the common law-第39部分

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　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　〃body　for　body；〃　/3/　and　modern　law…books　find　it　necessary　to　state　that　this　does　not　make　them　liable　to　the　punishment　of　the　principal　offender　if　he　does　not　appear；　but　only　to　a　fine。　/4/　The　contract　also　differed　from　our　modern　ideas　in　the　mode　of　execution。　It　was　simply　a　solemn　admission　of　liability　in　the　presence　of　the　officer　authorized　to　take　it。　The　signature　of　the　bail　was　not　necessary；　/5/　and　it　was　not　requisite　that　the　person　bailed　should　bind　himself　as　a　party。　/6/

But　these　peculiarities　have　been　modified　or　done　away　with　by　statute；　and　I　have　dwelt　upon　the　case；　not　so　much　as　a　special　form　of　contract　differing　from　all　others　as　because　the　history　of　its　origin　shows　one　of　the　first　appearances　of　contract　in　our　law。　It　is　to　be　traced　to　the　gradual　increase　of　faith　in　the　honor　of　a　hostage　if　the　case　calling　for　his　surrender　should　arrive；　and　to　the　consequent　relaxation　of　actual　imprisonment。　An　illustration　may　be　found　in　the　parallel　mode　of　dealing　with　the　prisoner　himself。　His　bail；　to　whom　his　body　is　supposed　to　be　delivered；　have　a　right　to　seize　him　at　any　time　and　anywhere；　but　he　is　allowed　to　go　at　large　until　＇251＇　surrendered。　It　will　be　noticed　that　this　form　of　contract；　like　debt　as　dealt　with　by　the　Roman　law　of　the　Twelve　Tables；　and　for　the　same　motive；　although　by　a　different　process；　looked　to　the　body　of　the　contracting　party　as　the　satisfaction。

Debt　is　another　and　more　popular　candidate　for　the　honors　of　priority。　Since　the　time　of　Savigny；　the　first　appearance　of　contract　both　in　Roman　and　German　law　has　often　been　attributed　to　the　case　of　a　sale　by　some　accident　remaining　incomplete。　The　question　does　not　seem　to　be　of　great　philosophical　significance。　For　to　explain　how　mankind　first　learned　to　promise；　we　must　go　to　metaphysics；　and　find　out　how　it　ever　came　to　frame　a　future　tense。　The　nature　of　the　particular　promise　which　was　first　enforced　in　a　given　system　can　hardly　lead　to　any　truth　of　general　importance。　But　the　history　of　the　action　of　debt　is　instructive；　although　in　a　humbler　way。　It　is　necessary　to　know　something　about　it　in　order　to　understand　the　enlightened　rules　which　make　up　the　law　of　contract　at　the　present　time。

In　Glanvill's　treatise　the　action　of　debt　is　found　already　to　be　one　of　the　well…known　remedies。　But　the　law　of　those　days　was　still　in　a　somewhat　primitive　state；　and　it　will　easily　be　imagined　that　a　form　of　action　which　goes　back　as　far　as　that　was　not　founded　on　any　very　delicate　discriminations。　It　was；　as　I　shall　try　to　show　directly；　simply　the　general　form　in　which　any　money　claim　was　collected；　except　unliquidated　claims　for　damages　by　force；　for　which　there　was　established　the　equally　general　remedy　of　trespass。

It　has　been　thought　that　the　action　was　adopted　from　the　then　more　civilized　procedure　of　the　Roman　law。　A　＇252＇　natural　opinion；　seeing　that　all　the　early　English　law…writers　adopt　their　phraseology　and　classification　from　Rome。　Still　it　seems　much　more　probable　that　the　action　is　of　pure　German　descent。　It　has　the　features　of