the common law-第64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！


　one　particular　branch；　where　the　Roman　law　was　grafted　upon　the　English　stock。

There　can　be　no　doubt　which　answer　is　most　probable；　but　it　cannot　be　proved　without　difficulty。　As　has　been　said；　the　heir　ceased　to　be　the　general　representative　of　his　ancestor　at　an　early　date。　And　the　extent　to　which　even　he　was　identified　came　to　be　a　matter　of　discussion。　Common　sense　kept　control　over　fiction　here　as　elsewhere　in　the　common　law。　But　there　can　be　no　doubt　that　in　matters　directly　concerning　the　estate　the　identification　of　heir　and　ancestor　has　continued　to　the　present　day；　and　as　an　estate　in　fee　simple　has　been　shown　to　be　a　distinct　persona；　we　should　expect　to　find　a　similar　identification　of　buyer　and　seller　in　this　part　of　the　law；　if　anywhere。

Where　the　land　was　devised　by　will；　the　analogy　applied　with　peculiar　ease。　For　although　there　is　no　difference　in　principle　between　a　devise　of　a　piece　of　land　by　will　and　a　conveyance　of　it　by　deed；　the　dramatic　resemblance　of　a　devisee　to　an　heir　is　stronger　than　that　of　a　grantee。　It　will　be　remembered　that　one　of　the　Roman　jurists　said　that　a　legatarius　（legatee　or　devisee）　was　in　a　certain　sense　quasi　heres。　The　English　courts　have　occasionally　used　similar　expressions。　In　a　case　where　a　testator　owned　a　rent；　and　divided　it　by　will　among　his　sons；　and　then　one　of　the　sons　brought　debt　for　his　part；　two　of　the　judges；　while　admitting　that　the　testator　could　not　have　divided　the　tenant's　liability　by　a　grant　or　deed　in　his　lifetime；　thought　that　it　was　otherwise　with　regard　to　a　division　by　will。　Their　reasoning　was　that　〃the　devise　is　quasi　＇370＇　an　act　of　law；　which　shall　inure　without　attornment；　and　shall　make　a　sufficient　privity；　and　so　it　may　well　be　apportioned　by　this　means。〃　/1/　So　it　was　said　by　Lord　Ellenborough；　in　a　case　where　a　lessor　and　his　heirs　were　entitled　to　terminate　a　lease　on　notice；　that　a　devisee　of　the　land　as　heres　factus　would　be　understood　to　have　the　same　right。　/2/

But　wills　of　land　were　only　exceptionally　allowed　by　custom　until　the　reign　of　Henry　VIII。；　and　as　the　main　doctrines　of　conveyancing　had　been　settled　long　before　that　time；　we　must　look　further　back　and　to　other　sources　for　their　explanation。　We　shall　find　it　in　the　history　of　warranty。　This；　and　the　modern　law　of　covenants　running　with　the　land；　will　be　treated　in　the　next　Lecture。

＇371＇　LECTURE　XI。

SUCCESSIONS。　　II。　INTER　VIVOS。

The　principal　contracts　known　to　the　common　law　and　suable　in　the　King's　Courts；　a　century　after　the　Conquest；　were　suretyship　and　debt。　The　heir；　as　the　general　representative　of　his　ancestor's　rights　and　obligations；　was　liable　for　his　debts；　and　was　the　proper　person　to　sue　for　those　which　were　due　the　estate。　By　the　time　of　Edward　III。　this　had　changed。　Debts　had　ceased　to　concern　the　heir　except　secondarily。　The　executor　took　his　place　both　for　collection　and　payment。　It　is　said　that　even　when　the　heir　was　bound　he　could　not　be　sued　except　in　case　the　executor　had　no　assets。　/1/

But　there　was　another　ancient　obligation　which　had　a　different　history。　I　refer　to　the　warranty　which　arose　upon　the　transfer　of　property。　We　should　call　it　a　contract；　but　it　probably　presented　itself　to　the　mind　of　Glanvill's　predecessors　simply　as　a　duty　or　obligation　attached　by　law　to　a　transaction　which　was　directed　to　a　different　point；　just　as　the　liability　of　a　bailee；　which　is　now　treated　as　arising　from　his　undertaking；　was　originally　raised　by　the　law　out　of　the　position　in　which　he　stood　toward　third　persons。

After　the　Conquest　we　do　not　hear　much　of　warranty；　except　in　connection　with　land；　and　this　fact　will　at　once　＇372＇　account　for　its　having　had　a　different　history　from　debt。　The　obligation　of　warranty　was　to　defend　the　title；　and；　if　the　defence　failed；　to　give　to　the　evicted　owner　other　land　of　equal　value。　If　an　ancestor　had　conveyed　lands　with　warranty；　this　obligation　could　not　be　fulfilled　by　his　executor；　but　only　by　his　heir；　to　whom　his　other　lands　had　descended。　Conversely　as　to　the　benefit　of　warranties　made　to　a　deceased　grantee；　his　heir　was　the　only　person　interested　to　enforce　such　warranties；　because　the　land　descended　to　him。　Thus　the　heir　continued　to　represent　his　ancestor　in　the　latter's　rights　and　obligations　by　way　of　warranty；　after　the　executor　had　relieved　him　of　the　debts；　just　as　before　that　time　he　had　represented　his　ancestor　in　all　respects。

If　a　man　was　sued　for　property　which　he　had　bought　from　another；　the　regular　course　of　litigation　was　for　the　defendant　to　summon　in　his　seller　to　take　charge　of　the　defence；　and　for　him；　in　turn；　to　summon　in　his；　if　he　had　one；　and　so　on　until　a　party　was　reached　in　the　chain　of　title　who　finally　took　the　burden　of　the　case　upon　himself。　A　contrast　which　was　early　stated　between　the　Lombard　and　the　Roman　law　existed　equally　between　the　Anglo…Saxon　and　the　Roman。　It　was　said　that　the　Lombard　presents　his　grantor；　the　Roman　stands　in　his　grantor's　shoes；Langobardus　dat　auctorem；　Romanus　stat　loco　auctoris。　/1/

Suppose；　now；　that　A　gave　land　to　B；　and　B　conveyed　over　to　C。　If　C　was　sued　by　D；　claiming　a　better　title；　C　practically　got　the　benefit　of　A's　warranty；　/2/　because；　when　he　summoned　B；　B　would　summon　A；　and　thus　A　＇373＇　would　defend　the　case　in　the　end。　But　it　might　happen　that　between　the　time　when　B　conveyed　to　C；　and　the　time　when　the　action　was　begun；　B　had　died。　If　he　left　an　heir；　C　might　still　be　protected。　But　supposing　B　left　no　heir；　C　got　no　help　from　A；　who　in　the　other　event　would　have　defended　his　suit。　This　no　doubt　was　the　law　in　the　Anglo…Saxon　period；　but　it　was　manifestly　unsatisfactory。　We　may　conjecture；　with　a　good　deal　of　confidence；　that　a　remedy　would　be　found　as　soon　as　there　was　machinery　to　make　it　possible。　This　was　furnished　by　the　Roman　law。　According　to　that　system；　the　buyer　stood　in　the　place　of　his　seller；　and　a　fusion　of　the　Roman　with　the　Anglo…Saxon　rule　was　all　that　was　needed。

Bracton；　who　modelled　his　book　upon　the　writings　of　the　mediaeval　civilians；　shows　how　this　thought　was　used。　He　first　puts　the　case　of　a　conveyance　with　the　usual　clause　binding　the　grantor　and　his　heirs　to　warrant　and　defend　the　grantee　and　his　heirs。　He　then　goes　on：　〃Again　one　may　make　his　gift　greater　and　make　other　persons　quasi　heirs　＇of　his　grantee＇；　although；　in　fact；　they　are　not　heirs；　as　when　he　says　in　the　gift；　to　have　and　to　hold　to　such　a　one　and　his　heirs；　or　to　whomsoever　he　shall　choose　to　give　or　assign　the　said　land；　and　I　and　my　heirs　will　warrant　to　the　said　so　and　so；　and　his　heirs；　or　to　whomsoever　he　shall　choose　to　give　or　assign　the　said　land；　and　their　heirs；　against　all　persons。　In　which　case　if　the　grantee　shall　have　given　or　assigned　the　land；　and　then　have　died　without　heirs；　the　＇first＇　grantor　and　his　heirs　begin　to　hold　the　place　of　the　first　grantee　and　his　heirs；　and　are　in　place　of　the　first　grantee's　heir　（pro　herede）　so　far　as　concerns　warranting　to　his　assigns　and　their　heirs　＇374＇　according　to　the　clause　contained　in　the　first　grantor's　charter；　which　would　not　be　but　for　the　mention　of　assigns　in　the　first　gift。　But　so　long　as　the　first　grantee　survives；　or　his　heirs；　they　are　held　to　warranty；　and　not　the　first　grantor。〃　/1/

Here　we　see　that；　in　order　to　entitle　the　assign　to　the　benefit　of　the　first　grantor's　warranty；　assigns　must　be　mentioned　in　the　original　grant　and　covenant。　The　scope　of　the　ancient　obligation　was　not　extended　without　the　warrantor's　assent。　But　when　it　was　extended；　it　was　not　by　a　contrivance　like　a　modern　letter　of　credit。　Such　a　conception　would　have　been　impossible　in　that　stage　of　the　law。　By　mentioning　assigns　the　first　grantor　did　not　offer　a　covenant　to　any　person　who　would　thereafter　purchase　the　land。　If　that　had　been　the　notion；　there　would　have　been　a　contract　directly　binding　the　first　grantor　to　the　assign；　as　soon　as　the　land　was　sold；　and　thus　there　would　have　been　two　warranties　arising　from　the　same　clause；one　to　the　first　grantee；　a　second　to　the　assign。　But　in　fact　the　assign　recovered　on　the　original　warranty　to　the　first　grantee。　/2/　He　could　only　come　on　the　first　grantor　after　a　failure　of　his　immediate　grantor's　heirs。　The　first　grantor　by　mentioning　assigns　simply　enlarged　the　limits　of　his　grantee's　succession。　The　assign　could　vouch　the　first　grantor　only　on　the　principles　of　succession。　That　is　to　say；　he　could　only　do　so　when；　by　the　failure　of　the　first　grantee's　blood；　the　first　grantee's　feudal　relation　to　the　first　grantor；　his　persona；　came　to　be　sustained　by　the　assign。　/3/

＇375＇　This　was　not　only　carrying　out　the　fiction　with　technical　consistency；　but　was　using　it　with　good　sense；　as　fictions　generally　have　been　used　in　the　English　law。　Practically　it　made　little　difference　whether　the　assign　got　the　benefit　of　the　first　grantor's　warranty　mediately　or　immediately；　if　he　got　it。　The　trouble　arose　where　he　could　not　summon　the　mesne　grantor；　and　the　new　right　was　given　him　for　that　case　alone。　Later；　the　assign　did　not　have　to　wait　for　the　failure　of　his　immediate　grantor's　blood；　but　could　take　advantage　of　the　first　grantor's　warranty　from　the　beginning。　/1/

If　it　should　be　suggested　that　what　has　been　said　goes　to　show　that　the　firs