Rating: 
Summary: Why people persist in reading this less-than-fun read:
Review: Current 1L here. I read _The Common Law_ while an undergrad as part of the research for a paper on, inter alia, O.W. Holmes in a philosophy of law class. If you're planning on reading the book, you might want to reconsider. Large sections are well-nigh unreadable -- well, they're not really unreadable, just incredibly boring. (Then again, maybe incoming 1Ls should read a few chapters just to get an idea of what judicial writing was like 120 years ago -- though Holmes was far better than most of his contemporaries.) Probably the best part of the book is the introductory essay that explains the context and significance of Holmes's lectures (which he collected in the book). I can't remember who wrote the essay -- it's in the edition of the book that has a picture of Holmes on the cover (the one I always see in [local store]). The substance of the book is a series of lectures on the various common law subjects: criminal law, property law, contracts, consideration, torts, negligence, bailments, trespass, etc. What makes this book so important is not that the lectures were a summary of the current state of the law at the time Holmes spoke in (IIRC) 1881, but rather because Holmes explains how they got to be that way -- often rather insightfully/creatively. Let me give you an example: in ancient legal regimes, including early common law England, when a person was killed by an inanimate object, the law of deodands came into play. A deodand (again, IIRC) is an inaminate object. What would happen to this inanimate objects is that the family of the deceased would then "execute" the object as if it were a convicted felon. In explaining this, Holmes has a funny aside about an infamous case in England where a dog that killed a person was hanged "to provide an example to bad dogs everywhere." Obviously, the law of deodands has faded from the law -- or so you'd think. Holmes explains that this concept -- treating an inanimate object as a wrongdoer -- was harnessed in the law of admiralty to allow for in rem actions against ships. By this, I mean that a problem with vessels is that a ship would come into port, the vessel-owner would commit some sort of tort, then sail away. And since the ship-owner had left (or lived in a different continent and thus was never involved at all), the common law courts would never have jurisdiction over him to enforce a judgment to compensate his victims. To remedy this problem, common law courts began to allow victims of such torts to bring an action in any port into which the ship sailed -- as if the ship itself had been the one who committed the tort. (That's what an in rem action is -- a lawsuit where jurisdiction is based on a thing; as opposed to an in personam action, in which jurisddiction is based on a person.) Thus, through the legal fiction preserved in the memory of the common law from antiquity, the law of admiralty drew upon the law of deodands to fix a "modern" problem. To all you 1Ls finishing up with contracts -- Holmes is the one you can thank for the bargain theory of consideration -- and guess where he stated it for the first time? The point of reading the book, however, is not that Holmes was a great legal historian; rather, it is that he was an influential legal philosopher. Two tenets of early 20th century jurisprudence that Holmes propounded (and was influential in writing into law when he was later appointed to the Supreme Court of Massachussetts, and later of the United States) can be identified in this work: legal positivism and legal realism. But I think that I've probably written enough here to bore everyone to tears, so if you're curious, take a look at something in the library on the subject of jurisprudence.... or read this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Philosophy in historical dress
Review: Grant Gilmore, the late professor of contracts at Yale, got The Common Law right when he wrote in The Ages of American Law (1977) that Holmes' lectures have "long since become unreadable unless the reader is prepared to put forward an almost superhuman effort of will to keep his attention from flagging and his interest from wandering." (52) I also agree with Gilmore that Holmes is attempting to disguise a philosophic statement in historical dress. The Common Law may even be "an elaborate joke" that Holmes was amused to play on his audience. Influential, yes; worth reading, no.
Rating:
Summary: A Law School Preview
Review: In a nutshell, this famous treatise provides in-depth analysis and historical commentary of the common law as it existed in the mid- to late-19th century. The format is that of a series of lectures given at Harvard by Holmes (who at the time was just past thirty years of age) between 1870 and 1873. It is indeed a resounding work concerning the origins and development of American jurisprudence. With that said, let me be very clear about The Common Law - I found completing it a daunting task. Even if you've been trained in the law, it is difficult to comprehend both the writing style and legal terminology of the last century (i.e., without reading in an environment of total silence, I was unable to follow Holmes for more than a page of two). Additionally, Holmes presents the material by blending stream-of-consciousness thinking with the Socratic method - a confusing experience at best. Finally, the vast amount of authority cited is English case law from the 15th through 18th centuries. While this not surprising, I found it to be very annoying (e.g., particularly when I wanted to research a case in order to place Holmes' comments in perspective). There are, however, some extremely interesting aspects of the work. First, the hypotheticals are identical to those used in modern first-year law school courses (which, of course, conveys confidence to the reader). Next, the common law of one hundred-plus years ago is remarkably similar to the common law of today (excepting, of course, well-known refinements that have taken place throughout the years). Last, no sort of "civil libertarian" or "progressive" thinking (hallmarks of Holmes while a Supreme Court justice) is to be found in the pages of The Common Law - just law, history, hypotheticals, facts, and application. As such, I can only recommend this work to academics who have a compelling need for this level of clarity and detail (my three star rating is given with their needs in mind). Frankly, the average lawyer will find this only mildly stimulating and the layperson should avoid it like the plague.
Rating:
Summary: Deep - Definitely NOT for the Intellectually Timid
Review: In a nutshell, this famous treatise provides in-depth analysis and historical commentary of the common law as it existed in the mid- to late-19th century. The format is that of a series of lectures given at Harvard by Holmes (who at the time was just past thirty years of age) between 1870 and 1873. It is indeed a resounding work concerning the origins and development of American jurisprudence. With that said, let me be very clear about The Common Law - I found completing it a daunting task. Even if you've been trained in the law, it is difficult to comprehend both the writing style and legal terminology of the last century (i.e., without reading in an environment of total silence, I was unable to follow Holmes for more than a page of two). Additionally, Holmes presents the material by blending stream-of-consciousness thinking with the Socratic method - a confusing experience at best. Finally, the vast amount of authority cited is English case law from the 15th through 18th centuries. While this not surprising, I found it to be very annoying (e.g., particularly when I wanted to research a case in order to place Holmes' comments in perspective). There are, however, some extremely interesting aspects of the work. First, the hypotheticals are identical to those used in modern first-year law school courses (which, of course, conveys confidence to the reader). Next, the common law of one hundred-plus years ago is remarkably similar to the common law of today (excepting, of course, well-known refinements that have taken place throughout the years). Last, no sort of "civil libertarian" or "progressive" thinking (hallmarks of Holmes while a Supreme Court justice) is to be found in the pages of The Common Law - just law, history, hypotheticals, facts, and application. As such, I can only recommend this work to academics who have a compelling need for this level of clarity and detail (my three star rating is given with their needs in mind). Frankly, the average lawyer will find this only mildly stimulating and the layperson should avoid it like the plague.
Rating:
Summary: A Law School Preview
Review: In his book, A Matter Of Interpretation, Justice Scalia recommends this title as summer reading to incoming first-year law students. The Common Law certainly covers most first-year law courses: Torts, Property, Contracts, and Criminal Law. It is invaluable both as a preview and as a reference during the academic year. Holmes' style is fluid and readable although a century old. It can't hurt to get used to his prose--it's certain to be encountered throughout one's time at law school.
Rating: 
Summary: classic work
Review: Oliver Wendell Holmes is regarded as one of the finest American jurists in history; this book deserves the accolades it has received.
Rating:
Summary: Great ... but not necessarily for the layman
Review: Several others have written covering the contents of The Common Law. I will just emphasize that most of the book focuses on how contemporary (in 1881) legal doctrines and issues had originated and developed in the cases and decisions of English courts from around 1200 AD onwards. This book is of interest primarily to people who are planning to study law and want some foundation, or to individuals with unusual historical interest in often-obscure English court decisions. I fell into the former category; the effort I put into tackling this book is worthwhile because I plan to use the knowledge later ... if I didn't, it would have been pretty much a waste of time. There is one major caveat for the average reader. If you have not already studied the law, you will pretty much need to have a legal dictionary on hand. Assumpsit, bailment, disseisin -- if you are not familiar with terms like these, you are liable to have a very tough time with Holmes. Moreover, as a rule he tends to assume that the reader (originally, listener) is aware of the current state of the law already, and then proceeds to delve into its background. So if you do not understand the role of consideration in contracts already, you will essentially be forced to deduce it. One gripe (and this is obviously not Holmes' fault) is that it is often very difficult, or at least very inconvenient, to follow up on his well-compiled footnotes, because many of the sources he frequently refers to (Glanvill, Fleta) are out of print and found only in academic or law libraries (and even then are frequently non-circulating materials), and most of the cases he cites are either from the Year Books (likewise arcane and out of print) or from unrecognizable English reports (Moody, Cox, B&S, H&C). Even a source like Blackstone, who was so fundamental to early American judges and lawmakers, is in few libraries and only 50% in print today; and Yale's online version does not appear to be volumized or paginated in accordance with whatever edition Holmes used. This may sound like quite a catalog of complaints, but in the end I am very glad I invested the time and effort to conquer this book. Don't be turned off, just be aware that a relatively (for law books) [inexpensive] price does not make this a "mass-market" paperback.
Rating:
Summary: Great ... but not necessarily for the layman
Review: Several others have written covering the contents of The Common Law. I will just emphasize that most of the book focuses on how contemporary (in 1881) legal doctrines and issues had originated and developed in the cases and decisions of English courts from around 1200 AD onwards. This book is of interest primarily to people who are planning to study law and want some foundation, or to individuals with unusual historical interest in often-obscure English court decisions. I fell into the former category; the effort I put into tackling this book is worthwhile because I plan to use the knowledge later ... if I didn't, it would have been pretty much a waste of time. There is one major caveat for the average reader. If you have not already studied the law, you will pretty much need to have a legal dictionary on hand. Assumpsit, bailment, disseisin -- if you are not familiar with terms like these, you are liable to have a very tough time with Holmes. Moreover, as a rule he tends to assume that the reader (originally, listener) is aware of the current state of the law already, and then proceeds to delve into its background. So if you do not understand the role of consideration in contracts already, you will essentially be forced to deduce it. One gripe (and this is obviously not Holmes' fault) is that it is often very difficult, or at least very inconvenient, to follow up on his well-compiled footnotes, because many of the sources he frequently refers to (Glanvill, Fleta) are out of print and found only in academic or law libraries (and even then are frequently non-circulating materials), and most of the cases he cites are either from the Year Books (likewise arcane and out of print) or from unrecognizable English reports (Moody, Cox, B&S, H&C). Even a source like Blackstone, who was so fundamental to early American judges and lawmakers, is in few libraries and only 50% in print today; and Yale's online version does not appear to be volumized or paginated in accordance with whatever edition Holmes used. This may sound like quite a catalog of complaints, but in the end I am very glad I invested the time and effort to conquer this book. Don't be turned off, just be aware that a relatively (for law books) [inexpensive] price does not make this a "mass-market" paperback.
Rating:
Summary: A walk through time with a Great legal author
Review: Some may not agree with all or much of Holmes legal philosophy, but regardless, this book is well written and provides a first-hand perspective on one of America's foremost legal figures.
Rating:
Summary: Philosophy in historical dress
Review: This book is a little tedious for us non-lawyers, but it does illustrate some interesting points:
Law emerged from the need to get away from revenge/feud dynamics. And it originated during times when most people couldn't write, so the issue of proving a case (such as in a agreement) is troublesome (especially in times when plagues and such could kill witnesses at any time). The world is a fuzzy set, and yet the law needs to set a finite set of rules in place, so exceptions constantly challenge. The needs of the state can supercede the issue of fairness, such as in the rule that "ignorance is no excuse". Judges are generally friends of the wealthy and not compatriots of the commoner. If a man has large debts, and dies, how can his children, who were not party to the agreements, be held liable via the estate? Many such questions arise and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. tries to address the fluid basis for our legal system.
|
