the common law-第69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！


w　as　it　stood　soon　after　the　Conquest。　At　that　time　he　was　a　universal　successor　in　a　very　broad　sense。　Many　of　his　functions　as　such　were　soon　transferred　to　the　executor。　The　heir's　rights　became　confined　to　real　estate；　and　his　liabilities　to　those　connected　with　real　estate；　and　to　obligations　of　his　ancestor　expressly　binding　him。　The　succession　to　each　fee　or　feudal　inheritance　is　distinct；　not　part　of　the　sum　of　all　the　ancestor's　rights　regarded　as　one　whole。　But　to　this　day　the　executor　in　his　sphere；　and　the　heir　in　his；　represent　the　person　of　the　deceased；　and　are　treated　as　if　they　were　one　with　him；　for　the　purpose　of　settling　their　rights　and　obligations。

The　bearing　which　this　has　upon　the　contracts　of　the　＇353＇　deceased　has　been　pointed　out。　But　its　influence　is　not　confined　to　contract；　it　runs　through　everything。　The　most　striking　instance；　however；　is　the　acquisition　of　prescriptive　rights。　Take　the　case　of　a　right　of　way。　A　right　of　way　over　a　neighbor's　land　can　only　be　acquired　by　grant；　or　by　using　it　adversely　for　twenty　years。　A　man　uses　a　way　for　ten　years；　and　dies。　Then　his　heir　uses　it　ten　years。　Has　any　right　been　acquired？　If　common　sense　alone　is　consulted；　the　answer　must　be　no。　The　ancestor　did　not　get　any　right；　because　he　did　not　use　the　way　long　enough。　And　just　as　little　did　the　heir。　How　can　it　better　the　heir's　title　that　another　man　had　trespassed　before　him？　Clearly；　if　four　strangers　to　each　other　used　the　way　for　five　years　each；　no　right　would　be　acquired　by　the　last。　But　here　comes　in　the　fiction　which　has　been　so　carefully　explained。　From　the　point　of　view　of　the　law　it　is　not　two　persons　who　have　used　the　way　for　ten　years　each；　but　one　who　has　used　it　for　twenty。　The　heir　has　the　advantage　of　sustaining　his　ancestor's　and　the　right　is　acquired。

LECTURE　X。

SUCCESSIONS　INTER　VIVOS

I　now　reach　the　most　difficult　and　obscure　part　of　the　subject。　It　remains　to　be　discovered　whether　the　fiction　of　identity　was　extended　to　others　besides　the　heir　and　executor。　And　if　we　find；　as　we　do；　that　it　went　but　little　farther　in　express　terms；　the　question　will　still　arise　whether　the　mode　of　thought　and　the　conceptions　made　possible　by　the　doctrine　of　inheritance　have　not　silently　modified　the　law　as　to　dealings　between　the　living。　It　seems　to　me　demonstrable　that　their　influence　has　been　profound；　and　that；　without　understanding　the　theory　of　inheritance；　it　is　impossible　to　understand　the　theory　of　transfer　inter　vivos。

＇354＇　The　difficulty　in　dealing　with　the　subject　is　to　convince　the　sceptic　that　there　is　anything　to　explain。　Nowadays；　the　notion　that　a　right　is　valuable　is　almost　identical　with　the　notion　that　it　may　be　turned　into　money　by　selling　it。　But　it　was　not　always　so。　Before　you　can　sell　a　right；　you　must　be　able　to　make　a　sale　thinkable　in　legal　terms。　I　put　the　case　of　the　transfer　of　a　contract　at　the　beginning　of　the　Lecture。　I　have　just　mentioned　the　case　of　gaining　a　right　by　prescription；　when　neither　party　has　complied　with　the　requirement　of　twenty　years'　adverse　use。　In　the　latter　instance；　there　is　not　even　a　right　at　the　time　of　the　transfer；　but　a　mere　fact　of　ten　years'　past　trespassing。　A　way；　until　it　becomes　a　right　of　way；　is　just　as　little　susceptible　of　being　held　by　a　possessory　title　as　a　contract。　If　then　a　contract　can　be　sold；　if　a　buyer　can　add　the　time　of　his　seller's　adverse　user　to　his　own；　what　is　the　machinery　by　which　the　law　works　out　the　result？

The　most　superficial　acquaintance　with　any　system　of　law　in　its　earlier　stages　will　show　with　what　difficulty　and　by　what　slow　degrees　such　machinery　has　been　provided；　and　how　the　want　of　it　has　restricted　the　sphere　of　alienation。　It　is　a　great　mistake　to　assume　that　it　is　a　mere　matter　of　common　sense　that　the　buyer　steps　into　the　shoes　of　the　seller；　according　to　our　significant　metaphor。　Suppose　that　sales　and　other　civil　transfers　had　kept　the　form　of　warlike　capture　which　it　seems　that　they　had　in　the　infancy　of　Roman　law；　/1/　and　which　was　at　least　＇355＇　partially　retained　in　one　instance；　the　acquisition　of　wives；　after　the　transaction　had；　in　fact；　taken　the　more　civilized　shape　of　purchase。　The　notion　that　the　buyer　came　in　adversely　to　the　seller　would　probably　have　accompanied　the　fiction　of　adverse　taking；　and　he　would　have　stood　on　his　own　position　as　founding　a　new　title。　Without　the　aid　of　conceptions　derived　from　some　other　source；　it　would　have　been　hard　to　work　out　a　legal　transfer　of　objects　which　did　not　admit　of　possession。

A　possible　source　of　such　other　conceptions　was　to　be　found　in　family　law。　The　principles　of　inheritance　furnished　a　fiction　and　a　mode　of　thought　which　at　least　might　have　been　extended　into　other　spheres。　In　order　to　prove　that　they　were　in　fact　so　extended；　it　will　be　necessary　to　examine　once　more　the　law　of　Rome；　as　well　as　the　remains　of　German　and　Anglo…Saxon　customs。

I　will　take　up　first　the　German　and　Anglo…Saxon　laws　which　are　the　ancestors　of　our　own　on　one　side　of　the　house。　For　although　what　we　get　from　those　sources　is　not　in　the　direct　line　of　the　argument；　it　lays　a　foundation　for　it　by　showing　the　course　of　development　in　different　fields。

The　obvious　analogy　between　purchaser　and　heir　seems　to　have　been　used　in　the　folk…laws；　but　mainly　for　another　purpose　than　those　which　will　have　to　be　considered　in　the　English　law。　This　was　to　enlarge　the　sphere　of　alienability。　It　will　be　remembered　that　there　are　many　traces　of　family　ownership　in　early　German；　as　well　as　in　early　Roman　law；　and　it　would　seem　that　the　transfer　＇356＇　of　property　which　originally　could　not　be　given　outside　the　family；　was　worked　out　through　the　form　of　making　the　grantee　an　heir。

The　history　of　language　points　to　this　conclusion。　Heres；　as　Beseler　/1/　and　others　have　remarked；　from　meaning　a　successor　to　the　property　of　a　person　deceased；　was　extended　to　the　donee　mortis　causa；　and　even　more　broadly　to　grantees　in　general。　Hereditare　was　used　in　like　manner　for　the　transfer　of　land。　Hevin　is　quoted　by　Laferriere　/2/　as　calling　attention　to　the　fact　that　the　ancient　usage　was　to　say　heriter　for　purchase；　heritier　for　purchaser；　and　desheriter　for　sell。

The　texts　of　the　Salic　law　give　us　incontrovertible　evidence。　A　man　might　transfer　the　whole　or　any　part　of　his　property　/3/　by　delivering　possession　of　it　to　a　trustee　who；　within　twelve　months；　handed　it　over　to　the　beneficiaries。　/4/　To　those；　the　text　reads；　whom　the　donor　has　named　heredes　（quos　heredes　appellavit）。　Here　then　was　a　voluntary　transfer　of　more　or　less　property　at　pleasure　to　persons　freely　chosen；　who　were　not　necessarily　universal　successors；　if　they　ever　were；　and　who　nevertheless　took　under　the　name　heredes。　The　word；　which　must　have　meant　at　first　persons　taking　by　descent；　was　extended　to　persons　taking　by　purchase。　/5/　If　the　word　became　enlarged　in　meaning；　it　is　probably　because　the　thought　which　it　conveyed　was　turned　to　new　uses。　The　transaction　seems　＇357＇　to　have　fallen　half…way　between　the　institution　of　an　heir　and　a　sale。　The　later　law　of　the　Ripuarian　Franks　treats　it　more　distinctly　from　the　former　point　of　view。　It　permits　a　man　who　has　no　sons　to　give　all　his　property　to　whomsoever　he　chooses；　whether　relatives　or　strangers；　as　inheritance；　either　by　way　of　adfathamire；　as　the　Salic　form　was　called；　or　by　writing　or　delivery。　/1/

The　Lombards　had　a　similar　transfer；　in　which　the　donee　was　not　only　called　heres；　but　was　made　liable　like　an　heir　for　the　debts　of　the　donor　on　receiving　the　property　after　the　donor's　death。　/2/2　By　the　Salic　law　a　man　who　could　not　pay　the　wergeld　was　allowed　to　transfer　formally　his　house…lot；　and　with　it　the　liability。　But　the　transfer　was　to　the　next　of　kin。　/3/

The　house…lot　or　family　curtilage　at　first　devolved　strictly　within　the　limits　of　the　family。　Here　again；　at　least　in　England；　freedom　of　alienation　seems　to　have　grown　up　by　gradually　increased　latitude　in　the　choice　of　successors。　If　we　may　trust　the　order　of　development　to　be　noticed　in　the　early　charters；　which　it　is　hard　to　believe　＇358＇　accidental；　although　the　charters　are　few；　royal　grants　at　first　permitted　an　election　of　heirs　among　the　kindred；　and　then　e