the common law-第30节

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！


n　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　or　another's；　provided　it　was　in　his　custody。　/1/

The　point　of　especial　importance；　it　will　be　remembered；　was　the　oath。　The　oath　of　the　probi　homines　would　seem　from　the　letter　of　Bracton　to　have　been　that　the　thing　was　lost　（adirata）；　and　this　we　are　expressly　told　was　the　fact　in　a　report　of　the　year　1294。〃　Note　that　where　a　man's　chattel　is　lost　（ou　la　chosse　de　un　home　est　endire）；　he　may　count　that　he　＇the　finder＇　tortiously　detains　it；　&c。；　and　tortiously　for　this　that　whereas　he　lost　the　said　thing　on　such　a　day；　&c。；　he　＇the　loser＇　came　on　such　a　day；　&c。　＇169＇　（la　vynt　yl　e　en　jour）；　and　found　it　in　the　house　of　such　an　one；　and　told　him；　&c。；　and　prayed　him　to　restore　the　Sing；　but　that　he　would　not　restore　it；　&c。；　to　his　damage；　&c。；　and　if　he；　&c。　In　this　case；　the　demandant　must　prove　（his　own　hand　the　twelfth）　that　he　lost　the　thing。〃　/1/

Assuming　that　as　the　first　step　we　find　a　procedure　kindred　to　that　of　the　early　German　folk…laws；　the　more　important　question　is　whether　we　find　any　principles　similar　to　those　which　have　just　been　explained。　One　of　these；　it　will　be　remembered；　concerned　wrongful　transfer　by　the　bailee。　We　find　it　laid　down　in　the　Year　Books　that；　if　I　deliver　goods　to　a　bailee　to　keep　for　me；　and　he　sells　or　gives　them　to　a　stranger；　the　property　is　vested　in　the　stranger　by　the　gift；　and　I　cannot　maintain　trespass　against　him；　but　that　I　have　a　good　remedy　against　the　bailee　by　writ　of　detinue　（for　his　failure　to　return　the　goods）。　/2/　These　cases　have　been　understood；　and　it　would　seem　on　the　whole　rightly；　not　merely　to　deny　trespass　to　the　bailor；　but　any　action　whatever。　Modern　writers　have　added；　however；　the　characteristically　modern　qualification；　that　the　purchase　must　be　bona　fide；　and　without　notice。　/3/　It　may　be　answered；　that　the　proposition　extends　to　gifts　as　well　as　to　sales　by　the　bailee；　that　there　is　no　such　condition　in　the　old　books；　and　that　it　is　contrary　to　the　spirit　of　the　strict　doctrines　of　the　common　law　to　read　it　in。　No　lawyer　needs　to　be　told　that；　even　so　qualified；　this　is　no　＇170＇　longer　the　law。　/1/　The　doctrine　of　the　Year　Books　must　be　regarded　as　a　survival　from　the　primitive　times　when　we　have　seen　the　same　rule　in　force；　unless　we　are　prepared　to　believe　that　in　the　fifteenth　century　they　had　a　nicer　feeling　for　the　rights　of　bona　fide　purchasers　than　at　present。

The　next　point　in　logical　order　would　be　the　degree　of　responsibility　to　which　the　bailee　was　held　as　towards　his　bailor　who　intrusted　him。　But　for　convenience　I　will　consider　first　the　explanation　which　was　given　of　the　bailee's　right　of　action　against　third　persons　wrongfully　taking　the　goods　from　his　possession。　The　inverted　explanation　of　Beaumanoir　will　be　remembered；　that　the　bailee　could　sue　because　he　was　answerable　over；　in　place　of　the　original　rule；　that　he　was　answerable　over　so　strictly　because　only　he　could　sue。　We　find　the　same　reasoning　often　repeated　in　the　Year　Books；　and；　indeed；　from　that　day　to　this　it　has　always　been　one　of　the　commonplaces　of　the　law。　Thus　Hankford；　then　a　judge　of　the　Common　Bench；　says　（circa　A。D。　1410）；　/2/　〃If　a　stranger　takes　beasts　in　my　custody；　I　shall　have　a　writ　of　trespass　against　him；　and　shall　recover　the　value　of　the　beasts；　because　I　am　chargeable　for　the　beasts　to　my　bailor；　who　has　the　property。〃　There　are　cases　in　which　this　reasoning　was　pushed　to　the　conclusion；　that　if；　by　the　terms　of　the　trust；　the　bailee　was　not　answerable　for　the　goods　if　stolen；　he　would　not　have　an　action　against　the　thief。　/3/　The　same　explanation　is　repeated　to　this　day。　Thus　we　read　in　a　well…　known　textbook；　＇171＇　〃For　the　bailee　being　responsible　to　the　bailor；　if　the　goods　be　lost　or　damaged　by　negligence；　or　if　he　do　not　deliver　them　up　on　lawful　demand；　it　is　therefore　reasonable　that　he　should　have　a　right　of　action；〃　&c。　/1/　In　general；　nowadays；　a　borrower　or　hirer　of　property　is　not　answerable　if　it　is　taken　from　him　against　his　will；　and　if　the　reason　offered　were　a　true　one；　it　would　follow　that；　as　he　was　not　answerable　over；　he　could　not　sue　the　wrong…doer。　It　would　only　be　necessary　for　the　wrong…doer　to　commit　a　wrong　so　gross　as　to　free　the　bailee　from　responsibility；　in　order　to　deprive　him　of　his　right　of　action。　The　truth　is；　that　any　person　in　possession；　whether　intrusted　and　answerable　over　or　not；　a　finder　of　property　as　well　as　a　bailee；　can　sue　any　one　except　the　true　owner　for　interfering　with　his　possession；　as　will　be　shown　more　particularly　at　the　end　of　the　next　Lecture。

The　bailor　also　obtained　a　right　of　action　against　the　wrong…doer　at　a　pretty　early　date。　It　is　laid　down　by　counsel　in　48　Edward　III。；　/2/　in　an　action　of　trespass　by　an　agister　of　cattle；　that；　〃in　this　case；　he　who　has　the　property　may　have　a　writ　of　trespass；　and　he　who　has　the　custody　another　writ　of　trespass。　Persay：　Sir；　it　is　true。　But　＇172＇　he　who　recovers　first　shall　oust　the　other　of　the　action；　and　so　it　shall　be　in　many　cases；　as　if　tenant　by　elegit　is　ousted；　each　shall　have　the　assize；　and；　if　the　one　recover　first；　the　writ　of　the　other　is　abated；　and　so　here。〃

It　would　seem　from　other　books　that　this　was　spoken　of　bailments　generally；　and　was　not　limited　to　those　which　are　terminable　at　the　pleasure　of　the　bailor。　Thus　in　22　Edward　IV。；　counsel　say；　〃If　I　bail　to　you　my　goods；　and　another　takes　them　out　of　your　possession；　I　shall　have　good　action　of　trespass　quare　vi　et　armis。〃　/1/　And　this　seems　to　have　been　Rolle's　understanding　in　the　passage　usually　relied　on　by　modern　courts。　/2/

It　was　to　be　expected　that　some　action　should　be　given　to　the　bailor　as　soon　as　the　law　had　got　machinery　which　could　be　worked　without　help　from　the　fresh　pursuit　and　armed　hands　of　the　possessor　and　his　friends。　To　allow　the　bailor　to　sue；　and　to　give　him　trespass；　were　pretty　nearly　the　same　thing　before　the　action　on　the　case　was　heard　of。　Many　early　writs　will　be　found　which　show　that　trespass　had　not　always　the　clear　outline　which　it　developed　later。　The　point　which　seems　to　be　insisted　on　in　the　Year　Books　is；　as　Brooke　sums　it　up　in　the　m