[155]. Castro v. R., 6 A. C. p. 249; Scaramanga v. Stamp, 5 C. P. D. p. 303.
[156]. In re Parsons, 45 Ch. D. 62: “Decisions of the Irish Courts, though entitled to the highest respect, are not binding on English judges.”
[157]. In Leask v. Scott, 2 Q. B. D. 376, at p. 380, it is said by the Court of Appeal, speaking of such a decision: “We are not bound by its authority, but we need hardly say that we should treat any decision of that tribunal with the greatest respect, and rejoice if we could agree with it.”
[158]. Persuasive efficacy, similar in kind though much less in degree, is attributed by our courts to the civil law and to the opinions of the commentators upon it; also to English and American text-books of the better sort.
[159]. London Street Tramways Company v. London County Council, (1898) A. C. 375, at p. 379. This is said to be so even when the House of Lords is equally divided in opinion, so that the judgment appealed from stands unreversed and so authoritative. Beamish v. Beamish, 9 H. L. C. p. 338; Att.-Gen. v. Dean of Windsor, 8 H. L. C. p. 392. As to the equal division of other courts, see The Vera Cruz, 9 P. D. p. 98.
[160]. Pledge v. Carr, (1895) 1 Ch. 51; Lavy v. London County Council, (1895) 2 Q. B. at p. 581, per Lindley, L.J. See, however, Mills v. Jennings, 13 C. D. p. 648.
[161]. It is to be remembered that the overruling of a precedent has a retrospective operation. In this respect it is very different from the repeal or alteration of a statute.
[162]. Sheddon v. Goodrich, 8 Ves. 497.
[163]. Pugh v. Golden Valley Railway Company, 15 Ch. D. at p. 334.
[164]. Smith v. Keal, 9 Q. B. D. at p. 352. See also In re Wallis, 25 Q. B. D. 180; Queen v. Edwards, 13 Q. B. D. 590; Ridsdale v. Clifton, 2 P. D. 306; Fookes v. Beer, 9 A. C. at p. 630: “We find the law to have been accepted as stated for a great length of time, and I apprehend that it is not now within our province to overturn it.”