Translation &amp; the Reception of Foreign Law in the Antebellum United States

Hoeflich, Michael H.

doi:10.1093/ajcl/50.4.753

Cited by 34 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The absence of an English‐language translation of the property treatise, which few could read in the original, might have contributed to Kent's decision to let sleeping dogs lie. As Michael Hoeflich (2002) has written, “when one asks how many lawyers during this period would have been fluent enough in French to read the works of Pothier or Barbeyrac in French [one is] left with the impression that the number was not great outside of places like Louisiana” (757). However, it is also very likely that Kent was motivated by a concern about doctrinal stability.…”

Section: James Kentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thomas Jefferson had only the English translation of the treatise on obligations (Sowerby 1953). Another list using Morris Cohen's Bibliography of Early American Law and Marvin included no English translations of Pothier's treatise on property or the complete works (Hoeflich 2002). Given the absence of an English translation of the work, I rely on my own translations skills in the passages referred to here.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pierson v. Post: A Great Debate, James Kent, and the Project of Building a Learned Law for New York State

Fernandez

2009

Law soc. inq.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pierson v. Post (1805) has long puzzled legal teachers and scholars. This article argues that the appellate report was the product of the intellectual interests (and schooling) of the lawyers and judges involved in the case. They converted a minor dispute about a fox into a major argument in order to argue from Roman and other civil law sources on how to establish possession in wild animals, effectively crafting an opportunity to create new law for New York State. This article explores the possibility that the mastermind behind this case was the chief justice of the court at the time, James Kent. The question of Kent's involvement in 1805 remains elusive. However, the article uses annotations he made on his copy of the case and discussion of Pierson v. Post in his famous Commentaries to demonstrate the nature of his later interest and to explore the project of building a learned law for New York State.

show abstract

Section: James Kentmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%