the common law-第60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！


k　to　explain　were　accomplished　in　that　instance。　Rights　to　which　B　＇344＇　as　B　could　show　no　title；　he　could　readily　maintain　under　the　fiction　that　he　was　the　same　person　as　A；　whose　title　was　not　denied。

It　is　not　necessary　at　this　point　to　study　family　rights　in　the　German　tribes。　For　it　is　not　disputed　that　the　modern　executor　derives　his　characteristics　from　the　Roman　heir。　Wills　also　were　borrowed　from　Rome；　and　were　unknown　to　the　Germans　of　Tacitus。　/1/　Administrators　were　a　later　imitation　of　executors；　introduced　by　statute　for　cases　where　there　was　no　will；　or　where；　for　any　other　reason；　executors　were　wanting。

The　executor　has　the　legal　title　to　the　whole　of　the　testator's　personal　estate；　and；　generally　speaking；　the　power　of　alienation。　Formerly　he　was　entitled　to　the　undistributed　residue；　not；　it　may　fairly　be　conjectured；　as　legatee　of　those　specific　chattels；　but　because　he　represented　the　person　of　the　testator；　and　therefore　had　all　the　rights　which　the　testator　would　have　had　after　distribution　if　alive。　The　residue　is　nowadays　generally　bequeathed　by　the　will；　but　it　is　not　even　now　regarded　as　a　specific　gift　of　the　chattels　remaining　undisposed　of；　and　I　cannot　help　thinking　that　this　doctrine　echoes　that　under　which　the　executor　took　in　former　times。

No　such　rule　has　governed　residuary　devises　of　real　estate；　which　have　always　been　held　to　be　specific　in　England　down　to　the　present　day。　So　that；　if　a　devise　of　land　should　fail；　that　land　would　not　be　disposed　of　by　the　residuary　clause；　but　would　descend　to　the　heir　as　if　there　had　been　no　will。

Again；　the　appointment　of　an　executor　relates　back　to　the　date　of　the　testator's　death。　The　continuity　of　person　＇345＇　is　preserved　by　this　fiction；　as　in　Rome　it　was　by　personifying　the　inheritance　ad　interim。

Enough　has　been　said　to　show　the　likeness　between　our　executor　and　the　Roman　heir。　And　bearing　in　mind　what　was　said　about　the　heres；　it　will　easily　be　seen　how　it　came　to　be　said；　as　it　often　was　in　the　old　books；　that　the　executor　〃represents　the　person　of　his　testator。〃　/1/　The　meaning　of　this　feigned　identity　has　been　found　in　history；　but　the　aid　which　it　furnished　in　overcoming　a　technical　difficulty　must　also　be　appreciated。　If　the　executor　represents　the　person　of　the　testator；　there　is　no　longer　any　trouble　in　allowing　him　to　sue　or　be　sued　on　his　testator's　contracts。　In　the　time　of　Edward　III。；　when　an　action　of　covenant　was　brought　against　executors；　Persay　objected：　〃I　never　heard　that　one　should　have　a　writ　of　covenant　against　executors；　nor　against　other　person　but　the　very　one　who　made　the　covenant；　for　a　man　cannot　oblige　another　person　to　a　covenant　by　his　deed　except　him　who　was　party　to　the　covenant。〃　/2/　But　it　is　useless　to　object　that　the　promise　sued　upon　was　made　by　A；　the　testator；　not　by　B；　the　executor；　when　the　law　says　that　for　this　purpose　B　is　A。　Here　then　is　one　class　of　cases　in　which　a　transfer　is　accomplished　by　the　help　of　a　fiction；　which　shadows；　as　fictions　so　often　do；　the　facts　of　an　early　stage　of　society；　and　which　could　hardly　have　been　invented　had　these　facts　been　otherwise。

Executors　and　administrators　afford　the　chief；　if　not　the　only；　example　of　universal　succession　in　the　English　＇346＇　law。　But　although　they　succeed　per　universitatem；　as　has　been　explained；　they　do　not　succeed　to　all　kinds　of　property。　The　personal　estate　goes　to　them；　but　land　takes　another　course。　All　real　estate　not　disposed　of　by　will　goes　to　the　heir；　and　the　rules　of　inheritance　are　quite　distinct　from　those　which　govern　the　distribution　of　chattels。　Accordingly；　the　question　arises　whether　the　English　heir　or　successor　to　real　estate　presents　the　same　analogies　to　the　Roman　heres　as　the　executor。

The　English　heir　is　not　a　universal　successor。　Each　and　every　parcel　of　land　descends　as　a　separate　and　specific　tiling。　Nevertheless；　in　his　narrower　sphere　he　unquestionably　represents　the　person　of　his　ancestor。　Different　opinions　have　been　held　as　to　whether　the　same　thing　was　true　in　early　German　law。　Dr。　Laband　says　that　it　was；　/1/　Sohm　takes　the　opposite　view。　/2/　It　is　commonly　supposed　that　family　ownership；　at　least　of　land；　came　before　that　of　individuals　in　the　German　tribes；　and　it　has　been　shown　how　naturally　representation　followed　from　a　similar　state　of　things　in　Rome。　But　it　is　needless　to　consider　whether　our　law　on　this　subject　is　of　German　or　Roman　origin；　as　the　principle　of　identification　has　clearly　prevailed　from　the　time　of　Glanvill　to　the　present　day。　If　it　was　not　known　to　the　Germans；　it　is　plainly　accounted　for　by　the　influence　of　the　Roman　law。　If　there　was　anything　of　the　sort　in　the　Salic　law；　it　was　no　doubt　due　to　natural　causes　similar　to　those　which　gave　rise　to　the　principle　at　Rome。　But　in　either　event　I　cannot　doubt　that　the　modern　doctrine　has　taken　a　good　deal　of　its　form；　and　perhaps　some　of　its　substance；　from　the　mature　system　＇347＇　of　the　civilians；　in　whose　language　it　was　so　long　expressed。　For　the　same　reasons　that　have　just　been　mentioned；　it　is　also　needless　to　weigh　the　evidence　of　the　Anglo…Saxon　sources；　although　it　seems　tolerably　clear　from　several　passages　in　the　laws　that　there　was　some　identification。　/1/

As　late　as　Bracton；　two　centuries　after　the　Norman　conquest；　the　heir　was　not　the　successor　to　lands　alone；　but　represented　his　ancestor　in　a　much　more　general　sense；　as　will　be　seen　directly。　The　office　of　executor；　in　the　sense　of　heir；　was　unknown　to　the　Anglo…Saxons；　/2/　and　even　in　Bracton's　time　does　not　seem　to　have　been　what　it　has　since　become。　There　is；　therefore；　no　need　to　go　back　further　than　to　the　early　Norman　period；　after　the　appointment　of　executors　had　become　common；　and　the　heir　was　more　nearly　what　he　is　now。

When　Glanvill　wrote；　a　little　more　than　a　century　after　the　Conquest；　the　heir　was　bound　to　warrant　the　reasonable　gifts　of　his　ancestor　to　the　grantees　and　their　heirs；　/3/　and　if　the　effects　of　the　ancestor　were　insufficient　to　pay　his　debts；　the　heir　was　bound　to　make　up　the　deficiency　from　his　own　property。　/4/　Neither　Glanvill　nor　his　Scotch　imitator；　the　Regiam　Majestatem；　/5/　limits　the　liability　to　the　amount　of　property　inherited　from　the　same　source。　This　makes　the　identification　of　heir　and　ancestor　as　complete　as　that　of　the　Roman　law　before　such　a　limitation　was　introduced　by　Justinian。　On　the　other　hand；　a　century　＇348＇　later；　it　distinctly　appears　from　Bracton；　/1/　that　the　heir　was　only　bound　so　far　as　property　had　descended　to　him；　and　in　the　early　sources　of　the　Continent；　Norman　as　well　as　other；　the　same　limitation　appears。　/2/　The　liabilities　of　the　heir　were　probably　shrinking。　Britton　and　Fleta；　the　imitators　of　Bracton；　and　perhaps　Bracton　himself；　say　that　an　heir　is　not　bound　to　pay　his　ancestor's　debt；　unless　he　be　thereto　especially　bound　by　the　deed　of　his　ancestor。　/3/　The　later　law　required　that　the　heir　should　be　mentioned　if　he　was　to　be　held。

But　at　all　events　the　identification　of　heir　and　ancestor　still　approached　the　nature　of　a　universal　succession　in　the　time　of　Bracton；　as　is　shown　by　another　statement　of　his。　He　asks　if　the　testator　can　bequeath　his　rights　of　action；　and　answers；　No；　so　far　as　concerns　debts　not　proved　and　recovered　in　the　testator's　life。　But　actions　of　that　sort　belong　to　the　heirs；　and　must　be　sued　in　the　secular　court；　for　before　they　are　so　recovered　in　the　proper　court；　the　executor　cannot　proceed　for　them　in　the　ecclesiastical　tribunal。　/4/

This　shows　that　the　identification　worked　both　ways。　The　heir　was　liable　for　the　debts　due　from　his　ancestor；　and　he　could　recover　those　which　were　due　to　him；　until　＇349＇　the　executor　took　his　place　in　the　King's　Courts；　as　well　as　in　those　of　the　Church。　Within　the　limits　just　explained　the　heir　was　also　bound　to　warrant　property　sold　by　his　ancestor　to　the　purchaser　and　his　heirs。　/1/　It　is　not　necessary；　after　this　evidence　that　the　modern　heir　began　by　representing　his　ancestor　generally；　to　seek　for　expressions　in　later　books；　since　his　position　has　been　limited。　But　just　as　we　have　seen　that　the　executor　is　still　said　to　represent　the　person　of　his　testator；　the　heir　was　said　to　represent　the　person　of　his　ancestor　in　the　time　of　Edward　I。　/2/　So；　at　a　much　later　date；　it　was　said　that　〃the　heir　is　in　representation　in　point　of　taking　by　inheritance　eadam　persona　cum　antecessore；〃　/3/　the　same　persona　as　his　ancestor。

A　great　judge；　who　died　but　a　few　years　ago；　repeats　language　which　would　have　been　equally　familiar　to　the　lawyers　of　Edward　or　of　James。　Baron　Parke；　after　laying　down　that　in　general　a　party　is　not　required　to　make　profert　of　an　instrument　to　the　possession　of　which　he　is　not　entitled；　says　that　there　is　an　exception　〃in　the　cases　of　heir　and　executor；　who　may　plead　a　release　to　the　ancestor　or　testator　whom　they　respectively　represent；　so　also　with　respect　to　several　tortfeasors；　for　in　all　these　cases　there　is　a　privity　between　the　parties　which　constitutes　an　identity　of　person。〃　/4/

But　this　is　not　all。　The　identity　of　person　was　carried　＇350＇　farther　still。　If　a　man　died　leaving　male　children；　and　owning　land　in　fee；　it　went　to　the　oldest　son　alone；　but；　if　he　left　only　daughters；　it　descended　to　t