Indorsament or indorsument?

Unable to post yesterday because in the evening was midterms for Negotiable Instruments Law, and Credit Transactions. And before that we had a simple lunch out with the family and two guests to celebrate our 28th wedding anniversary. From that my age as a law student may be estimated.

For today we have from page 112 of De Leon and De Leon's The Law on Negotiable Instruments (With Documents of Title) 2013 Edition: 

I think that the De Leons got their idea from this passage on page 110 of the Law of Negotiable Instruments, Second Edition, 1922  by James Ogden:

Ogden, however, used two words while De Leon coupled the words into one. Both are not exactly accurate as to the English translation. Dorsa is plural for dorsum. So in dorsa, or indorsa per De Leon, would mean on the backs. In dorsum, on the other hand, would be just a few steps away from indorsement.

Ogden's book is available for download here.

A talking property

On page 22 of the Public International Law, 2006 Edition by Ruben E. Agpalo:

The Russian fragment

From page 21 of Public International Law, 2006 Edition by Ruben E. Agpalo:

Russia was not fragmented. It is a fragment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic.

Neither P nor A

On page 98 of The Law on Negotiable Instruments (With Documents of Title) 2013 Edition by Hector S and Hector M. De Leon:

Why should P recover from M?

This is the example referred to in the above example found on the same page:

It turns out that the authors got their letter mixed up again as in this previous post.

Prolixity of life

From page 2 of Philippine Administrative Law, 2007 Edition (available here) by Carlo L. Cruz:

Wikipedia says prolixity is just another word for verbosity or wordiness (see here). Interestingly, Wikipedia refers to prolixity as "the length of a monologue or speech, especially a formal address such as a lawyer's oral argument."

Is Prof. Cruz trying to say that the verbosity of lawyers necessitated Administrative Law? I'd like to think that Prof. Cruz meant complexity.

Genocide and slavery as jus cogens norms?

In a post below (or see here if you came from another link) I dealt with minor typos from Chapter I of Public International Law, 2006 Edition by Ruben E. Agpalo. Here we see that Agpalo seems to say that genocide, etc., is the norm under jus cogens.

Take a look at this paragraph from page 10 :

Wow!

Minor typos - Agpalo

Few typos from the opening chapter of Public International Law, 2006 Edition by Ruben E. Agpalo:

On page 1:

On page 3:

On page 7:

On page 9:

Another one on page 9:

There is no new edition of the book.

In a future post we'll see how Agpalo missed the mark on the concept of jus cogens.