  191. Id.

  192. Id. at 98, 44 N.E. at 1077.

  193. Id. at 105-07, 44 N.E. at 1080-81 (Holmes, J., dissenting).

  194. Id. at 1o8, 44 N.E. at lo81 (Holmes, J., dissenting).

  195. Allen v. Flood, [1898] A.C. 1.

  196. 167 Mass. at 103.

  197. 0. W. HOLMES, Law in Science and Science in Law, in COLLECTED LEGAL PAPERS, supra note 4, at 210.

  198. Id. at 241.

  199. Id.

  200. Id.

  201. Id.

  202. Id.

  203. 0. W. HOLMES, supra note 138, at 126.

  204. Id. at 128.

  205. Id. at 129.

  206. O. W. HOLMES, supra note 197, at 241.

  207. See 0. W. HOLMES, supra note 138, at 127.