the common law-第43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！



The　error　was　made　easier　by　a　different　use　of　the　phrase　in　a　different　connection。　A　bailee　was　in　general　liable　for　goods　stolen　from　his　custody；　whether　he　had　a　lien　or　not。　But　the　law　was　otherwise　as　to　a　＇244＇　pledgee；　if　he　had　kept　the　pledge　with　his　own　goods；　and　the　two　were　stolen　together。　/1/　This　distinction　was　accounted　for；　at　least　in　Lord　Coke's　time；　by　saying　that　the　pledge　was；　in　a　sense；　the　pledgee's　own；　that　he　had　a　special　property　in　it；　and　thus　that　the　ordinary　relation　of　bailment　did　not　exist；　or　that　the　undertaking　was　only　to　keep　as　his　own　goods。　/2/　The　same　expression　was　used　in　discussing　the　pledgee's　right　to　assign　the　pledge；　/3/　In　this　sense　the　term　applied　only　to　pledges；　but　its　significance　in　a　particular　connection　was　easily　carried　over　into　the　others　in　which　it　was　used；　with　the　result　that　the　special　property　which　was　requisite　to　maintain　the　possessory　actions　was　supposed　to　mean　a　qualified　interest　in　the　goods。

With　regard　to　the　legal　consequences　of　possession；　it　only　remains　to　mention　that　the　rules　which　have　been　laid　down　with　regard　to　chattels　also　prevail　with　regard　to　land。　For　although　the　plaintiff　in　ejectment　must　recover　on　the　strength　of　his　own　title　as　against　a　defendant　in　possession；　it　is　now　settled　that　prior　possession　is　enough　if　the　defendant　stands　on　his　possession　alone　Possession　is　of　course　sufficient　for　trespass。5　And　although　the　early　remedy　by　assize　was　restricted　to　those　who　had　a　technical　seisin；　this　was　for　reasons　which　do　not　affect　the　general　theory。

Before　closing　I　must　say　a　word　concerning　ownership　and　kindred　conceptions。　Following　the　order　of　analysis　＇245＇　which　has　been　pursued　with　regard　to　possession；　the　first　question　must　be；　What　are　the　facts　to　which　the　rights　called　ownership　are　attached　as　a　legal　consequence？　The　most　familiar　mode　of　gaining　ownership　is　by　conveyance　from　the　previous　owner。　But　that　presupposes　ownership　already　existing；　and　the　problem　is　to　discover　what　calls　it　into　being。

One　fact　which　has　this　effect　is　first　possession。　The　captor　of　wild　animals；　or　the　taker　of　fish　from　the　ocean；　has　not　merely　possession；　but　a　title　good　against　all　the　world。　But　the　most　common　mode　of　getting　an　original　and　independent　title　is　by　certain　proceedings；　in　court　or　out　of　it；　adverse　to　all　the　world。　At　one　extreme　of　these　is　the　proceeding　in　rem　of　the　admiralty；　which　conclusively　disposes　of　the　property　in　its　power；　and；　when　it　sells　or　condemns　it；　does　not　deal　with　this　or　that　man's　title；　but　gives　a　new　title　paramount　to　all　previous　interests；　whatsoever　they　may　be。　The　other　and　more　familiar　case　is　prescription；　where　a　public　adverse　holding　for　a　certain　time　has　a　similar　effect。　A　title　by　prescription　is　not　a　presumed　conveyance　from　this　or　owner　alone；　it　extinguishes　all　previous　and　inconsistent　claims。　The　two　coalesce　in　the　ancient　fine　with　proclamations　where　the　combined　effect　of　the　judgment　and　the　lapse　of　a　year　and　a　day　was　to　bar　claims。　/1/

So　rights　analogous　to　those　of　ownership　may　be　given　by　the　legislature　to　persons　of　whom　some　other　set　of　facts　is　true。　For　instance；　a　patentee；　or　one　to　whom　the　government　has　issued　a　certain　instrument；　and　who　in　fact　has　made　a　patentable　invention。

＇246＇　But　what　are　the　rights　of　ownership？　They　are　substantially　the　same　as　those　incident　to　possession。　Within　the　limits　prescribed　by　policy；　the　owner　is　allowed　to　exercise　his　natural　powers　over　the　subject…matter　uninterfered　with；　and　is　more　or　less　protected　in　excluding　other　people　from　such　interference。　The　owner　is　allowed　to　exclude　all；　and　is　accountable　to　no　one。　The　possessor　is　allowed　to　exclude　all　but　one；　and　is　accountable　to　no　one　but　him。　The　great　body　of　questions　which　have　made　the　subject　of　property　so　large　and　important　are　questions　of　conveyancing；　not　necessarily　or　generally　dependent　on　ownership　as　distinguished　from　possession。　They　are　questions　of　the　effect　of　not　having　an　independent　and　original　title；　but　of　coming　in　under　a　title　already　in　existence；　or　of　the　modes　in　which　an　original　title　can　be　cut　up　among　those　who　come　in　under　it。　These　questions　will　be　dealt　with　and　explained　where　they　belong；　in　the　Lectures　on　Successions。

＇247＇　LECTURE　VII。

CONTRACT。　　I。　HISTORY。

The　doctrine　of　contract　has　been　so　thoroughly　remodelled　to　meet　the　needs　of　modern　times；　that　there　is　less　here　than　elsewhere　for　historical　research。　It　has　been　so　ably　discussed　that　there　is　less　room　here　elsewhere　for　essentially　new　analysis。　But　a　short　of　the　growth　of　modern　doctrines；　whether　necessary　or　not；　will　at　least　be　interesting；　while　an　analysis　of　their　main　characteristics　cannot　be　omitted；　and　may　present　some　new　features。

It　is　popularly　supposed　that　the　oldest　forms　of　contract　known　to　our　law　are　covenant　and　debt；　and　they　are　of　early　date；　no　doubt。　But　there　are　other　contracts　still　in　use　which；　although　they　have　in　some　degree　put　on　modern　forms；　at　least　suggest　the　question　whether　they　were　not　of　equally　early　appearance。

One　of　these；　the　promissory　oath；　is　no　longer　the　foundation　of　any　rights　in　private　law。　It　is　used；　but　as　mainly　as　a　solemnity　connected　with　entering　upon　a　public　office。　The　judge　swears　that　he　will　execute　justice　according　to　law；　the　juryman　that　he　will　find　his　verdict　according　to　law　and　the　evidence；　the　newly　adopted　citizen　that　he　will　bear　true　faith　and　allegiance　to　the　government　of　his　choice。

But　there　is　another　contract　which　plays　a　more　important　part。　It　may；　perhaps；　sound　paradoxical　to　mention　＇248＇　the　contract　of　suretyship。　Suretyship；　nowadays；　is　only　an　accessory　obligation；　which　presupposes　a　principal　undertaking；　and　which；　so　far　as　the　nature　of　the　contract　goes；　is　just　like　any　other。　But；　as　has　been　pointed　out　by　Laferriere；　/1/　and　very　likely　by　earlier　writers；　the　surety　of　ancient　law　was　the　hostage；　and　the　giving　of　hostages　was　by　no　means　confined　to　international　dealings。

In　the　old　metrical　romance　of　Huon　of　Bordeaux；　Huon；　having　killed　the　son　of　Charlemagne；　is　required　by　the　Emperor　to　perform　various　seeming　impossibilities　as　the　price　of　forgiveness。　Huon　starts　upon　the　task；　leaving　twelve　of　his　knights　as　hostages。　/2/　He　returns　successful；　but　at　first　the　Emperor　is　made　to　believe　that　his　orders　have　been　disobeyed。　Thereupon　Charlemagne　cries　out；　〃I　summon　hither　the　pledges　for　Huon。　I　will　hang　them；　and　they　shall　have　no　ransom。〃　/3/　So；　when　Huon　is　to　fight　a　duel；　by　way　of　establishing　the　truth　or　falsehood　of　a　charge　against　him；　each　party　begins　by　producing　some　of　his　friends　as　hostages。

When　hostages　are　given　for　a　duel　which　is　to　determine　the　truth　or　falsehood　of　an　accusation；　the　transaction　is　very　near　to　the　giving　of　similar　security　in　the　trial　of　a　cause　in　court。　This　was　in　fact　the　usual　course　of　the　Germanic　procedure。　It　will　be　remembered　that　the　earliest　appearance　of　law　was　as　a　substitute　for　the　private　feuds　between　families　or　clans。　But　while　a　defendant　who　did　not　peaceably　submit　to　the　jurisdiction　of　the　court　might　be　put　outside　the　protection　of　the　law；　so　that　any　man　might　kill　him　at　sight；　there　was　at　first　＇249＇　no　way　of　securing　the　indemnity　to　which　the　plaintiff　was　entitled　unless　the　defendant　chose　to　give　such　security。　/1/

English　customs　which　have　been　preserved　to　us　are　somewhat　more　advanced；　but　one　of　the　noticeable　features　in　their　procedure　is　the　giving　of　security　at　every　step。　All　lawyers　will　remember　a　trace　of　this　in　the　fiction　of　John　Doe　and　Richard　Roe；　the　plaintiff's　pledges　to　prosecute　his　action。　But　a　more　significant　example　is　found　in　the　rule　repeated　in　many　of　the　early　laws；　that　a　defendant　accused　of　a　wrong　must　either　find　security　or　go　to　prison。　/2/　This　security　was　the　hostage　of　earlier　days；　and　later；　when　the　actions　for　punishment　and　for　redress　were　separated　from　each　other；　became　the　bail　of　the　criminal　law。　The　liability　was　still　conceived　in　the　same　way　as　when　the　bail　actually　put　his　own　body　into　the　power　of　the　party　secured。

One　of　Charlemagne's　additions　to　the　Lex　Salica　speaks　of　a　freeman　who　has　committed　himself　to　the　power　of　another　by　way　of　surety。　/3/　The　very　phrase　is　copied　in　the　English　laws　of　Henry　I。　/4/　We　have　seen　what　this　meant　in　the　story　of　Huon　of　Bordeaux。　The　Mirror　of　Justices　/5/　says　that　King　Canute　used　to　judge　the　mainprisors　according　as　the　principals　when　their　principals　not　in　judgment；　but　that　King　Henry　I。　confined　Canute's　rule　to　mainprisors　who　were　consenting　to　the　fact。

As　late　as　the　reign　of　Edward　III。；　Shard；　an　English　judge；　after　stating　the　law　as　it　still　is；　that　bail　are　a　prisoner's　＇250＇　keepers；　and　shall　be　charged　if　he　escapes；　observes；　that　some　say　that　the　bail　shall　be　hanged　in　his　place。　/1/　This　was　the　law　in　the　analogous　case　of　a　jailer。　/2/　The　old　notion　is　to　be　traced　in　the　form　still　given　by　modern　writers　for　the　undertaking　of　bail　for　felony。　They　are　bound　〃b