Medieval justice was a quaint thing.

A doctrine capable of being stated only in obscure and involved terms is open to reasonable suspicion of being either crude or erroneous

Have you ever found any logical reason why mutual promises are sufficient consideration for one another (like the two lean horses of a Calcutta hack who can only just stand together)? I have not.

The oldest theory of contract is I think negative.

The practice of the law is a perfectly distinct art.

It is strange how little harm bad codes do.

It cannot be assumed that equity was following common law whenever they agreed, any more than the converse.

Consider the Essay as a political pamphlet on the Revolution side, and the fact that it was the Whig gospel for a century, and you will see its working merit.

If you deny that any principles of conduct at all are common to and admitted by all men who try to behave reasonably - well, I don't see how you can have any ethics or any ethical background for law.

Crabbed and obscure definitions are of no use beyond a narrow circle of students, of whom probably every one has a pet one of his own.