•  
  •  
 

University of Missouri Bulletin Law Series

Document Type

Article

Abstract

It seems reasonably certain that the English courts have never considered the absurd and indefensible rule relating to choses in action as applying to all written instruments. Indeed, Regina v. Morrison, supra, refuses to apply the rule to an instrument that was evidence of an obligation between parties. Is it not curious that an English court in the middle of the nineteenth century is found to be restricting its doctrine while an American court in the twentieth century is attempting to extend a transplanted and anarchronistic notion that rests on a fiction which is socially inexpedient?

Share

COinS
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.