the common law-第79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！
The general object of this Lecture is to discover the theory on which a man is allowed to enjoy a special right when the facts out of which the right arises are not true of him。 The transfer of easements presented itself as one case to be explained； and that has now been analyzed； and its influence on the law has been traced。 But the principle of such transfers is clearly anomalous； and does not affect the general doctrine of the law。 The general doctrine is that which has been seen exemplified in prescription； warranty； and such covenants as followed the analogy mentioned Another illustration which has not yet been is to be found in the law of uses。
In old times a use was a chose in action；that is； was considered very nearly from the point of view of contract； and it had a similar history to that which has been traced in other cases。 At first it was doubted whether proof of such a secret trust ought to be allowed； even as against the heir。 /1/ It was allowed； however； in the end； /2/ and then the principle of succession was extended to the assign。 But it never went further。 Only those who were privies in estate with the original feoffee to uses； were bound by the use。 A disseisor was no more bound by the confidence reposed in his disseisee； than he was entitled to vouch his disseisee's warrantor。 In the time of Henry VIII。 it was said that 〃where a use shall be； it is requisite that there be two things； sc。 confidence； and privity： 。。。 as I say； if there be not privity or confidence； ＇4O8＇ then there can be no use： and hence if the feoffees make a feoffment to one who has notice of the use； now the law will adjudge him seised to the first use； since there is sufficient privity between the first feoffor and him； for if he ＇i。e。 the first feoflor＇ had warranted he ＇the last feoffee＇ should vouch as assign； which proves privity； and he is in in the per by the feoffees； but where one comes into the land in the post； as the lord by escheat or the disseisor； then the use is altered and changed； because privity is wanting。〃 /1/
To this day it is said that a trust is annexed in privity to the person and to the estate /2/ （which means to the persona）。 It is not regarded as issuing out of the land like a rent； so that while a rent binds every one who has the land； no matter how； a disseisor is not bound by the trust。 /3/ The case of the lord taking by escheat has been doubted； /4/ and it will be remembered that there is a difference between Bracton and later authors as to whether he comes in as quasi heres or as a stranger。
Then as to the benefit of the use。 We are told that the right to sue the subpoena descended indeed to the heir； on the ground of heres eadem persona cum antecessore； but that it was not assets。 /5/ The cestui que use was given power to sell by an early statute。 /6/ But with regard to trusts； Lord Coke tells us that in the reign of Queen Elizabeth ＇409＇ all the judges in England held that a trust could not be assigned； 〃because it was a matter in privity between them； and was in the nature of a chose in action。〃 /1/ Uses and trusts were both devisable； however； from an early day； /2/ and now trusts are as alienable as any form of property。
The history of early law everywhere shows that the difficulty of transferring a mere right was greatly felt when the situation of fact from which it sprung could not also be transferred。 Analysis shows that the difficulty is real。 The fiction which made such a transfer conceivable has now been explained； and its history has been followed until it has been seen to become a general mode of thought。 It is now a matter of course that the buyer stands in the shoes of the seller； or； in the language of an old law…book； /3/ that 〃the assign is in a manner quasi successor to his assignor。〃 Whatever peculiarities of our law rest on that assumption may now be understood。
FOOTNOTES
3/1 E。g。 Ine； c。 74； Alfred； c。 42； Ethelred； IV。 4； Section 1。
3/2 Bract。； fol。 144； 145； Fleta； I。 c。 40； 41； Co。 Lit。 126b； Hawkins； P。C。； Bk。 2； ch。 23； Section 15。
3/3 Lib。 I。 c。 2； ad fin。
3 /4 Bract。； fol。 144a； 〃assulto praemeditato。〃
4/1 Fol。 155； cf。 103b。
4/2 Y。B。 6 Ed。 IV。 7； pl。 18。
4/3 Ibid。； and 21 H。 VII。 27； pl。 5。
4/4 D。 47。 9。 9。
7/1 xxi。 28。
7/2 ＇theta＇； ix。 Jowett's Tr。； Bk。 IX。 p。 437； Bohn's Tr。； pp。 378； 379。
7/3 ＇theta＇； xv。； Jowett； 449； Bohn； 397。
8/1 ＇iota alpha＇； xiv。； Jowett； 509； Bohn； 495。
8/2 ＇theta＇； xii。； Jowett； 443； 444； Bohn； 388。
8/3 ＇Greek words＇。 244； 245。
8/4 l。 28 （11）。
8/5 Solon。
8/6 〃Si quadrupes pauperiem fecisse dicetur actio ex lege duodecim tabularum descendit； quae lex voluit； aut dari ＇id＇ quod nocuit； id ist； id animal； quod noxiam commisit； aut estimationem noxiae offerre。〃 D。 9。 1。 1； pr。； Just。 Inst。 4。 9； XII Tab。； VIII。 6。
8/7 Gaii Inst。 IV。 Sections 75； 76； D。 9。 4。 2； Section 1。 〃Si servus furtum faxit noxiam ve noxit。〃 XII Tab。； XII。2。 Cf。 Just。 Inst。 4。8； Section 7。
9/1 D。 39。 2。 7； Sections 1； 2； Gaii Inst。 IV。 Section 75。
9/2 〃Noxa caput sequitur。〃 D。 9。 1。 1； Section 12； Inst。 4。8； Section 5。
9/3 〃Quia desinit dominus esse ubi fera evasit。〃 D。 9。 1。 1； Section 10； Inst。 4。 9； pr。 Compare May v。 Burdett； 9 Q。B。101； 113。
10/1 D。 19。 5。 14； Section 3； Plin。 Nat。 Hist。； XVIII。 3。
10/2 〃In lege antiqua si servus sciente domino furtum fecit； vel aliam noxiam commisit； servi nomine actio est noxalis； nec dominus suo nomine tenetur。〃 D。 9。 4。 2。
10/3 Gaius； Inst。 IV。 Section 77； says that a noxal action may change to a direct； and conversely； a direct action to a noxal。 If a paterfamilias commits a tort； and then is adopted or becomes a slave； a noxal action now lies against his master in place of the direct one against himself as the wrong…doer。 Just。 Inst。 4。 8； Section 5。
11/1 LL。 Alfred； c。 13； 1 Tylor； Primitive Culture； Am。 ed。； p。 285 et seq。； Bain； Mental and Moral Science； Bk。 III。 ch。 8； p。 261。
11/2 Florus； Epitome； II。 18。 Cf。 Livy； IX 1； 8； VIII。 39； Zonaras； VII。 26； ed。 Niebuhr； vol。 43； pp。 98； 99。
12/1 Gaii Inst。 IV。 Section 81。 I give the reading of Huschke： 〃Licere enim etiam； si fato is fuerit mortuus； mortuum dare； nam quamquam diximus； non etiam permissum reis esse； et mortuos homines dedere； tamen et si quis eum dederit； qui fato suo vita excesserit； aeque liberatur。〃 Ulpian's statement； in D。 9。 1。 1； Section 13； that the action is gone if the animal dies ante litem contestatam； is directed only to the point that liability is founded on possession of the thing。
12/2 〃Bello contra foedus suscepto。〃
12/3 Livy； VIII。 39： 〃Vir。。。haud dubie proximarum induciarum ruptor。 De eo coacti referre praetores decretum fecerunt 'Ut Brutulus Papius Romanis dederetur。〃。。。Fetiales Romam； ut censuerunt； missi； et corpus Brutuli exanime： ipse morte voluntaria ignominiae se ac supplicio subtraxit。 Placuit cum corpore bona quoque ejus dedi。〃 Cf。 Zonaras； VII。 26； ed。 Niebuhr； vol。 43； p。 97： ＇Greek characters＇。 See further Livy； V。 36； 〃postulatumque ut pro jure gentium violato Fabii dederentur；〃 and Ib。 I。 32。
13/1 Livy； IX。 5； 8； 9； 10。 〃Nam quod deditione nostra negant exsolvi religione populum； id istos magis ne dedantur； quam quia ita se res habeat； dicere； quis adeo juris fetialium expers est； qui ignoret？〃 The formula of surrender was as follows： 〃Quandoque hisce homines injussu populi Romani Quiritium foedus ictum iri spoponderunt； atque ob eam rem noxam nocuerunt； ob eam rem； quo populus Romanus scelere impio sit solutus； hosce homines vobis dedo。〃 Cf。 Zonaras； VII。 26； ed。 Niebuhr； vol。 43； pp。 98； 99。
13/2 De Orator。 I。 40； and elsewhere。 It is to be noticed that Florus； in his account； says deditione Mancini expiavit。 Epitome； II。 18。 It has already been observed that the cases mentioned by Livy seem to suggest that the object of the surrender was expiation； as much as they do that it was satisfaction of a contract。 Zonaras says； Postumius and Calvinus ＇Greek characters＇。 （VII。 26； ed。 Niebuhr； Vol。 43； pp。 98； 99。） Cf。 ib。 p。 97。 Compare Serv。 ad Virg。 Eclog。 IV。 43： 〃In legibus Numae cautum est； ut si quis imprudens occidisset hominem pro capite occisi et natis ＇agnatis？ Huschke＇ ejus in concione offerret arietem。〃 Id。 Geor。 III。 387； and Fes
