the common law-第61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！


ning　land　in　fee；　it　went　to　the　oldest　son　alone；　but；　if　he　left　only　daughters；　it　descended　to　them　all　equally。　In　this　case　several　individuals　together　continued　the　persona　of　their　ancestor。　But　it　was　always　laid　down　that　they　were　but　one　heir。　/1/　For　the　purpose　of　working　out　this　result；　not　only　was　one　person　identified　with　another；　but　several　persons　were　reduced　to　one；　that　they　might　sustain　a　single　persona。

What　was　the　persona？　It　was　not　the　sum　of　all　the　rights　and　duties　of　the　ancestor。　It　has　been　seen　that　for　many　centuries　his　general　status；　the　sum　of　all　his　rights　and　duties　except　those　connected　with　real　property；　has　been　taken　up　by　the　executor　or　administrator。　The　persona　continued　by　the　heir　was　from　an　early　day　confined　to　real　estate　in　its　technical　sense；　that　is；　to　property　subject　to　feudal　principles；　as　distinguished　from　chattels；　which；　as　Blackstone　tells　us；　/2/　include　whatever　was　not　a　feud。

But　the　heir's　persona　was　not　even　the　sum　of　all　the　ancestor's　rights　and　duties　in　connection　with　real　estate。　It　has　been　said　already　that　every　fee　descends　specifically；　and　not　as　incident　to　a　larger　universitas。　This　appears　not　so　much　from　the　fact　that　the　rules　of　descent　governing　different　parcels　might　be　different；　/3/　so　that　the　same　person　would　not　be　heir　to　both；　as　from　the　very　nature　of　feudal　property。　Under　the　feudal　system　in　its　vigor；　the　holding　of　land　was　only　one　＇351＇　incident　of　a　complex　personal　relation。　The　land　was　forfeited　for　a　failure　to　render　the　services　for　which　it　was　granted；　the　service　could　be　renounced　for　a　breach　of　correlative　duties　on　the　part　of　the　lord。　/1/　It　rather　seems　that；　in　the　beginning　of　the　feudal　period　under　Charlemagne；　a　man　could　only　hold　land　of　one　lord。　/2/　Even　when　it　had　become　common　to　hold　of　more　than　one；　the　strict　personal　relation　was　only　modified　so　far　as　to　save　the　tenant　from　having　to　perform　inconsistent　services。　Glanvill　and　Bracton　/3/　a　tell　us　that　a　tenant　holding　of　several　lords　was　to　do　homage　for　each　fee；　but　to　reserve　his　allegiance　for　the　lord　of　whom　he　held　his　chief　estate；　but　that；　if　the　different　lords　should　make　war　upon　each　other；　and　the　chief　lord　should　command　the　tenant　to　obey　him　in　person；　the　tenant　ought　to　obey；　saving　the　service　due　to　the　other　lord　for　the　fee　held　of　him。

We　see；　then；　that　the　tenant　had　a　distinct　persona　or　status　in　respect　of　each　of　the　fees　which　he　held。　The　rights　and　duties　incident　to　one　of　them　had　no　relation　to　the　rights　and　duties　incident　to　another。　A　succession　to　one　had　no　connection　with　the　succession　to　another。　Each　succession　was　the　assumption　of　a　distinct　personal　relation；　in　which　the　successor　was　to　be　determined　by　the　terms　of　the　relation　in　question。

The　persona　which　we　are　seeking　to　define　is　the　estate。　Every　fee　is　a　distinct　persona；　a　distinct　hereditas；　or　inheritance；　as　it　has　been　called　since　the　time　of　Bracton。　We　have　already　seen　that　it　may　be　sustained　by　more　＇352＇　than　one　where　there　are　several　heirs；　as　well　as　by　one；　just　as　a　corporation　may　have　more　or　less　members。　But　not　only　may　it　be　divided　lengthwise；　so　to　speak；　among　persons　interested　in　the　same　way　at　the　same　time：　it　may　also　be　cut　across　into　successive　interests；　to　be　enjoyed　one　after　another。　In　technical　language；　it　may　be　divided　into　a　particular　estate　and　remainders。　But　they　are　all　parts　of　the　same　fee；　and　the　same　fiction　still　governs　them。　We　read　in　an　old　case　that　〃he　in　reversion　and　particular　tenant　are　but　one　tenant。〃　/1/　This　is　only　a　statement　of　counsel；　to　be　sure；　but　it　is　made　to　account　for　a　doctrine　which　seems　to　need　the　explanation；　to　the　effect　that；　after　the　death　of　the　tenant　for　life；　he　in　reversion　might　have　error　or　attaint　on　an　erroneous　judgment　or　false　verdict　given　against　the　tenant　for　life。　/2/

To　sum　up　the　results　so　far；　the　heir　of　modern　English　law　gets　his　characteristic　features　from　the　law　as　it　stood　soon　after　the　Conquest。　At　that　time　he　was　a　universal　successor　in　a　very　broad　sense。　Many　of　his　functions　as　such　were　soon　transferred　to　the　executor。　The　heir's　rights　became　confined　to　real　estate；　and　his　liabilities　to　those　connected　with　real　estate；　and　to　obligations　of　his　ancestor　expressly　binding　him。　The　succession　to　each　fee　or　feudal　inheritance　is　distinct；　not　part　of　the　sum　of　all　the　ancestor's　rights　regarded　as　one　whole。　But　to　this　day　the　executor　in　his　sphere；　and　the　heir　in　his；　represent　the　person　of　the　deceased；　and　are　treated　as　if　they　were　one　with　him；　for　the　purpose　of　settling　their　rights　and　obligations。

The　bearing　which　this　has　upon　the　contracts　of　the　＇353＇　deceased　has　been　pointed　out。　But　its　influence　is　not　confined　to　contract；　it　runs　through　everything。　The　most　striking　instance；　however；　is　the　acquisition　of　prescriptive　rights。　Take　the　case　of　a　right　of　way。　A　right　of　way　over　a　neighbor's　land　can　only　be　acquired　by　grant；　or　by　using　it　adversely　for　twenty　years。　A　man　uses　a　way　for　ten　years；　and　dies。　Then　his　heir　uses　it　ten　years。　Has　any　right　been　acquired？　If　common　sense　alone　is　consulted；　the　answer　must　be　no。　The　ancestor　did　not　get　any　right；　because　he　did　not　use　the　way　long　enough。　And　just　as　little　did　the　heir。　How　can　it　better　the　heir's　title　that　another　man　had　trespassed　before　him？　Clearly；　if　four　strangers　to　each　other　used　the　way　for　five　years　each；　no　right　would　be　acquired　by　the　last。　But　here　comes　in　the　fiction　which　has　been　so　carefully　explained。　From　the　point　of　view　of　the　law　it　is　not　two　persons　who　have　used　the　way　for　ten　years　each；　but　one　who　has　used　it　for　twenty。　The　heir　has　the　advantage　of　sustaining　his　ancestor's　and　the　right　is　acquired。

LECTURE　X。

SUCCESSIONS　INTER　VIVOS

I　now　reach　the　most　difficult　and　obscure　part　of　the　subject。　It　remains　to　be　discovered　whether　the　fiction　of　identity　was　extended　to　others　besides　the　heir　and　executor。　And　if　we　find；　as　we　do；　that　it　went　but　little　farther　in　express　terms；　the　question　will　still　arise　whether　the　mode　of　thought　and　the　conceptions　made　possible　by　the　doctrine　of　inheritance　have　not　silently　modified　the　law　as　to　dealings　between　the　living。　It　seems　to　me　demonstrable　that　their　influence　has　been　profound；　and　that；　without　understanding　the　theory　of　inheritance；　it　is　impossible　to　understand　the　theory　of　transfer　inter　vivos。

＇354＇　The　difficulty　in　dealing　with　the　subject　is　to　convince　the　sceptic　that　there　is　anything　to　explain。　Nowadays；　the　notion　that　a　right　is　valuable　is　almost　identical　with　the　notion　that　it　may　be　turned　into　money　by　selling　it。　But　it　was　not　always　so。　Before　you　can　sell　a　right；　you　must　be　able　to　make　a　sale　thinkable　in　legal　terms。　I　put　the　case　of　the　transfer　of　a　contract　at　the　beginning　of　the　Lecture。　I　have　just　mentioned　the　case　of　gaining　a　right　by　prescription；　when　neither　party　has　complied　with　the　requirement　of　twenty　years'　adverse　use。　In　the　latter　instance；　there　is　not　even　a　right　at　the　time　of　the　transfer；　but　a　mere　fact　of　ten　years'　past　trespassing。　A　way；　until　it　becomes　a　right　of　way；　is　just　as　little　susceptible　of　being　held　by　a　possessory　title　as　a　contract。　If　then　a　contract　can　be　sold；　if　a　buyer　can　add　the　time　of　his　seller's　adverse　user　to　his　own；　what　is　the　machinery　by　which　the　law　works　out　the　result？

The　most　superficial　acquaintance　with　any　system　of　law　in　its　earlier　stages　will　show　with　what　difficulty　and　by　what　slow　degrees　such　machinery　has　been　provided；　and　how　the　want　of　it　has　restricted　the　sphere　of　alienation。　It　is　a　great　mistake　to　assume　that　it　is　a　mere　matter　of　common　sense　that　the　buyer　steps　into　the　shoes　of　the　seller；　according　to　our　significant　metaphor。　Suppose　that　sales　and　other　civil　transfers　had　kept　the　form　of　warlike　capture　which　it　seems　that　they　had　in　the　infancy　of　Roman　law；　/1/　and　which　was　at　least　＇355＇　partially　retained　in　one　instance；　the　acquisition　of　wives；　after　the　transaction　had；　in　fact；　taken　the　more　civilized　shape　of　purchase。　The　notion　that　the　buyer　came　in　adversely　to　the　seller　would　probably　have　accompanied　the　fiction　of　adverse　taking；　and　he　would　have　stood　on　his　own　position　as　founding　a　new　title。　Without　the　aid　of　conceptions　derived　from　some　other　source；　it　would　have　been　hard　to　work　out　a　legal　transfer　of　objects　which　did　not　admit　of　possession。

A　possible　source　of　such　other　conceptions　was　to　be　found　in　family　law。　The　principles　of　inheritance　furnished　a　fiction　and　a　mode　of　thought　which　at　least　might　have　been　extended　into　other　spheres。　In　order　to　prove　that　they　were　in　fact　so　extended；　it　will　be　necessary　to　examine　once　more　the　law　of　Rome；　as　well　as　the　remains　of　German　and　Anglo…Saxon　customs。

I　will　take　up　first　the　German　and　Anglo…Saxon　laws　which　are　the　ancestors　of　our　own　on　one　side　of　the　house。　For　although　what　we　get　from　those　sources　is　not　in　the　direct　line　of　the　argument；　it　lays　a　foundation　for　it　by　showing　the　course　of　developm