¹ The will was almost certainly prepared by the Toronto law firm of Mulock, Tilt and Miller, since the Martin family used that firm exclusively for legal services between about 1860 and 1920. Because William Mulock was, by 1886, a Liberal Member of Parliament in Ottawa, Nicholas Miller or James Tilt was most likely the draftsman.

² “William Martin Will,” Death Records-Ontario, Etobicoke Township, York County, FHL 1846467, Cert. 021041-1888. That will is one and a half longhand pages in length, in four paragraphs, all of which are reproduced in this portion of the text or infra, text at note 45. Mrs. William Martin’s “dower” was irrelevant to those testamentary events, because she died in 1872. Statutory reforms to Ontario’s married women’s property law were similarly irrelevant to the composition or administration of William’s will, or to its beneficiaries, because those changes were complete (on their own terms) by 1878.

³ William’s personal property inherited outright by James was said on probate to have been worth $6,200, and all but $900 of that amount had apparently been spent by James by his death in 1896. See “William Martin Probate,” 14 October 1887; “James Martin Probate,” 4 March 1896.

⁴ See generally http://gpih.ucdavis.edu/files/Ward-Devereux_P_1872-78.xls.

⁵ Compare Threedy, Debora, “Legal Archeology: Excavating Cases, Reconstructing Context,” 80 (2006) Tulane Law Review: 1197Google Scholar; Gordon, Robert, “Simpson’s Leading Cases” Michigan Law Review 95 (1997): 2044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ See, e.g., Brian Simpson, A. W., Leading Cases in the Common Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Tucker, Eric, et al., eds., Property on Trial (Toronto: Irwin, 2012).Google Scholar

⁷ See, e.g., Phillips, Jim, “A Low-Law Counter-Treatise: Absentees to Wreck in British North America’s First Justice of the Peace Manual,” in Law Books in Action, ed. Fernandez, Angela and Dubber, Marcus (Oxford: Hart, 2012) 202Google Scholar; Girard, Philip, “Themes and Variations in Early-Canadian Legal Culture: Beamish Murdock and his Epitome of the Laws of Nova Scotia,” Law and History Review 11 (1993): 101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ See Hagopian, John, “The Use of Land Registry Offices for Historical Research,” Ontario History 87 (1995): 77Google Scholar; Kolish, Evelyn, “L’histoire du droit et les archives judiciares,” Cahiers de droit 34 (1993): 289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹ See Maute, Judith, “Peevyhouse v Garland Coal and Mining Co. Revisited,” Northwestern Law Review 89 (1995): 1341Google Scholar; Brian Simpson, A. W., “Contracts for Cotton to Arrive,” Cardozo Law Review 12 (1989): 287Google Scholar; Brett Code, W. E., “The Salt Men of Goderich in Ontario’s Court of Chancery,” McGill Law Journal 38 (1993): 519.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See generally Braucher, John, et al., Revisiting the Contracts Scholarship of Stewart Macaulay (Oxford: Hart, 2013)Google Scholar; Campbell, David, et al., Changing Concepts of Contracts: Essays in Honor of Ian Macneil (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave, Macmillan, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Coutu, Michel and Guibentif, Pierre, eds., “Legal Pluralism as a Paradigm for Jurisprudence: Reflections on Jean-Guy Belley,” Canadian Journal of Law and Society 26 (2011): 215–467.Google Scholar

¹¹ See Ziff, Bruce, Unforeseen Legacies: Reuben Wells Leonard and the Leonard Foundation Trusts (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Constance and Nancy Backhouse, The Heiress and the Establishment (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2004)Google Scholar; Ian Kyer, C., “The David Fasken Estate,” in Essays in the History of Canadian Law: A Tribute to Peter Oliver ed. Phillips, Jim, et al. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008) 410, 421–33.Google Scholar See also Grenon, Gerald, Adding Context: Wright v Tatham and the Origin of the Implied Hearsay Rule (Winnipeg: Manitoba Legal History Project, 1993)Google Scholar; Orkin, Mark M., The Great Stork Derby (Don Mills: General, 1981).Google Scholar

¹² See “Elizabeth McLean Martin,” Globe (Toronto, ON), 23 February 1905; Martin v Martin, 22 May 1906 (Ont. H Ct J); Grant # 8558, York County Land Registry Office (hereafter YCLRO), 26 May 1906. See also Martin v MacNab, infra note 85.

¹³ There are no available court files or bench books for those judgments, or records of action taken under them, perhaps because the courts’ involvement in those cases was more often administrative than judicial.

¹⁴ See generally Rande Kostal, “Historicizing the Common Law: Brian Simpson and the Limits of Influence,” American Society for Legal History – Annual Meeting, 10 November 2012; Krier, James E., “Facts, Information, and the Newly-Discovered Record in Pierson v Post,” Law and History Review 27 (2009): 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵ That seeming irony animated much of the commentary on this essay by Dick Risk. See “R. C. B. Risk to Blaine Baker,” 9 August 2014.

¹⁶ An introduction to facilitative law can be found in Sugarman, David and Rubin, Gerry, eds., Law, Economy and Society, 1750–1914 (Abingdon, UK: Professional Books, 1984) 9–12, 67.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See, e.g., Coffee, John C., “The Mandatory/Enabling Balance in Corporation Law,” Columbia Law Review 89 (1989): 1618CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Arthurs, Harry W., Without the Law: Administrative Justice and Legal Pluralism in Nineteenth-Century England (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985).Google Scholar

¹⁸ See, e.g., Telfer, Thomas, “Ideas, Interests, Institutions and the History of Canadian Bankruptcy Law, 1867–1880” University of Toronto Law Journal 60 (2010): 603Google Scholar; Craven, Paul, “The Modern Spirit of the Law: Blake, Mowat, and the Breaches of Contract Act, 1877,” in Essays in the History of Canadian Law: in Honor of R. C. B. Risk, ed. Baker, G. Blaine and Phillips, Jim (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999) 510.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See, e.g., Macdonald, Roderick A., “Pour la reconnaissance d’une normativité implicite et inférentielle,” Sociologie et société 18 (1986): 47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Belley, Jean-Guy, Le contrat entre droit, économie, et société (Cowansville, PQ: Blais, 1988).Google Scholar

²⁰ See, e.g., Knutsen, Eric S., “Keeping Settlements Secret,” Florida State University Law Review 37 (2010): 945Google Scholar; Macdonald, Roderick A., Access to Justice in Canada Today (Toronto: LSUC, 2005).Google Scholar

²¹ See e.g., Glenn, H. Patrick, The Cosmopolitan State (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Niezen, Robert, Truth and Indignation: Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Residential Schools (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013)Google Scholar; Robertson, Cassandra Burke, “The Impact of Third-Party Financing on Transnational Litigation,” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 44 (2011): 159.Google Scholar

²² See, e.g., Reisman, Michael, Law in Brief Encounters (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999)Google Scholar; Sunstein, Cass, “Social Norms and Social Roles,” Columbia Law Review 96 (1996): 903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²³ See e.g., Macaulay, Stewart, “Images of Law in Everyday Life,” Law and Society Review 21 (1987): 185CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Marquis, Greg, “Doing Justice to British Justice,” in Canadian Perspectives on Law and Society, ed. Pue, Wesley W. and Wright, Barry (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1988) 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁴ See generally Atiyah, Patrick S., The Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979) 219–568Google Scholar; Brian Simpson, A. W., “Innovation in Nineteenth-Century Contract Law,” Law Quarterly Review 91 (1975): 247.Google Scholar

²⁵ See generally D’Agostino, E., Contracts of Adhesion (Cham, UK: Springer, 2015)Google Scholar; Dawson, John P., “Economic Duress” Michigan Law Review 45 (1946): 1.Google Scholar

²⁶ See generally Hirsch, Adam J., “Default Rules in Inheritance Law,” Fordham Law Review 73 (2004): 1031Google Scholar; Langbein, John H., “The Contractual Basis of the Law of Trusts,” Yale Law Review 105 (1995): 625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁷ See James D. Martin and G. Blaine Baker, www.newtorontohistorical.com/MartinFamily.html. Without Jim Martin’s primary-source research for that earlier paper, the completion of this essay would have been a much greater challenge than it was.

²⁸ William’s other siblings ultimately settled in Toronto, Meaford, and Berkeley, Ontario, Harbor Grace, Newfoundland, and Kankanee, Illinois.

²⁹ West half of lot 2, concession 1, Etobicoke Township, York County; west half of lot 4, concession 1, Etobicoke Township, York County. See also Miles and Co., Illustrated Historical Atlas of York County (Toronto: Wilson, 1878) 6.Google Scholar

³⁰ See Mortgage # 59405, YCLRO, 14 September 1855; Martin v Goldthorpe (Vesting Order # 82176, Upper Canada Court of Chancery, 4 April 1861); Miles, supra note 29, at 6.

³¹ Lot 12, concession 3, South Orillia Township, Simcoe County. See Instrument # 53774, Simcoe County Land Registry Office (hereafter SCLRO), 16 June 1869; Instrument # 53775, SCLRO, 24 June 1869.

³² See Grant # 2021, SCLRO, 19 October 1885.

³³ See, e.g., “Samuel Lindley and Anne Martin Marriage Certificate,” Christchurch Mimico, 20 December 1853; “Robert Martin Autobiography,” currently in the possession of Brian Stephens of Kamloops, British Columbia.

³⁴ See generally Fairburn, M. Jane, Along the Shore: Rediscovering Toronto’s Waterfront Heritage (Toronto: E. C. W. Press, 2013) 305–87Google Scholar; Currell, Harvey, The Mimico Story (Toronto: Town of Mimico, 1967) 20–59.Google Scholar

³⁵ See generally Keel, William J., Christchurch, Mimico: 1827–1927 (Toronto: Keel, 1987).Google Scholar The Martins were members of that “high church” congregation for about seventy-five years.

³⁶ See generally Berry, Susan, A History of Education in the Lakeshore Area (Toronto: Wylie, 1966) 1–4, 19–24.Google Scholar James’ book prizes are currently in the possession of Ronald L. Martin of Mississauga, Ontario.

³⁷ See, e.g., “James Martin to Alexander Keith,” 26 March 1895; “Alexander Keith to James Martin,” 23 January 1893. Correspondence mentioned in the text, as well as that cited in notes 44 and 47, infra, is currently in the possession of James D. Martin of Brampton, Ontario.

³⁸ See “William Martin Probate,” supra note 3.

³⁹ “James Martin,” Orillia Packet (Orillia, ON), 21 February 1896.

⁴⁰ See Martin and Baker, supra note 27. See generally Anon., Ontario Ladies’ College (Whitby: Ontario Ladies’ College, 1965) 1–7; Gagan, David, A Necessity Among Us: The Owen Sound General and Marine Hospital (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990) 28–56.Google Scholar

⁴¹ See Martin and Baker, supra note 27. See also Harvie, Fred W., The Harvies of Orillia (St. Catharines, ON: Lincoln Graphics, 1977) 145–56.Google Scholar

⁴² “James Martin Will,” 14 July 1888.

⁴³ That property was the east half of lot 9, concession 1, South Orillia Township, Simcoe County. See also “James Martin Probate,” supra note 3. Daughters Mary and Edna, who had reached the age of twenty-one, each conveyed their interest in it to their step-mother for $1 two weeks after their father’s death. The other six children did the same in the spring of 1918 (with Mrs. William Martin, Jr. barring her dower), after the youngest of them had reached her majority. See Grant # 4616, SCLRO, 5 March, 1896; Grant # 16211, SCLRO, 14 May 1918.

⁴⁴ Those requests to the Court were made directly through the Mulock, Tilt, and Miller law firm, or through that firm by way of F. G. Evans at the Orillia law firm of McCarthy, Pepler, Evans, and McCarthy. See, e.g., “Mrs. James Martin in Account with F. G. Evans,” 27 December 1902; “Mr. Robt. M. Martin to F. G. Evans,” 10 January 1913.

⁴⁵ “William Martin Will,” supra note 2. That clause may have been used obliquely by the Surrogate Court to justify its 1887 appointment of James as the estate’s trustee.

⁴⁶ See, e.g., Martin v Martin, supra note 12; Indenture # 8553, YCLRO, 28 May 1906.

⁴⁷ See “Martin to Keith, et al.,” Agreement # 4022, YCLRO, 6 March 1890; “James Martin, et al., to Thomas McDonald, et al. (composing the Mimico Syndicate) Conveyance,” 19 December 1891.

⁴⁸ That inflation may have been due to the fact that the deal was an unsecured transaction, or to the fact that the land was in in a prime location. See generally Harris, Richard, Unplanned Suburbs: Toronto’s American Tragedy, 1900 – 1950 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1996) 21–85; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NewTorontoMimicoPlan1890.JPG.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ “William Martin Probate,” supra note 3. Succession duties were not implemented in Ontario until 1892, with the result that limiting them could not have been a motive for James’ apparent under-valuation of the property for probate. See Succession Duty Act, 55 Vict. (1892), c. 6 (Ont.). Minimizing municipal property taxes, through under-valuation of the land, could, however, have been James’ goal.

⁵⁰ See generally http://www.etobicokehistorical.com/new-toronto.html; “Toronto’s Growing Suburb – New Toronto,” Globe (Toronto, ON), 25 October 1890.

⁵¹ See generally Leith, Alexander and Smith, James F., Commentaries on the Laws of England Applicable to Real Property (Toronto: Rowsell and Hutchison, 1880) 130–36.Google Scholar See also Ziff, Bruce, Principles of Property Law (Toronto: Carswell, 2010) 175–92.Google Scholar

⁵² Bradbury, Cf Bettina, Wife to Widow: Lives, Laws, and Politics in Nineteenth-Century Montreal (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2011) 142–170Google Scholar; Johnson, Trudi, “Women and Inheritance in Nineteenth-Century Newfoundland,” Journal of the Canadian Historical Association 13 (2006): 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵³ See e.g., Ian Kyer, C., Lawyers, Families, and Businesses: The Shaping of a Bay Street Law Firm, Faskens, 1863–1963 (Toronto: Irwin, 2013) 13–122Google Scholar; Moore, Christopher, McCarthy, Tetrault: Building Canada’s Premier Law Firm, 1855–2005 (Toronto: Douglas and McIntyre, 2005) 13–54.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See e.g., O’Sullivan, Daniel, Manual of Practical Conveyancing (Toronto: Carswell, 1882)Google Scholar; Walkem, Richard T., The Law Related to the Execution and Revocation of Wills (Toronto: Willing and Williamson, 1873).Google Scholar See also Christie, James, Concise Precedents of Wills (London: Maxwell, 1857).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Hartog, Cf Hendirk, Someday all this will be Yours (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2012) 144–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Friedman, Lawrence M., Dead Hands: A Social History of Wills, Trusts, and Inheritance Law (Stanford, CA: Stanford Law Books, 2009) 111–24, 140–70.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Compare Walker, David, A Legal History of Scotland (Edinburgh: Green, 2004) vol. 6, 1026–46Google Scholar; O’Grada, Cormac, “Primogeniture and Ultimo-geniture in Rural Ireland,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 10 (1980): 491.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See “Martin to Keith, et al.,” supra note 47. The offerees were Alexander Keith, James Fitzsimmons, Jessie Keith, James Morrison, Thomas McDonald, John Sheridan, Joseph Sheridan, Arthur Kitson, Joseph Barrett, and Peter Whitely.

⁵⁸ See generally Bilak, Daniel, “The Law of the Land: Rural Debt and Private Land Transfer in Upper Canada, 1841–1867,” (1987), Histoire sociale/Social History 20 (1987): 179Google Scholar; Gagan, David, “The Security of Land: Mortgaging in Toronto Gore Township, 1835–1895,” in Aspects of Nineteenth-Century Ontario, ed. Armstrong, Frederick H., et al. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974) 140.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ See generally Moore, Christopher, The Law Society of Upper Canada and Ontario’s Lawyers (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997) 204, 217, 240–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁰ For insightful examination of ways that American testators and courts “skated close to the edge of the ice” making wills and administering estates, see Blumenthal, Susannah, “The Deviance of the Will: Policing the Bounds of Testamentary Freedom in Nineteenth-Century America,” Harvard Law Review 119 (2006): 959, 1006–32.Google Scholar

⁶¹ See Grant # 5009, YCLRO, 12 January 1891. It is unclear whether Mimico Real Estate, or Elizabeth Martin, or the eldest grandchildren (who were then sixteen and eighteen years of age) became uncomfortable with the arrangement and “blew a whistle” loudly enough that the judiciary heard it.

⁶² For descriptions of the substantive work of that Court, see generally Klinck, Dennis R., “Doing Complete Justice: Equity in the Ontario Court of Chancery,” Queen’s Law Journal 32 (2006): 45, 48–80Google Scholar; Brown, Elizabeth, “Equitable Jurisdiction and the Court of Chancery in Upper Canada,” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 21 (1983): 275, 299–314.Google Scholar

⁶³ “William Martin Probate,” supra note 3.

⁶⁴ See, e.g., “Martin to Keith, et al.,” supra note 47.

⁶⁵ See “William Martin Will,” supra note 2; text at notes 46–47, supra.

⁶⁶ No pre-1890 reported Canadian case-law on that point has been discovered. And no notice seems to have been taken in those negotiations or judicial proceedings of the Settled Estates Act, R. S. O. (1877), 39 & 40 Vict., c. 30, which would presumably have enabled James (with the concurrence of his remainder-people or their guardians) to sell the fee simple in all of Chestnut Haven.

⁶⁷ See Instrument # 40012, SCLRO, 29 June 1890; Instrument # 40013, SCLRO, 29 June 1890. The mortgage was discharged by Instrument # 2928, SCLRO, 18 July 1908.

⁶⁸ York County’s land-registry records for the relevant area of Etobicoke Township show that “Samuel McKnight, Liquidator” took possession of bankrupt Mimico Real Estate’s property in 1896–97. He sold most of that land back to the company’s original stakeholders in the period leading up to the 1905 reorganization of that group by its initial investors. That restructuring, perhaps unsurprisingly, coincided with the opening of the Grand Trunk Railway Yards in New Toronto. The liquidator apparently did not deal with Chestnut Haven. See, e.g., Grant # 8140, YCLRO, 14 June 1904; Grant # 8209, YCLRO, 27 March 1905; Grant # 8211, YCLRC, 27 March 1905. See also http://www.newtorontohistorical.com/Railway.html.

⁶⁹ In other words, Mimico Real Estate was about $15,800, or sixty percent, short of its obligation in respect of Chestnut Haven when its payments stalled.

⁷⁰ See “Keith to Martin,” supra note 37.

⁷¹ Mortgage # 5010, YCLRO, 22 October 1890. See also Grant # 5009, YCLRO, 12 January, 1890. See generally Hunter, Alfred T., A Treatise on Power of Sale under Mortgages of Reality (Toronto: Carswell, 1892).Google Scholar

⁷² See “Lot 5, concession 1,” York County – Etobicoke Township Land Registry Abstract Book, at 2 (17 May 1929). The mortgage was discharged on perfunctory application by the Court and Mimico Real Estate, despite thirty-five years of apparent default. That result might be explained by the expiry of prescription/limitation periods, by the final payment by the Court to the youngest Martin beneficiary thirteen years earlier, by the impending stock-market instability of 1929, or by bureaucratic inertia.

⁷³ See, e.g., Brawn, Dale, The Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba, 1870–1950 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006) 21–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Girard, P., et al., eds., The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, 1754–2004 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004) 53–203.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ See infra, text at note 88.

⁷⁵ It is unclear why the Accountant of the Supreme Court, rather than an institutional or private trustee, was the designated manager of the estate.

⁷⁶ See Grant # 4616, supra note 43. See also Grant # 16211, supra note 43.

⁷⁷ See Martin v Martin, supra note 12; Grant # 8558, supra note 12.

⁷⁸ See text at notes 90–96, infra.

⁷⁹ See “James Martin Probate,” supra note 3.

⁸⁰ See Grant # 8558, supra note 12.

⁸¹ See, e.g., Grant # 8583, YCLRO, 17 July 1906; Mortgage # 221, YCLRO, 26 March 1914.

⁸² See Grant # 2202, YCLRO, 18 September 1921; Mortgage # 2202, YCLRO, 18 September 1921.

⁸³ See Will and Probate # 14669, SCLRO, 3 March 1943.

⁸⁴ See “Robert Macmillan Martin Will.”

⁸⁵ See Martin v MacNab (1980), Supreme Court of Ontario.

⁸⁶ See Instrument # 972 (1909), Township 50, Range 3, W4, Alberta Land Titles Office. See generally Diehl, Fred M., A Gentleman from a Fading Age: Eric Lafferty Harvie (Calgary: Devonian, 1989) 17–30, 65–82.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ See text at notes 72–75, supra.

⁸⁸ But see Young, Brian, Patrician Families and the Making of Quebec: The Taschereaus and McCords (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s, 2014)Google Scholar; Graham, William H., Greenbank: Country Matters in Nineteenth-Century Ontario (Peterborough, ON: Broadview, 1988).Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Large-scale, rather than single-case, studies could be undertaken to help flesh out the issue of “ordinariness,” as was done provisionally by Girard, Philip and Vienot, Rebecca, “Married Women’s Property Law in Nova Scotia, 1850–1910,” in Separate Spheres: Women’s Worlds in the Nineteenth-Century Maritimes, ed. Guildford, Janet and Morton, Suzanne (Fredericton: Acadiensis, 1994) 67.Google Scholar But the resources required to do collective or synthetic legal archeology would be very nearly prohibitive.

⁹⁰ Reiter, Cf Eric H., “From Shaved Horses to Aggressive Churchwardens,” in Essays in the History of Canadian Law: Quebec and the Canadas, ed. Baker, G. Blaine and Fyson, Donald (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013) 460Google Scholar; Fernandez, Angela, “The Ancient and Honorable Court of Dover,” Australia and New Zealand Law and History e-Journal (17 January 2011): 194.Google Scholar

⁹¹ See, e.g., C. Ian Kyer, “Gooderham and Worts,” in Baker and Phillips, supra note 18, at 335; Young, Brian, In Its Corporate Capacity: The Seminary of Montreal as a Business Institution (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s, 1986) 3–37, 108–49.Google Scholar

⁹² See Wills Act, R. S. O. 1887, c. 109. See generally Adam Hirsch, “Freedom of Testation/ Freedom of Contract,” Minnesota Law Review 95 (2010): 2180.

⁹³ Literature on legal transplants and imperialism thereby gets drawn into this mix. See, e.g., Dezalay, Yves and Garth, Bryant, Asian Legal Revivals: Lawyers in the Shadow of Empire (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sugarman, David, “Who Colonized Whom?” in Professional Competition and Professional Power, ed. Dezalay, Yves and Sugarman, David (London: Routledge, 1995) 222.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ See generally Schlegal, John H., American Legal Realism and Empirical Social Science (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Hunt, Alan, The Sociological Movement in Law (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹⁵ See, e.g., Reisman, supra note 22; Drummond, Susan G., Mapping Marriage Law in Spanish Gitano Communities (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2006)Google Scholar; Weyrauch, Walter and Bell, Maureen, “Autonomous Law-Making: The Case of the Gypsies,” Yale Law Journal 103 (1993): 323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar