the common law-第67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！


who；　by　the　act　and　consent　of　the　＇387＇　grantee；　succeeded　to　his　place。　It　did　not　pass　to　assigns　unless　assigns　were　mentioned。　Bracton　supposes　grants　of　easements　with　or　without　mention　of　assigns；　which　looks　as　if　he　thought　the　difference　might　be　material　with　regard　to　easements　also。　He　further　says；　that　if　an　easement　be　granted　to　A；　his　heirs　and　assigns；　all　such　by　the　form　of　the　grant　are　allowed　the　use　in　succession；　and　all　others　are　wholly　excluded。　/1/　But　he　is　not　speaking　of　what　the　rights　of　a　disseisor　would　be　as　against　one　not　having　a　better　title；　and　he　immediately　adds　that　they　are　rights　over　a　corporeal　object　belonging　to　a　corporeal　object。

Although　it　may　be　doubted　whether　the　mention　of　assigns　was　ever　necessary　to　attach　an　easement　to　land；　and　although　it　is　very　certain　that　it　did　not　remain　so　long；　the　difficulty　referred　to　grew　greater　as　time　went　on。　It　would　have　been　easily　disposed　of　if　the　only　rights　which　could　be　annexed　to　land　were　easements；　such　as　a　right　of　way。　It　then　might　have　been　said　that　these　were　certain　limited　interests　in　land；　less　than　ownership　in　extent；　but　like　it　in　kind；　and　therefore　properly　transferred　by　the　same　means　that　ownership　was。　A　right　of　way；　it　might　have　been　argued；　is　not　to　be　approached　from　the　point　of　view　of　contract。　It　does　not　presuppose　any　promise　on　the　part　of　the　servient　owner。　His　obligation；　although　more　troublesome　to　him　than　to　others；　is　the　same　as　that　of　every　one　else。　It　is　the　purely　negative　duty　not　to　obstruct　or　interfere　with　a　right　of　property。　/2/

＇388＇　But　although　the　test　of　rights　going　with　the　land　may　have　been　something　of　that　nature；　this　will　not　help　us　to　understand　the　cases　without　a　good　deal　of　explanation。　For　such　rights　might　exist　to　active　services　which　had　to　be　performed　by　the　person　who　held　the　servient　estate。　It　strikes　our　ear　strangely　to　hear　a　right　to　services　from　an　individual　called　a　right　of　property　as　distinguished　from　contract。　Still　this　will　be　found　to　have　been　the　way　in　which　such　rights　were　regarded。　Bracton　argues　that　it　is　no　wrong　to　the　lord　for　the　tenant　to　alienate　land　held　by　free　and　perfect　gift；　on　the　ground　that　the　land　is　bound　and　charged　with　the　services　into　whose　hands　soever　it　may　come。　The　lord　is　said　to　have　a　fee　in　the　homage　and　services；　and　therefore　no　entry　upon　the　land　which　does　not　disturb　them　injures　him。　/1/　It　is　the　tenement　which　imposes　the　obligation　of　homage；　/2/　and　the　same　thing　is　true　of　villein　and　other　feudal　services。　/3/

The　law　remained　unchanged　when　feudal　services　took　the　form　of　rent。　/4/　Even　in　our　modern　terms　for　years　rent　is　still　treated　as　something　issuing　out　of　the　leased　premises；　so　that　to　this　day；　although；　if　you　hire　a　whole　house　and　it　burns　down；　you　have　to　pay　without　abatement；　because　you　have　the　land　out　of　which　the　rent　issues；　yet　if　you　only　hire　a　suite　of　rooms　and　they　are　burned；　you　pay　rent　no　longer；　because　you　no　longer　have　the　tenement　out　of　which　it　comes。　/5/

＇389＇　It　is　obvious　that　the　foregoing　reasoning　leads　to　the　conclusion　that　a　disseisor　of　the　tenant　would　be　bound　as　much　as　the　tenant　himself；　and　this　conclusion　was　adopted　by　the　early　law。　The　lord　could　require　the　services；　/1/　or　collect　the　rent　/2/　of　any　one　who　had　the　land；　because；　as　was　said　in　language　very　like　Bracton's；　〃the　charge　of　the　rent　goes　with　the　land。〃　/3/

Then　as　to　the　right　to　the　rent。　Rent　was　treated　in　early　law　as　a　real　right；　of　which　a　disseisin　was　possible；　and　for　which　a　possessory　action　could　be　brought。　If；　as　was　very　frequently　the　case；　the　leased　land　lay　within　a　manor；　the　rent　was　parcel　of　the　manor；　/4/　so　that　there　was　some　ground　for　saying　that　one　who　was　seised　of　the　manor；　that　is；　who　possessed　the　lands　occupied　by　the　lord　of　the　manor；　and　was　recognized　by　the　tenants　as　lord；　had　the　rents　as　incident　thereto。　Thus　Brian；　Chief　Justice　of　England　under　Henry　VII。；　says；　〃If　I　am　disseised　of　a　manor；　and　the　tenants　pay　their　rent　to　the　disseisor；　and　then　I　re…enter；　I　shall　not　have　the　back　rent　of　my　tenants　which　they　have　paid　to　my　disseisor；　but　the　disseisor　shall　pay　for　all　in　trespass　or　assize。〃　/5/　This　opinion　was　evidently　founded　on　the　notion　that　the　rent　was　attached　to　the　chief　land　like　an　easement。　Sic　fit　ut　debeantur　rei　a　re。　/6/

Different　principles　might　have　applied　when　the　rent　was　not　parcel　of　a　manor；　and　was　only　part　of　the　reversion；　that　is；　part　of　the　landlord's　fee　or　estate　out　of　＇390＇　which　the　lease　was　carved。　If　the　lease　and　rent　were　merely　internal　divisions　of　that　estate；　the　rent　could　not　be　claimed　except　by　one　who　was　privy　to　that　estate。　A　disseisor　would　get　a　new　and　different　fee；　and　would　not　have　the　estate　of　which　the　rent　was　part。　And　therefore　it　would　seem　that　in　such　a　case　the　tenant　could　refuse　to　pay　him　rent；　and　that　payment　to　him　would　be　no　defence　against　the　true　owner。　/1/　Nevertheless；　if　the　tenant　recognized　him；　the　disseisor　would　be　protected　as　against　persons　who　could　not　show　a　better　title。　/2/　Furthermore；　the　rent　was　so　far　annexed　to　the　land　that　whoever　came　by　the　reversion　lawfully　could　collect　it；　including　the　superior　lord　in　case　of　escheat。　/3/　Yet　escheat　meant　the　extinction　of　the　fee　of　which　the　lease　and　rent　were　parts；　and　although　Bracton　regarded　the　lord　as　coming　in　under　the　tenant's　title　pro　herede；　in　privity；　it　was　soon　correctly　settled　that　he　did　not；　but　came　in　paramount。　This　instance；　therefore；　comes　very　near　that　of　a　disseisor。

Services　and　rent；　then；　were；　and　to　some　extent　are　still；　dealt　with　by　the　law　from　the　point　of　view　of　property。　They　were　things　which　could　be　owned　and　transferred　like　other　property。　They　could　be　possessed　even　by　wrong；　and　possessory　remedies　were　given　for　them。

No　such　notion　was　applied　to　warranties；　or　to　any　right　which　was　regarded　wholly　from　the　point　of　view　of　contract。　And　when　we　turn　to　the　history　of　those　remedies　for　rent　which　sounded　in　contract；　we　find　that　they　were　so　regarded。　The　actions　of　debt　and　covenant　＇391＇　could　not　be　maintained　without　privity。　In　the　ninth　year　of　Henry　VI。　/1/　it　was　doubted　whether　an　heir　having　the　reversion　by　descent　could　have　debt；　and　it　was　held　that　a　grantee　of　the　reversion；　although　he　had　the　rent；　could　not　have　that　remedy　for　it。　A　few　years　later；　it　was　decided　that　the　heir　could　maintain　debt；　/2/　and　in　Henry　VII。's　reign　the　remedy　was　extended　to　the　devisee；　/3/　who；　as　has　been　remarked　above；　seemed　more　akin　to　the　heir　than　a　grantee；　and　was　more　easily　likened　to　him。　It　was　then　logically　necessary　to　give　assigns　the　same　action；　and　this　followed。　/4/　The　privity　of　contract　followed　the　estate；　so　that　the　assignee　of　the　reversion　could　sue　the　person　then　holding　the　term。　/5/　On　like　grounds　he　was　afterwards　allowed　to　maintain　covenant。　/6/　But　these　actions　have　never　lain　for　or　against　persons　not　privy　in　estate　with　the　lessor　and　lessee　respectively；　because　privity　to　the　contract　could　never　be　worked　out　without　succession　to　the　title。　/7/

However；　all　these　niceties　had　no　application　to　the　old　freehold　rents　of　the　feudal　period；　because　the　contractual　remedies　did　not　apply　to　them　until　the　time　of　Queen　Anne。　/8/　The　freehold　rent　was　just　as　much　real　estate　as　an　acre　of　land；　and　it　was　sued　for　by　the　similar　remedy　of　an　assize；　asking　to　be　put　back　into　possession。

＇392＇　The　allowance　of　contractual　remedies　shows　that　rent　and　feudal　services　of　that　nature；　although　dealt　with　as　things　capable　of　possession；　and　looked　at　generally　from　the　point　of　view　of　property　rather　than　of　contract；　yet　approach　much　nearer　to　the　nature　of　the　latter　than　a　mere　duty　not　to　interfere　with　a　way。　Other　cases　come　nearer　still。　The　sphere　of　prescription　and　custom　in　imposing　active　duties　is　large　in　early　law。　Sometimes　the　duty　is　incident　to　the　ownership　of　certain　land；　sometimes　the　right　is；　and　sometimes　both　are；　as　in　the　case　of　an　easement。　When　the　service　was　for　the　benefit　of　other　land；　the　fact　that　the　burden；　in　popular　language；　fell　upon　one　parcel；　was　of　itself　a　reason　for　the　benefit　attaching　to　the　other。

Instances　of　different　kinds　are　these。　A　parson　might　he　bound　by　custom　to　keep　a　bull　and　a　boar　for　the　use　of　his　parish。　/1/　A　right　could　be　attached　to　a　manor　by　prescription　to　have　a　convent　sing　in　the　manor　chapel。　/2/　A　right　might　be　gained　by　like　means　to　have　certain　land　fenced　by　the　owner　of　the　neighboring　lot。　/3/　Now；　it　may　readily　be　conceded　that　even　rights　like　the　last　two；　when　attached　to　land；　were　looked　at　as　property；　and　were　spoken　of　as　the　subject　of　grant。　/4/　It　may　be　conceded　that；　in　many　cases　where　the　statement　sounds　strange　to　modern　ears；　the　obligation　was　regarded　as　failing　on　the　land　alone；　and　not　on　the　person　of　the　＇393＇　tenant。　And　it　may　be　conjectured　that　this　view　arose　naturally　and　reasonably　from　there　having　been　originally　no　remedy　to　compel　performance　of　such　services；　except　a　dis