the common law-第33章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


xplained　above；　the　ground　of　liability；　or　deems　it　sufficient　if　the　defendant　has　had　reasonable　warning　of　danger　before　acting。　This　distinction；　however；　is　generally　unimportant；　and　the　known　tendency　of　the　act　under　the　known　circumstances　to　do　harm　may　be　accepted　as　the　general　test　of　conduct。

The　tendency　of　a　given　act　to　cause　harm　under　given　circumstances　must　be　determined　by　experience。　And　experience　either　at　first　hand　or　through　the　voice　of　the　jury　is　continually　working　out　concrete　rules；　which　in　form　are　still　more　external　and　still　more　remote　from　a　reference　to　the　moral　condition　of　the　defendant；　than　even　the　test　of　the　prudent　man　which　makes　the　first　stage　of　the　division　between　law　and　morals。　It　does　this　in　the　domain　＇163＇　of　wrongs　described　as　intentional；　as　systematically　as　in　those　styled　unintentional　or　negligent。

But　while　the　law　is　thus　continually　adding　to　its　specific　rules；　it　does　not　adopt　the　coarse　and　impolitic　principle　that　a　man　acts　always　at　his　peril。　On　the　contrary；　its　concrete　rules；　as　well　as　the　general　questions　addressed　to　the　jury；　show　that　the　defendant　must　have　had　at　least　a　fair　chance　of　avoiding　the　infliction　of　harm　before　he　becomes　answerable　for　such　a　consequence　of　his　conduct。　And　it　is　certainly　arguable　that　even　a　fair　chance　to　avoid　bringing　harm　to　pass　is　not　sufficient　to　throw　upon　a　person　the　peril　of　his　conduct；　unless；　judged　by　average　standards；　he　is　also　to　blame　for　what　he　does。

＇164＇　LECTURE　V。

THE　BAILEE　AT　COMMON　LAW。

So　far　the　discussion　has　been　confined　to　the　general　principles　of　liability；　and　to　the　mode　of　ascertaining　the　point　at　which　a　man　begins　to　act　at　his　own　peril。　But　it　does　not　matter　to　a　man　whether　he　acts　at　his　own　peril　or　not；　unless　harm　comes　of　it；　and　there　must　always　be　some　one　within　reach　of　the　consequences　of　the　act　before　any　harm　can　be　done。　Furthermore；　and　more　to　the　point；　there　are　certain　forms　of　harm　which　are　not　likely　to　be　suffered；　and　which　can　never　be　complained　of　by　any　one　except　a　person　who　stands　in　a　particular　relation　to　the　actor　or　to　some　other　person　or　thing。　Thus　it　is　neither　a　harm　nor　a　wrong　to　take　fish　from　a　pond　unless　the　pond　is　possessed　or　owned　by　some　one；　and　then　only　to　the　possessor　or　owner。　It　is　neither　a　harm　nor　a　wrong　to　abstain　from　delivering　a　bale　of　wool　at　a　certain　time　and　place；　unless　a　binding　promise　has　been　made　so　to　deliver　it；　and　then　it　is　a　wrong　only　to　the　promisee。

The　next　thing　to　be　done　is　to　analyze　those　special　relations　out　of　which　special　rights　and　duties　arise。　The　chief　of　themand　I　mean　by　the　word　〃relations〃　relations　of　fact　simplyare　possession　and　contract；　and　I　shall　take　up　those　subjects　successively。

The　test　of　the　theory　of　possession　which　prevails　in　any　system　of　law　is　to　be　found　in　its　mode　of　dealing　＇165＇　who　have　a　thing　within　their　power；　but　not　own　it；　or　assert　the　position　of　an　owner　for　with　regard　to　it；　bailees；　in　a　word。　It　is　therefore；　as　a　preliminary　to　understanding　the　common…law　theory　of　possession；　to　study　the　common　law　with　regard　to　bailees。

The　state　of　things　which　prevailed　on　the　border　between　England　and　Scotland　within　recent　times；　and　which　is　brought　back　in　the　flesh　by　the　ballad　of　the　Fray　O'Suport；　is　very　like　that　which　in　an　earlier　century　left　its　skeleton　in　the　folk…laws　of　Germany　and　England。　Cattle　were　the　principal　property　known；　and　cattle…stealing　the　principal　form　of　wrongful　taking　of　property。　Of　law　there　was　very　little；　and　what　there　was　depended　almost　wholly　upon　the　party　himself　to　enforce。　The　Salic　Law　of　the　fifth　century　and　the　Anglo…Saxon　laws　of　Alfred　are　very　full　in　their　directions　about　following　the　trail。　If　the　cattle　were　come　up　with　before　three　days　were　gone；　the　pursuer　had　the　fight　to　take　and　keep　them；　subject　only　to　swearing　that　he　lost　them　against　his　will。　If　more　than　three　days　went　by　before　the　cattle　were　found；　the　defendant　might　swear；　if　he　could；　to　facts　which　would　disprove　the　claimant's　loss。

This　procedure　was　in　truth　a　legal　procedure；　but　it　depended　for　its　beginning　and　for　its　execution　on　the　party　making　the　claim。　From　its　〃executive〃　nature；　it　could　hardly　have　been　started　by　any　other　than　the　person　on　the　spot；　in　whose　keeping　the　cattle　were。　The　oath　was　to　the　effect　that　the　party　had　lost　possession　against　his　will。　But　if　all　that　a　man　had　to　swear　was　that　he　had　lost　possession　against　his　will；　it　is　a　natural　conclusion　that　the　right　to　take　the　oath　and　make　use　of　＇166＇　the　procedure　depended　on　possession；　and　not　on　ownership。　Possession　was　not　merely　sufficient；　but　it　was　essential。　Only　he　who　was　in　possession　could　say　that　he　had　lost　the　property　against　his　will；　just　as　only　he　who　was　on　the　spot　could　follow　the　cattle。　/1/

This；　so　far　as　known；　was　the　one　means　afforded　by　the　early　law　of　our　race　for　the　recovery　of　property　lost　against　one's　will。　So　that；　in　a　word；　this　procedure；　modelled　on　the　self…redress　natural　to　the　case　which　gave　rise　to　it；　was　the　only　remedy；　was　confined　to　the　man　in　possession；　and　was　not　open　to　the　owner　unless　he　was　that　man。

To　this　primitive　condition　of　society　has　been　traced　a　rule　which　maintained　itself　to　later　times　and　a　more　civilized　procedure；　that；　if　chattels　were　intrusted　by　their　owner　to　another　person；　the　bailee；　and　not　the　bailor；　was　the　proper　party　to　sue　for　their　wrongful　appropriation　by　a　third。　It　followed　that　if　the　bailee；　or　person　＇167＇　so　intrusted；　sold　or　gave　the　goods　in　his　charge　to　another；　the　owner　could　only　look　to　the　bailee；　and　could　not　sue　the　stranger；　not　from　any　principle　in　favor　of　trade；　intended　to　protect　those　who　bought　in　good　faith　from　parties　in　possession；　but　because　there　was　no　form　of　action　known　which　was　open　to　him。　But　as　the　remedies　were　all　in　the　bailee's　hands；　it　also　followed　that　he　was　bound　to　hold　his　bailor　harmless。　If　the　goods　were　lost；　it　was　no　excuse　that　they　were　stolen　without　his　fault。　He　alone　could　recover　the　lost　property；　and　therefore　he　was　bound　to　do　so。

In　the　course　of　time　this　reason　ceased　to　exist。　An　owner　out　of　possession　could　sue　the　wrongful　taker　of　his　property；　as　well　as　one　who　had　possession。　But　the　strict　liability　of　the　bailee　remained；　as　such　rules　do　remain　in　the　law；　long　after　the　causes　which　gave　rise　to　it　had　disappeared；　and　at　length　we　find　cause　and　effect　inverted。　We　read　in　Beaumanoir　（A。D。　1283）　that；　if　a　hired　thing　is　stolen；　the　suit　belongs　to　the　bailee；　because　he　is　answerable　to　the　person　from　whom　he　hired。　/1/　At　first　the　bailee　was　answerable　to　the　owner；　because　he　was　the　only　person　who　could　sue。　Now　it　was　said　he　could　sue　because　he　was　answerable　to　the　owner。

All　the　above　peculiarities　reappear　in　the　Anglo…Norman　law；　and　from　that　day　to　this　all　kinds　of　bailees　have　been　treated　as　having　possession　in　a　legal　sense；　as　I　shall　presently　show。

It　is　desirable　to　prove　the　native　origin　of　our　law　of　bailment；　in　order　that；　when　theory　comes　to　be　considered；　modern　German　opinion　may　not　be　valued　at　more　than　its　true　worth。　The　only　existing　theories　on　＇168＇　the　subject　come　from　Germany。　The　German　philosophers　who　have　written　upon　law　have　known　no　other　system　than　the　Roman；　and　the　German　lawyers　who　have　philosophized　have　been　professors　of　Roman　law。　Some　rules　which　we　think　clear　are　against　what　the　German　civilians　would　regard　as　first　principles。　To　test　the　value　of　those　principles；　or　at　least　to　prevent　the　hasty　assumption　that　they　are　universal；　toward　which　there　is　a　slight　tendency　among　English　writers；　it　is　well　to　realize　that　we　are　dealing　with　a　new　system；　of　which　philosophy　has　not　yet　taken　account。

In　the　first　place；　we　find　an　action　to　recover　stolen　property；　which；　like　the　Salic　procedure；　was　based　on　possession；　not　on　title。　Bracton　says　that　one　may　sue　for　his　chattel　as　stolen；　by　the　testimony　of　good　men；　and　that　it　does　not　matter　whether　the　thing　thus　taken　was　his　own　property　o