{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreigeoo3rtslrw4m5hwvxggpfkges4wtbdk2sx4szc3ecmgtlhijqmy",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:neopp5z3zbi24mwiena7tt7j/app.bsky.feed.post/3mmvptul2bne2"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreieophjbxzasbqnzzmikzyxm2lcvypesrnomjuointywmlhupboece"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/jpeg",
    "size": 59018
  },
  "path": "/2026/05/mumford-on-holmes-and-anglo-american.html",
  "publishedAt": "2026-05-28T04:30:00.000Z",
  "site": "https://legalhistoryblog.blogspot.com",
  "tags": [
    "Re-Enacting The Judicial Philosophy Of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.: Saunders v. Vautier and Claflin v. Claflin Compared",
    "NYPL"
  ],
  "textContent": "**Ann Mumford, Dickson Poon School of Law, King's College London** , has posted Re-Enacting The Judicial Philosophy Of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.: Saunders v. Vautier and Claflin v. Claflin Compared:\n\n> ---\n> Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (NYPL)\n> Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. sat on the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in 1889, when, in the case of _Claflin v Claflin_ , he joined the decision that a trust may not be modified if the intention of the testator would be undermined. _Claflin_ rejected Lord Cottenham's reasoning in _Saunders v Vautier_ that, under certain circumstances, beneficiaries may compel the termination of the trust and transfer the property to them. _Claflin v Claflin_ and _Saunders v Vautier_ are perhaps the two most famous cases in Anglo-American Equity. Through a detailed examination of manuscripts, this article offers a comparative expansion of the US and English histories, and particularly considers the role played by Holmes. Re-enactment theory offers the possibility of creating, or reliving, the intellectual process that led to _Claflin_ , thus revealing a significant moment in the history of US federalism.\n\n--Dan Ernst",
  "title": "Mumford on Holmes and Anglo-American Equity",
  "updatedAt": "2026-05-28T04:30:00.108Z"
}