[GROUP] Jurisprudence by John Salmond-mas

Every work here needs a reader! Please sign up and help us complete these books. The symbol ~ means that Proof Listeners are needed
Post Reply
Mfassio
Posts: 153
Joined: January 5th, 2017, 4:35 pm
Location: Kent, Washington USA

Post by Mfassio » September 21st, 2018, 7:51 pm

I would like Section 8. Thanks!
Thanks,

Michael

"Always read something that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it." — P.J. O’Rourke

DivMS
Posts: 403
Joined: June 14th, 2013, 11:15 pm

Post by DivMS » September 23rd, 2018, 9:27 pm

Mfassio wrote:
September 21st, 2018, 7:51 pm
I would like Section 8. Thanks!
Thank you Michael! MW updated :D

DivMS
Posts: 403
Joined: June 14th, 2013, 11:15 pm

Post by DivMS » October 11th, 2018, 9:53 pm

Section 30, 33 and 34 have been put back into the pool for anyone to claim

Mfassio
Posts: 153
Joined: January 5th, 2017, 4:35 pm
Location: Kent, Washington USA

Post by Mfassio » October 11th, 2018, 10:21 pm

I’ll take 33 and 34.
Thanks,

Michael

"Always read something that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it." — P.J. O’Rourke

Mfassio
Posts: 153
Joined: January 5th, 2017, 4:35 pm
Location: Kent, Washington USA

Post by Mfassio » October 13th, 2018, 11:26 am

Thanks,

Michael

"Always read something that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it." — P.J. O’Rourke

DivMS
Posts: 403
Joined: June 14th, 2013, 11:15 pm

Post by DivMS » October 14th, 2018, 4:36 pm

Mfassio wrote:
October 13th, 2018, 11:26 am
And here is 8 for PL


https://librivox.org/uploads/maryannspiegel/jurisprudence_08_salmond_128kb.mp3 [26:12]
Thank you Michael!
Section 33 and 34 are all yours :D

linny
Posts: 9738
Joined: November 5th, 2010, 12:37 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Post by linny » October 19th, 2018, 7:01 am

Hello Michael,
Section 8 is PL OK. I really enjoyed your pacing. :thumbs:

lethargilistic
Posts: 54
Joined: July 24th, 2018, 3:38 am
Contact:

Post by lethargilistic » November 9th, 2018, 5:35 pm

I would like Section 37 "Appendix III: Maxims of the Law", please!
Mike


lethargilistic
Posts: 54
Joined: July 24th, 2018, 3:38 am
Contact:

Post by lethargilistic » November 10th, 2018, 9:04 pm

I'd like to read Section 30, "The Law Of Property - Part 1."
Mike

DivMS
Posts: 403
Joined: June 14th, 2013, 11:15 pm

Post by DivMS » November 10th, 2018, 10:05 pm

lethargilistic wrote:
November 10th, 2018, 9:04 pm
I'd like to read Section 30, "The Law Of Property - Part 1."
Thanks Mike! :D

linny
Posts: 9738
Joined: November 5th, 2010, 12:37 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Post by linny » November 11th, 2018, 6:46 am

Divya and Mike,
When PLing section 37 I'm finding a lot of missing text. The text seems to be references which likely have common legal rules for reading them however I don't know those rules. Before I PL the entire section I wanted to ask two questions.
Divya,
Do you want these corrections? If so, are you able to provide guidance for how they should be read?

Mike,
If the above answer is yes, are you willing to make the corrections?

Partial PL notes
1:48 missing text – Leges Henrici Primi, V. 28. (Thorpe’s Ancient Laws and Institutes of England, I. 511.) Coke’s Third Institute, f.6.
2:18 missing text – 2. Adversus Extraneos Vitiosa Possessio Prodesse Solet. D. 41. 2. 53.
2:39 missing text – 3. Apices Juris Non Sunt Jura. 10 Co. Rep. 126. Cf. D. 17.1.29.4: non congruity de apicibus juris dispatare.
3:49 missing text – The complementary rule of extensive interpretation is, Ubi eadem ratio ibi idem jus. See Vangerow, I. sect. 25.
3:51 missing text – 5. Cogitationis Poenam Nemo Patitur. D. 48. 19.18.
4:12 missing text – 6. Communis Hrror Facit Jus. Coke’s Fourth Inst. F. 240. Cf. D. 33.10.3.5: Error jus facit.

lethargilistic
Posts: 54
Joined: July 24th, 2018, 3:38 am
Contact:

Post by lethargilistic » November 11th, 2018, 4:32 pm

Agh, I meant to make a note of that. Yes, I am willing to make the additions if requested, but the case numbers seemed more like footnotes than text.
Mike

TriciaG
LibriVox Admin Team
Posts: 39497
Joined: June 15th, 2008, 10:30 pm
Location: Toronto, ON (but Minnesotan to age 32)

Post by TriciaG » November 11th, 2018, 5:12 pm

I'll claim sections 36 and 38, please. I might come back to do 35, but it has a lot of terms in a lot of languages - I'll have to work myself up to it and do some research before taking that one on! :lol:
Fiction: It Is Never too Late to Mend
Irish Home Rule Arguments: Handbook on Home Rule
Sci-Fi removing memories: Dr. Heidenhoff's Process
The Curious Lore of Precious Stones
Community Podcast re: PL'ing - Call for Submissions

DivMS
Posts: 403
Joined: June 14th, 2013, 11:15 pm

Post by DivMS » November 16th, 2018, 9:56 pm

linny wrote:
November 11th, 2018, 6:46 am
Divya and Mike,
When PLing section 37 I'm finding a lot of missing text. The text seems to be references which likely have common legal rules for reading them however I don't know those rules. Before I PL the entire section I wanted to ask two questions.
Divya,
Do you want these corrections? If so, are you able to provide guidance for how they should be read?

Mike,
If the above answer is yes, are you willing to make the corrections?

Partial PL notes
1:48 missing text – Leges Henrici Primi, V. 28. (Thorpe’s Ancient Laws and Institutes of England, I. 511.) Coke’s Third Institute, f.6.
2:18 missing text – 2. Adversus Extraneos Vitiosa Possessio Prodesse Solet. D. 41. 2. 53.
2:39 missing text – 3. Apices Juris Non Sunt Jura. 10 Co. Rep. 126. Cf. D. 17.1.29.4: non congruity de apicibus juris dispatare.
3:49 missing text – The complementary rule of extensive interpretation is, Ubi eadem ratio ibi idem jus. See Vangerow, I. sect. 25.
3:51 missing text – 5. Cogitationis Poenam Nemo Patitur. D. 48. 19.18.
4:12 missing text – 6. Communis Hrror Facit Jus. Coke’s Fourth Inst. F. 240. Cf. D. 33.10.3.5: Error jus facit.
Apologies for the late reply. I just returned from a camping trip.

Regarding these references, I agree with Mike. They look more like footnotes so I don't think they need to be recorded. Just the maxim and its explanation is enough :D

Post Reply