the common law-第31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！


d　later。　The　point　which　seems　to　be　insisted　on　in　the　Year　Books　is；　as　Brooke　sums　it　up　in　the　margin　of　his　Abridgment；　that　two　shall　have　an　action　for　a　single　act；not　that　both　shall　have　trespass　rather　than　case。　/3/　It　should　be　added　that　the　Year　Books　quoted　do　not　go　beyond　the　case　of　a　wrongful　taking　out　of　the　custody　of　the　bailee；　the　old　case　of　the　folk…laws。　/4/　Even　thus　＇173＇　the　right　to　maintain　trespass　is　now　denied　where　bailee　has　the　exclusive　right　to　the　goods　by　lease　or　lien；　/1/　although　the　doctrine　has　been　repeated　with　reference　to　bailments　terminable　at　the　pleasure　of　the　bailor。　/2/　But　the　modified　rule　does　not　concern　the　present　discussion；　any　more　than　the　earlier　form；　because　it　still　leaves　open　the　possessory　remedies　to　all　bailees　without　exception。　This　appears　from　the　relation　of　the　modified　rule　to　the　ancient　law；　from　the　fact　that　Baron　Parke；　in　the　just　cited　case　of　Manders　v。　Williams；　hints　that　he　would　have　been　prepared　to　apply　the　old　rule　to　its　full　extent　but　for　Gordon　v。　Harper；　and　still　more　obviously　from　the　fact；　that　the　bailee's　right　to　trespass　and　trover　is　asserted　in　the　same　breath　with　that　of　the　bailor；　as　well　as　proved　by　express　decisions　to　be　cited。

It　is　true　that　in　Lotan　v。　Cross；　/3/　Lord　Ellenborough　ruled　at　nisi　prius　that　a　lender　could　maintain　trespass　for　damage　done　to　a　chattel　in　the　hands　of　a　borrower；　and　that　the　case　is　often　cited　as　authority　without　remark。　Indeed；　it　is　sometimes　laid　down　generally；　in　reputable　text…books；　that　a　gratuitous　bailment　does　not　change　the　possession；　but　leaves　it　in　the　bailor；　/4/　that　a　gratuitous　bailee　is　quasi　a　servant　of　the　bailor；　and　the　possession　of　one　is　the　possession　of　the　other；　and　that　it　is　for　this　reason　that；　although　the　bailee　may　sue　on　＇174＇　his　possession；　the　bailor　has　the　same　actions。　/1/　A　part　of　this　confusion　has　already　been　explained；　and　the　rest　will　be　when　I　come　to　speak　of　servants；　between　whom　and　all　bailees　there　is　a　broad　and　well…known　distinction。　But　on　whatever　ground　Lotan　v。　Cross　may　stand；　if　on　any；　it　cannot　for　a　moment　be　admitted　that　borrowers　in　general　have　not　trespass　and　trover。　A　gratuitous　deposit　for　the　sole　benefit　of　the　depositor　is　a　much　stronger　case　for　the　denial　of　these　remedies　to　the　depositary；　yet　we　have　a　decision　by　the　full　court；　in　which　Lord　Ellenborough　also　took　part；　that　a　depositary　has　case；　the　reasoning　implying　that　a　fortiori　a　borrower　would　have　trespass。　And　this　has　always　been　the　law。　/2/　It　has　been　seen　that　a　similar　doctrine　necessarily　resulted　from　the　nature　of　the　early　German　procedure；　and　the　cases　cited　in　the　note　show　that；　in　this　as　in　other　respects；　the　English　followed　the　traditions　of　their　race。

The　meaning　of　the　rule　that　all　bailees　have　the　possessory　remedies　is；　that　in　the　theory　of　the　common　law　every　bailee　has　a　true　possession；　and　that　a　bailee　recovers　on　the　strength　of　his　possession；　just　as　a　finder　does；　and　as　even　a　wrongful　possessor　may　have　full　damages　or　a　return　of　the　specific　thing　from　a　stranger　to　the　title。　On　the　other　hand；　so　far　as　the　possessory　actions　are　still　allowed　to　bailors；　it　is　not　on　the　ground　that　they　also　have　possession；　but　is　probably　by　a　survival；　which　＇175＇　explained；　and　which　in　the　modern　form　of　the　an　anomaly。　/1/　The　reason　usually　given　is；　that　a　right　of　immediate　possession　is　sufficient；a　reason　which　the　notion　that　the　bailor　is　actually　possessed。

The　point　which　is　essential　to　understanding　the　common…law　theory　of　possession　is　now　established：　that　all　bailees　from　time　immemorial　have　been　regarded　by　the　English　law　as　possessors；　and　entitled　to　the　possessory　remedies。　It　is　not　strictly　necessary　to　go　on　and　complete　the　proof　that　our　law　of　bailment　is　of　pure　German　descent。　But；　apart　from　curiosity；　the　doctrine　remaining　to　be　discussed　has　had　such　important　influence　upon　the　law　of　the　present　day；　that　I　shall　follow　it　out　with　some　care。　That　doctrine　was　the　absolute　responsibility　of　the　bailee　to　the　bailor；　if　the　goods　were　wrongfully　taken　from　him。　/2/

The　early　text…writers　are　not　as　instructive　as　might　be　hoped；　owing　to　the　influence　of　the　Roman　law。　Glanvil；　however；　says　in　terms　that；　if　a　borrowed　thing　be　destroyed　or　lost　in　any　way　while　in　the　borrower's　custody；　he　is　absolutely　bound　to　return　a　reasonable　price。　/3/　So　does　Bracton；　who　partially　repeats　but　modifies　the　language　of　Justinian　as　to　commodatum；　depositum；　and　pignus；　/4/　and　as　to　the　duty　of　the　hirer　to　use　the　care　of　a　diligentissimus　paterfamilias。　/5/

＇176＇　The　language　and　decisions　of　the　courts　are　perfectly　clear；　and　there　we　find　the　German　tradition　kept　alive　for　several　centuries。　I　begin　with　the　time　of　Edward　II。；　about　1315。　In　detinue　the　plea　was　that　the　plaintiff　delivered　the　defendant　a　chest　locked　with　his　key；　that　the　chattels　were　in　the　chest；　and　that　they　were　taken　from　the　defendant　together　with　his　own　goods　by　robbery。　The　replication　was　that　the　goods　were　delivered　to　the　defendant　out　of　enclosure；　and　Fitzherbert　says　the　party　was　driven　to　that　issue；　/1/　which　implies　that；　if　not　in　the　chest；　but　in　the　defendant's　custody；　he　was　liable。　Lord　Holt；　in　Coggs　v。　Bernard；　/2/　denies　that　the　chest　would　make　any　difference；　but　the　old　books　agree　that　there　is　no　delivery　if　the　goods　are　under　lock　and　key；　and　this　is　the　origin　of　the　distinction　as　to　carriers　breaking　bulk　in　modern　criminal　law。　/3/　In　the　reign　of　Edward　III。；　/4/　the　case　of　a　pledge　came　up；　which　seems　always　to　have　been　regarded　as　a　special　bailment　to　keep　as　one's　own　goods。　The　defence　was；　that　the　goods　were　stolen　with　the　defendant's　own。　The　plaintiff　was　driven　to　reply　a　tender　before　the　theft；　which　would　have　put　an　end　to　the　pledge；　and　left　the　defendant　a　general　bailee。　/5/　Issue　was　taken　thereon；　which　confirms　the　other　cases；　by　implying　that　in　that　event　the　defendant　would　be　liable。

Next　I　take　a　case　of　the　time　of　Henry　VI。；　A。D。　1455。　/6/　＇177＇　was　an　action　of　debt　against　the　Marshal　of　the　Marshalsea；　or　jailer　of　the　King's　Bench　prison；　for　an　escape　of　a　prisoner。　Jailers　in　charge　of　prisoners　were　governed　by　the　same　law　as　bailees　in　charge　of　cattle。　The　body　of　the　prisoner　was　delivered　to　the　jailer　to　keep　under　the　same　liabilities　that　cows　or　goods　might　have　been。　/1/　He　set　up　in　defence　that　enemies　of　the　king　broke　into　the　prison　and　carried　off　the　prisoner；　against　the　will　of　the　defendant。　The　question　was　whether　this　was　a　good　defence。　The　court　said　that；　if　alien　enemies　of　the　king；　for　instance　the　French；　released　the　prisoner；　or　perhaps　if　the　burning　of　the　prison　gave　him　a　chance　to　escape；　the　excuse　would　be　good；　〃because　then　＇the　defendant＇　has　remedy　against　no　one。〃　But　if　subjects　of　the　king　broke　the　prison；　the　defendant　would　be　liable；　for　they　are　not　enemies；　but　traitors；　and　then；　it　is　implied；　the　defendant　would　have　a　right　of　action　against　them；　and　therefore　would　himself　be　answerable。　In　this　case　the　court　got　very　near　to　the　original　ground　of　liability；　and　distinguished　accordingly。　The　person　intrusted　was　liable　in　those　cases　where　he　had　a　remedy　over　against　the　wrong…doer　（and　in　which；　originally；　he　was　the　only　person　who　had　such　a　remedy）；　and；　on　the　other　hand；　his　liability；　being　founded　on　that　circumstance；　ceased　where　the　remedy　ceased。　The　jailer　could　not　sue　the　soldiers　of　an　invading　army　of　Frenchmen；　but　in　theory　he　could　sue　any　British　subject　who　carried　off　the　prisoner；　however　little　it　was　likely　that　he　would　get　much　satisfaction　in　that　way。

A　few　years　later　the　law　is　stated　the　same　way　by　the　famous　Littleton。　He　says　that；　if　goods　are　delivered　to　＇178＇　a　man；　he　shall　have　an　action　of　trespass　if　they　are　carried　off；　for　he　is　chargeable　over。　/1/　That　is；　he　is　bound　to　make　the　loss　good　to　the　party　who　intrusted　him。

In　9　Edward　IV。；　/2/　Danby　says　if　a　bailee　received　goods　to　keep　as　his　proper　goods；　then　robbery　shall　excuse　him；　otherwise　not。　Again；　in　a　later　case　/3/　robbery　is　said　not　to　be　an　excuse。　There　may　have　been　some　hesitation　as　to　robbery　when　the　robber　was　unknown；　and　so　the　bailee　had　no　remedy　over；　/4/　or　even　as　to　robbery　generally；　on　the　ground　that　by　reason　of　the　felony　the　bailee　could　not　go　against　either　the　robber's　body　or　his　estate；　for　the　one　was　hanged　and　the　other　forfeited。　/5/　But　there　is　not　a　shadow　of　doubt　that　the　bailee　was　not　excused　by　an　ordinary　wrongful　taking。　〃If　the　goods　are　taken　by　a　trespasser；　of　whom　the　bailee　has　conusance；　he　shall　be　chargeable　to　his　bailor；　and　shall　have　his　action　over　against　his　trespasser。〃　/6/　The　same　point　was　touched　in　other　passages　of　the　Year　Books；　/7/　and　the　rule　of　law　is　clearly　implied　by　the　reason　which　was　given　for　the　bailee's　right　to　sue　in　the　cases　cited　above。

The　principle　was　directly　decided　in　accordance　with　the　ancient　law　in　the　famous　case　of　Southcote　v。　Bennet。　/8/　This　was　detinue　of　goods　delivered　to　the　defendant　to　＇179＇　keep　safe