177 (return)
177/1 Cf. Abbreviatio Plaeitorum, p. 343, col. 2, rot. 87, 17 Ed. II.
178 (return)
178/1 Y.B. 9 Ed. IV. 34, pl. 9; 2 Ed. IV. 15, pl. 7. It is proper to add, that in the latter case Littleton does not seem to distinguish between servants and bailees.
178/2 Y.B. 9 Ed. IV, 40, pl. 22. So Brian, in 20 Ed. IV. 11, pl. 10, ad fin.
178/3 Y.B. 10 Hen. VII. 25, 26, pl. 3.
178/4 Cf. L. Baiw., XV. 5; Y.B. 33 Hen. VI. 1, pl. 3.
178/5 Y.B. 6 Hen. VII. 12, pl. 9; Bro. Detinue, pl. 37; 10 Hen. VI. 21, pl. 69.
178/6 Y.B. 3 Hen. VII. 4, pl. 16. Cf. 10 Hen. VI. 21, pl. 69.
178/7 Y.B. 11 Hen. IV. 23, 24; 6 Hen. VII. 12, pl. 9.
178/8 Cro. Eliz. 815; 4 Co. Rep. 83 b; Co. Lit. 89; 2 BI. Comm. 452.
180 (return)
180/1 Savile, 133, 134. Cf. Bro. Accion sur le Case, pl. 103; Dyer, 161 a, b.
180/2 Nugent v. Smith, 1 C.P. D. 19, Brett, J., at p. 28.
180/3 Nugent v. Smith, 1 C.P. D. 423, Cockburn, C. J., at p. 428.
181 (return)
181/1 Moore, 462; Owen, 57.
181/2 Dial. 2, ch. 38, A.D. 1530.
182 (return)
182/1 Keilway, 160, pl. 2 (2 Hen. VIII.); cf. ib. 77b (21 Hen. VII.).
182/2 Y.B. 33 Hen. VI. 1, pl. 3.
182/3 4 Co. Rep. 83 b; Cro. Eliz. 815.
183 (return)
183/1 Keilway, 160, pl. 2.
183/2 Y.B. 19 Hen. VI. 49, ad fin. Cf. Mulgrave v. Ogden, Cro. Eliz. 219; S.C., Owen, 141, 1 Leon. 224; with Isaack v. Clark, 2 Bulstr. 306, at p. 312, Coke, J.
183/3 See Lecture VII.
184 (return)
184/1 Paston, J., in Y.B. 19 Hen. VI. 49. See, also, Rogers v. Head, Cro. Jac. 262; Rich v. Kneeland, Cro. Jac. 330, which will be mentioned again. An innkeeper must be a common innkeeper, Y.B. 11 Hen. IV. 45. See further, 3 Bl. Comm. 165, where "the transition from status to contract" will be found to have taken place.
184/2 F. N. B. 94 D; infra, p. 203.
184/3 Y.B. 7 Hen. IV. 14; 12 Ed. IV. 13, pl. 9, 10; Dyer, 22 b.
184/4 The process may be traced by reading, in the following order, Y.B. 2 Hen. VII. 11; Keilway, 77 b, ad fin. (21 Hen. VII.); ib. 160, pl. 2 (2 Hen. VIII.); Drake v. Royman, Savile, 133, 134 (36 Eliz.); Mosley v. Fosset, Moore, 543 (40 Eliz.); 1 Roll. Abr. 4, F, pl. 5; Rich v. Kneeland, Cro. Jac. 330 (11 Jac. I.).
185 (return)
185/1 Cro. Jac. 262 (8 Jac. I.). Compare Maynard's argument in Williams v. Hide, Palmer, 548; Symons v. Darknoll, ib. 523, and other cases below; 1 Roll. Abr. 4, F, pl. 3. Mosley v, Fosset, Moore, 543 (40 Eliz.); an obscurely reported case, seems to have been assumpsit against an agistor, for a horse stolen while in his charge, and asserts obiter that "without such special assumpsit the action does not lie." This must have reference to the form of the action, as the judges who decided Southcote's Case took part in the decision. See, further, Evans v. Yeoman, Clayton, 33.
186 (return)
186/1 See Symons v. Darknoll, and the second count in Morse v. Slue infra. (The latter case shows the averment of negligence to have been mere form.) Cf. I Salk. 18, top.
187 (return)
187/1 Supra, p. 179.
187/2 Boson v. Sandford, Shower, 101; Coggs v. Bernard, infra.
187/3 Symons v. Darknoll, infra.
188 (return)
188/1 Reg. Brev. 92b, 95a, 98a, 100b, 104a; cf. Y.B. 19 Ed. II. 624; 30 Ed. III. 25, 26; 2 Hen. IV. 18, pl. 6; 22 Hen. VI. 21, pl. 38; 32 & 33 Ed. I., Int., xxxiii.; Brunner, Schwurgerichte, 177; id. Franzosische, Inhaberpapier, 9, n. 1.
188/2 12 Co. Rep. 64.
188/3 See, besides the following cases, the declaration in Chamberlain v. Cooke, 2 Ventris, 75 (1 W. & M.), and note especially the variations of statement in Morse v. Slue, set forth below, in the text.
189 (return)
189/1 Hobart, 17; Cro. Jac. 330. See also George v. Wiburn, 1 Roll. Abr. 6, pl. 4 (A.D. 1638).
190 (return)
190/1 The use which has been made of this case in later times shows the extreme difficulty in distinguishing between principles of substantive law and rules relating only to procedure, in the older books.
190/2 Y.B. 22 Hen. VI. 21, pl. 38; supra, p. 188, n. 1.
191 (return)
191/1 Palmer, 523.
191/2 Palmer, 548.
191/3 Aleyn, 93.
191/4 1 Sid. 36.
192 (return)
192/1 1 Sid. 244. Cf. Dalston v. Janson, 1 Ld. Raym. 58.
192/2 2 Keb. 866; 3 id. 72, 112, 135; 2 Lev. 69; I Vent. 190, 238; 1 Mod. 85; Sir T. Raym. 220.
193 (return)
193/1 2 Keb. 866. See 3 Keb. 74; 1 Mod. 85; Sir T. Raym. 220.
193/2 2 Keb. 72.
193/3 Y.B. 33 Hen. VI. 1; supra, p. 177.
193/4 3 Keble, 73. This is the main point mentioned by Sir T. Raymond and Levinz.
193/5 Cf. 1 Mod. 85.
194 (return)
194/1 1 Ventris, 238, citing Southcote's Case in the margin. Cf. 3 Keble, 135.
194/2 Aleyn, 93; supra, p. 191.
194/3 See also 1 Hale, P.C. 512, 513.
195 (return)
195/1 King v. Viscount Hertford, 2 Shower, 172, pl. 164; cf. Woodlife's Case, supra.
195/2 Boson v. Sandford, 1 Shower, 101 (2 W. & M.). See above, pp. 183,185; below, p. 197. Modern illustrations of the doctrine will be found in Fleming v. Manchester, Sheffield, & Lincolnshire Railway Co., 4 Q.B.D. 81, and cases cited. In Boorman v. Brown, 3 Q.B.511, 526, the reader the primitive assumpsit, which was the inducement to a declaration in tort, interpreted as meaning contract in the modern sense. It will be seen directly that Lord Holt took a different view. Note the mode of dealing with the Marshal's case, 33 Hen; VI. 1, in Aleyn, 27.
196 (return)
196/1 See Lovett v. Hobbs, 2 Shower, 127 (32 Car. II.); Chamberlain v. Cooke, 2 Ventris, 75 (1 W. & M.); Boson v. Sandford, 1 Shower, 101, citing Southcote's Case (2 W. & M.); Upshare v. Aidee, 1 Comyns, 25 (8 W. III.); Middleton v. Fowler, I Salk. 288 (10 W. III.).
196/2 12 Mod. 472.
196/3 2 Ld. Raym. 909.
197 (return)
197/1 Powtuary v. Walton, 1 Roll. Abr. 10, pl. 5 (39 Eliz.). Cf. Keilway, 160.
197/2 2 Ld. Raym. 919. See Lecture VII. How little Lord Holt meant to adopt the modern view, that delivery, being a detriment to the owner, was a consideration, may be further seen by examining the cases put and agreed to by him from the Year Books.
199 (return)
199/1 2 Kent, 598; 1 C.P. D. 429.
199/2 Palmer, 523. See too Keilway, 77 b, and 160, pl. 2, where the encroachment of case on detinue, and the corresponding confusion in principle, may be pretty clearly seen taking place. But see p. 175, supra.
200 (return)
200/1 2 Kent, 597; Forward v.Pittard, 1 T. R. 27.
200/2 Cf. Y.B. 7 Hen. IV. 14; 2 Hen. VII. 11; Keilway, 77 b, 160, pl. 2, and other cases already cited.
200/3 Y.B. 41 Ed. III. 3, pl. 8.
200/4 Y.B. 33 Hen. YI. 1, pl. 3.
200/5 Reg. Brev. 107 a, 108 a, 110 a, b; entries cited 1 T. R. 29.
200/6 See above, pp. 167, 175 et seq.; 12 Am. Law Rev. 692, 693; Y.B. 42 Ed. III. 11, pl. 13; 42 Ass., pl. 17.
201 (return)
201/1 1 Wilson, 282; cf. 2 Kent (12th ed.), 596, n. 1, b.
201/2 Y.B. 33 Hen. VI. 1, pl. 3.
202 (return)
202/1 Mouse's Case, 12 Co. Rep. 63.
202/2 Bird v. Astcock, 2 Bulstr. 280; cf. Dyer, 33 a, pl. 10; Keighley's Case, 10 Co. Rep. 139 b, 140.
202/3 Y.B. 40 Ed. III. 5, 6, pl. 11; see also Willams v. Hide, Palmer, 548; Shep. Touchst. 173.
203 (return)
203/1 See Safe Delcosit Company of Pittsburgh v. Pollock, 85 Penn. 391.
203/2 Paston, J., in Y.B. 21 Hen. VI. 55; Keilway, 50 a, pl. 4; Hardres, 163.
203/3 Lane v. Cotton, 1 Ld. Raym. 646, 654; 1 Salk. 18; 12 Mod. 484.
204 (return)
204/1 Forward v. Pittard, 1 T. R. 27, 83.
205 (return)
205/1 Printing and Numerical Registering Co. v. Sampson, L.R. 19 Eq. 462, 465.
207 (return)
207/1 Possession, Section 6, Eng. tr., pp. 27, 28.
207/2 R. d. Besitzes, 487.
208 (return)
208/1 R. d. Besitzes, 490, 491.
208/2 Bruns, R. d. Besitzes, 415; Windscheid, Pand. Section 148, n. 6. Further Hegelian discourse may be found in Dr. J. Hutchison Sterling's Lectures on the Philosophy of Law.
208/3 Institutionen, Sections 224, 226; Windscheid, Pand. Section 148, n. 6.
208/4 Windscheid, Pand. Section 148, n. 6.
208/5 Besitzklagen, 276, 279.
209 (return)
209/1 Bruns, R. d. Besitzes, 499.
209/2 Bruns, R. d. Besitzes, Section 2, pp. 5 et seq.; Puchta, Besitz, in Weiske, Rechtslex.; Windscheid, Pand. Section 154, pp. 461 et seq. (4th ed.).
209/3 D. 41.2.3, Section 20; 13.6.8 & 9. Cf. D. 41.1.9, Section 5.
210 (return)
210/1 But see Ihering, Geist d. Rom. R., Section 62, French tr., IV. p. 51.
210/2 Heusler thinks this merely a result of the English formalism and narrowness in their interpretation of the word suo in the writ (disseisivit de teuemento suo). Gewere, 429-432. But there was no such narrowness in dealing with catalla sua in trespass. See below, p. 242.
210/3 See, further, Bracton, fol. 413; Y.B. 6 Hen. VII. 9, pl. 4.
211 (return)
211/1 Infra, p. 243.
211/2 R. d. Besitzes, 494.
212 (return)
212/1 Rogers v. Spence, 13 M. & W. 579, 581.
212/2 Webb v. Fox, 7 T. R. 391, 397.
212/3 Fennings v. Lord Grenville, 1 Taunt. 241; Littledale v. Scaith, ib. 243, n. (a); cf. Hogarth v. Jackson, M. & M. 58; Skinner v. Chapman, ib. 59, n.
212/4 Swift v. Gifford, 2 Lowell, 110.
212/5 1 Taunt. 248.
213 (return)
213/1 Cf. Wake, Evolution of Morality, Part I. ch. 4, pp. 296 et seq.
215 (return)
215/1 Asher v. Whitlock, L.R. 1 Q.B.1.
215/2 People v. Shearer, 30 Cal. 645.
217 (return)
217/1 2 Kent's Comm. 349, citing Pierson v. Post, 3 Caines, (N. Y.) 175; Buster v. Newkirk, 20 Johnson, (N. Y.) 75.
217/2 Young v. Hichens, 6 Q.B.606.
217/3 2 Kent's Comm. 349, n. (d).
218 (return)
218/1 Inst. 2. 1, Section 13.
218/2 Swift v. Gifford, 2 Lowell, 110.
218/3 Savigny, R. d. Besitzes, Section 21.
218/4 II. 9, Section 4; III. 29, Section 2. Animus domini will be used here as shortly indicating the general nature of the intent required even by those who deny the fitness of the expression, and especially because Savigny's opinion is that which has been adopted by English writers.
219 (return)
219/1 Cf. Bruns, R. d. Besitzes, 413, and ib. 469, 474, 493, 494, 505; Windscheid, Pand. Section 149, n. 5 (p. 447, 4th ed.); Puchta, Inst. Section 226.
219/2 Supra, p. 207; 2 Puchta, Inst. Section 226 (5th ed.), pp. 545, 546.
221 (return)
221/1 15 Jur. 1079; 21 L. J. Q.B.75; 7 Eng. L. & Eq. 424.
222 (return)
222/1 11 Allen, 548.
223 (return)
223/1 Kincaid v. Eaton, 98 Mass. 139.
223/2 Barker v. Bates, 13 Pick. 255, 257, 261; Proctor v. Adams, 113 Mass. 376, 377; 1 Bl. Comm. 297, Sharsw. ed., n. 14. Cf. Blades v. Hiqgs, 13 C.B. N.S. 844, 847, 848, 850, 851; 11 H. L. C. 621; Smith v. Smith, Strange, 955.
223/3 Reg. v. Rowe, Bell, C.C. 93.
224 (return)
224/1 See, as to treasure hidden in another's land, D. 41. 2. 44, pr.; D. 10. 4. 15. Note the different opinions in D. 41.2. 3, Section 3.
224/2 3 Inst. 107; 1 Hale, P.C. 504, 505; 2 Bishop, Crim. Law, Sections 834, 860 (6th ed.).
224/3 Reg. v. Middleton, L.R. 2 C.C. 38, 55. Cf. Halliday v. Holgate, L.R. 3 Ex. 299, 302.
224/4 Cf. Y.B. 8 Ed. II. 275; Fitzh. Abr. Detinue, ph 59; Y.B. 13 Ed. IV. 9, pl. 5; Keilway, 160, pl. 2; Merry v. Green, 7 M. & W. 623, 630. It may not be necessary to go quite so far, however, and these cases are not relied on as establishing the theory. For wrong explanations, see 2 East, P.C. 696.
225 (return)
225/1 Durfee v. Jones, 11 R. I. 588.
225/2 Reg. v. Rowe, Bell, C.C. 93, stated above.
225/3 8 Ves. 405; 7 M. & W. 623; Stephen, Crim. Law, Art. 281, Ill. (4), p. 197. He says, "because [the owner of the safe] cannot be presumed to intend to act as the owner of it when he discovers it,"—a reason drawn from Savigny, but not fitted to the English law, as has been shown.
226 (return)
226/1 Y.B. 13 Ed. IV. 9, 10, pl. 5; 21 Hen. VII. 14, pl. 21. Cf. 3 Hen. VII. 12, pl. 9; Steph. Crim. Law, Art. 297, and App., note xvii.
226/2 Steph. Crtre. Law, Art. 297, and App., note xvii. p. 882. It may be doubted whether the old law would have sanctioned the rule in this form. F. N. B. 91 E; Y.B. 2 Ed. IV. 15, pl. 7.
226/3 Y.B. 21 Hen. VII. 14, pl. 21; 13 Co. Rep. 69.
227 (return)
227/1 They have been said to be a part of the family pro hac vice. Southcote v. Stanley, 1 H. & N. 247, 250. Cf. Y.B. 2 Hen. IV. 18, pl. 6.
227/2 Moore, 248, pl. 392; S.C., Owen, 52; F. N. B. 91 E; 2 B1. Comm. 396; 1 H. Bl. 81, 84; 1 Chitty, Pl. 170 (1st ed.); Dicey, Parties, 358; 9 Mass. 104; 7 Cowen, 294; 3 S. & R. 20; 13 Iredell, 18; 6 Barb. 362, and cases cited. Some of the American cases have been denied, on the ground that the custodian was not a servant. Cf. Holiday v. Hicks, Cro. Eliz. 638, 661, 746; Drope v. Theyar, Popham, 178, 179.
228 (return)
228/1 Bracton, fol. 6 a, Section 3, 12 a, 17 a, Cap. V. ad fin., 25 a, b, etc.; Pucbra, Inst. Section 228.
228/2 See also 7 Am. Law Rev. 62 et seq.; 10 Am. Law Rev. 431; 2 Kent, Comm. (12th ed.), 260, n. 1.
228/3 1 Comm. 427. Cf. Preface to Paley on Agency. Factors are always called servants in the old books, see, e. g., Woodlife's Case, Owen, 57; Holiday v. Hicks, Cro. Eliz. 638; Southcote's Case, 4 Co. Rep. 83 b, 84 a; Southern v. How, Cro. Jac. 468; St. 21 Jac. I., c. 16, Section 3; Morse v. Slue, 3 Keble, 72. As to bailiffs, see Bract. 26 b, "Reestituat domino, vel servienti," etc.; Y.B. 7 Hen. IV. 14, pl. 18.
229 (return)
229/1 Paley, Agency, c. 4, Section 1, citing Godbolt, 360. See, further, F. N. B. 120, G; Fitzh. Abr. Dette, pl. 3; Y.B. 8 Ed. IV. 11, pl. 9. These rules seem to be somewhat modern even as to servants. The liability of a master for debts contracted by his servant is very narrowly limited in the earlier Year Books.
230 (return)
230/1 I am inclined to think that this extension has been largely due to the influence of the Roman law. See Lecture I. p. 20, n. 1, and observe the part which the precedents as to fire (e. g., Y.B. 2 Hen. IV. 18, pl. 6) have played in shaping the modern doctrine of master and servant. Tuberville v. Stampe, I Ld. Raym. 264 (where Lord Holt's examples are from the Roman law); Brucker v. Fromont, 6 T. R. 659; M'Manus v. Crickett, 1 East, 106; Patten v. Rea, 2 C.B. N.S. 606. In Southern v. How, Popham, 143, Doctor and Student is referred to for the general principles of liability. Doctor and Student states Roman law. See, further, Boson v. Sandford, 1 Shower, 101, 102.
230/2 Bac. Ahr. Master and Servant, K; Smith, Master and Servant (3d ed.), 260, n. (t).
230/3 Clapp v. Kemp, 122 Mass. 481; Murray v. Currie, L.R. 6 C.P. 24, 28; Hill v. Morey, 26 Vt. 178.
230/4 See, e.g., Patten v. Rea, 2 C.B. N.S. 606; Bolingbroke v. Swindon Local Board, L.R. 9 C.P. 575.
230/5 Freeman v. Rosher, 13 Q.B.780, 785; Gauntlett v. King, 3 C. B. N.S. 59; Haseler v. Lemoyne, 28 L. J. C.P. 103; Collett v. Foster, 2 H. & N. 356; Barwick v. English Joint Stock Bank, L.R. 2 Ex. 259, 265, 266; Lucas v. Mason, L.R. 10 Ex. 251, 253, last paragraph; Mackay v. Commercial Bank of New Brunswick, L.R. 5 P.C. 394, 411, 412. So as to partners, 3 Kent's Comm. (12th ed.), 46, notes (d) & 1.
231 (return)
231/1 Bush v. Steinman, 1 B. & P. 404, 409.
231/2 6 M. & W. 358. Cf. Udell v. Atherton, 7 H. & N. 172, 184, for a comment like that in the text. Other grounds for the decision are immaterial here.
231/3 Mackay v. Commercial Bank of New Brunswick, L.R. 5 P.C. 394; Barwick v. English Joint Stock Bank, L.R. 2 Ex. 259; Western Bank of Scotland v. Addie, L.R. 1 H. L. Sc. 145; 2 Kent (12th ed.), 616, n. 1; Swift v. Jewsbury, L.R. 9 Q.B.301, overruling S.C. sub nom. Swift v. Winterbotham, L.R. 8 Q.B.244; Weir v. Bell, 3 Ex. D. 238, 244. The objections which Baron Bramwell mentions (L.R. 9 Q.B.815) to holding one man liable for the frauds of another, are objections to the peculiar consequences attaching to the relation of master and servant in general, and have been urged in that more general form by the same learned judge. 12 Am. Law Rev. 197, 200; 2 H. & N. 856, 361. See 7 Am. Law Rev. 61, 62.
231/3 7 Am. Law Rev. 63 (Oct. 1872).
232 (return)
232/1 D. 44. 2. 4, note 17, Elzevir ed.
232/2 Hunter's Roman Law, 431.
232/3 Ancient Hist. of Inst. 235.
232/4 Cf. Gillett v. Ball, 9 Penn. St. 13; Craig v. Gilbreth, 47 Me. 416; Nickolson v. Knowles, 5 Maddock, 47; Williams v. Port, L.R. 12 Eq. 149; Adams v. Jones, 12 Ad. & El. 455; Bracton, fol. 28 b, 42 b, 43. And compare with the passage cited above from Blackstone: "Possider, cujus riomine possidetur, procurator alienae possessioni praestat ministerium." D. 41. 2. 18, pr.
233 (return)
233/1 Ward v. Macaulay, 4 T. R. 489, 490. Cf. as to factors supra, p. 228.
233/2 Berndtson v. Strang, L.R. 3 Ch. 588, 590.
233/3 Blackburn, Sale, 33; Marvin v. Wallis, 6 El. & Bl. 726.
233/4 D. 41. 2. 18, pr. "Quod meo nomine possideo, possum alieno nomine possidere: nec enim muto mihi causam possessionis, sed desino possidere et alium possessorem ministerio meo facio. Nec idem est possidere et alieno nomine possidere: nam possidet, cujus nomine possidetur, procurator alienae possessioni praestat ministerium." Thus showing that the vendor changed possession by holding in the name of the purchaser, as his agent to possess. Cf. Bracton, fol. 28 b.
233/4 Windscheid, Pand. Section 155, n. 8 a; 2 Kent (12th ed.), 492, n. 1 (a). It should be kept in mind also that the Roman law denied possession to bailees.
234 (return)
234/1 See, e. g., Farina v. Home, 16 M. & W. 119, 123.
235 (return)
235/1 McGahey v. Moore, 3 Ired. (N. C.) 35.
235/2 Reader v. Moody, 3 Jones, (N. C.) 372. Cf. Basset v. Maynard, Cro. Eliz. 819, 820.
235/3 Browne v. Dawson, 12 A. & E. 624. Cf. D. 43. 16. 17; ib. 3, Section 9; D. 41. 2. 18, Section 3; Clayton, 147, pl. 268.
236 (return)
236/1 Cf. Bruns, R. d. Besitzes, 503.
237 (return)
237/1 Clark v. Maloney, 3 Harrington (Del.), 68. Bruns (R. d. Besitzes, 503, 507) comes to the same conclusion on practical grounds of convenience, although he utterly repudiates it on theory. I must refer to what I said above touching these conflicts between theory and convenience.
238 (return)
238/1 Bruns, R. d. Besitzes, Section 57, p. 486. A learned writer of more ancient date asks why a doctor has not a possessory action if you cease to employ him, and answers: "Sentio actionem non tenere, sed sentio tantum, nec si vel morte mineris, possum dicere quare. Tu lector, si sapis, rationes decidendi suggere." Hommel, Rhaps., qu. 489, cited, Bruns, 407.
239 (return)
239/1 Gardiner v. Thibodeau, 14 La. An. 732.
239/2 Bruns, 483.
240 (return)
240/1 2 Kent (12th ed.), 205, n. 1. Cf. Y.B. 21 Hen. VI. 8, 9, pl. 19; American note to Scott v. Shepherd, in 1 Sm. L. C. (Am. ed.).
240/2 Britton (Nich. ed.), I. 277 (cf. Bract., fol. 164 b; Fleta, fol. 214; Glanv., Lib. XIII. c. 37); Littleton, Sections 237-240, 588, 589; 3 Bl. Comm. 170; 3 Cruise, Dig., tit. xxviii., Rents, ch. 2, Section 34.
241 (return)
241/1 See Lecture XI.
241/2 Cf. Stockport Water Works v. Potter, 3 H. & C. 300, 318. The language in the seventh English edition of 1 Sm. L. C., 300, is rather too broad. If the law should protect a possessor of land in the enjoyment of water coming to it, it would do so because the use of the water was regarded as a part of the enjoyment of that land, and would by no means imply that it would do the same in the case just put of a way over land of another.
242 (return)
242/1 Jefferies v. Great Western Railway Co., 5 El. & B1. 802. Cf. Armory v. Delamirie, 1 Strange, 505, 1 Sm. L. C.
242/2 Co. Lit. 145 b.
242/3 2 Wms. Saund. 47 b, note 1, to Wilbraham v. Snow.
242/4 Bract., fol. 150 b, 151; supra, p. 168; Y.B. 22 Ed. I. 466-468.
242/5 Y.B. 48 Ed. III. 20; 11 Hen. IV. 17; 11 Hen. IV. 23, 24; 21 Hen. VII. 14. The meaning of sua is discussed in Y.B. 10 Ed. IV. 1, B, by Catesby. Compare Laband, Vermogensrechtlichen Klagen, 111; Heusler, Gewere, 492 et seq., correcting Bruns, R. d. Besitzes, 300 et seq.; Sohm, Proc. d. L. Sal., Section 6.
243 (return)
243/1 Y.B. 11 Hen. IV. 17, pl. 39.
243/2 Y.B. 21 Hen. VII. 14 b, pl. 23.
243/3 Godbolt, 173, pl. 239. Cf. 11 Hen. IV. 17, pl. 39.
243/4 Bro. Abr. Trespass, pl. 433, cit. Y.B. 13 Hen. VII. 10.
243/5 Kelyng, 89. See, further, Buller, N. P. 33.
243/6 Lecture V.; Y.B. 20 Hen. VII. 1, pl. 11.
243/7 Y.B. 21 lien. VII. 14 b, pl. 23.
243/8 1 Roll. Abr. 4, 5 (I), pl. 1. Cf. Arnold v. Jefferson, 1 Ld. Raym. 275.
244 (return)
244/1 29 Ass., fol. 163, pl. 28.
244/2 Southcote's Case, 4 Co. Rep. 83 b.
244/3 Mores v. Conham, Owen, 123. Cf. Ratcliff v. Davis, I Bulstr. 29.
244/4 Doe v. Dyball, Mood. & M. 346 and note; 2 Wms. Saund. 111, and later notes; I Ad. & El. 119; Asher v. Whitlock, L.R. 1 Q.B.1.
244/5 Graham v. Peat, 1 East, 244.
245 (return)
245/1 As to this period see Heusler, Gewere. Cf. Laveleye, Propriete, 166.
248 (return)
248/1 2 Hist. du Droit Franc., pp. 146 et seq, 152.
248/2 Anciens Poetes de la France, (Guessard,) p. 71.
248/3 Page 283; cf. 284, cxviii, et seq., 44, lxix.
249 (return)
249/1 Sohm, Proc. d. Lex. Sal., Sections 15, 23-25, tr. Thevenin, pp. 80, 105, 122.
249/2 Essays in A. S. Law, p. 292.
249/3 Cap. VIII., Merkel, p. 48.
249/4 Cap. LXXXIX. Section 3, Essays in A. S. Law, p. 291.
249/5 Chap. IV. Section 16.
250 (return)
250/1 Fitzh. Abr. Mainprise, pl. 12 (H. 33 Ed. III.); Staundforde, P.C. 65.
250/2 Abbr. Plac., p. 343, col 2, rot. 37, 17 Ed. II.
250/3 Jacob, L. D., "Bail." Cf. I Bulstr. 45; .Hawkins, P.C., II. ch. 15, Section 83; Abbr. Plac., p. 343, col. 2, rot. 37, 17 Ed. II.
250/4 Highmore, Bail, p. 199; Jacob, L. D., "Bail." Cf. 2 Laferriere, Hist. du Droit Franc., p. 148.
250/5 Highmore, p. 195.
250/6 Ibid., p. 200.
252 (return)
252/1 Vermoegensrechtlichen Klagen.
253 (return)
253/1 II. c. 60, Section 25. Glanvill's "justa debendi causa" (Lib. X. c. 4) seems remote from consideration.
254 (return)
254/1 Y.B. 3 Hen. VI. 36.
254/2 Y.B. 37 Hen. VI. 13, pl. 3.
254/3 Y.B. 37 Hen. VI. 8, pl. 33.
254/4 Glanv., Lib. X. c. 12; Bract, fol. 400b, Section 10; 22 Ass., pl. 70, fol. 101.
255 (return)
255/1 Essays in A. S. Law, 187.
256 (return)
256/1 I. 45; III. 10.
256/2 Lib. X. e. 17. Suit, secta, was the term applied to the persons whose oath the party tendered.
257 (return)
257/1 Lib. X. c. 12 (Beames, p. 262); c. 8 & c. 5 (Beames, pp. 256, 251); cf. IV. c. 6, where witnesses are tendered de visu et auditu. Cf. Bract., 315 b, Section 6 Fleta, II. c. 63, Section10, p. 137. It was no doubt true, as Glanvill says, Lib. X. c. 17, that the usual mode of proof was by a writing or by duel, and that the King's Court did not generally give protection to private agreements made anywhere except in the Court of the King (Lib. X. c. 8). But it can hardly be that debts were never established by witness in his time, in view of the continuous evidence from Bracton onwards.
257/2 But cf. Brunner, Schwurgerichte, 399. I do not go so far as to say that they were still a living institution. However that may be, tradition must at least have modelled itself on what had been the function of the former official body.
257/3 Bract., fol. 315 b, Section 6; Britt. (Nich.) I. p. 162; Magna Charta, c. 38; Y.B. 21 Ed. I. 456; 7 Ed. II. 242; 18 Ed. II. 582; 3 Bl. Comm. 295, 344. Cf. 17 Ed. III. 48 b.
257/4 Cf. Glanv., Lib. IV. c. 6.
258 (return)
258/1 Lib. X. c. 18. It is possible that this means no more than Glanvill's often repeated statement, that the King's Court did not, generally speaking, take cognizance of private agreements. The substantive law was, perhaps, still limited by traditions from the infancy of contract. See pp. 248, 251, 259, 260. The proposition in its broadest form may have been based on the inability to try such agreements in any way but those which have been specified. Cf. the requirement of aliam diracionationem and aliis probationibus, in Lib. X. c. 12. But cf. Ibid. with Essays in A. S. Law, pp. 189, 190.
259 (return)
259/1 Sharington v. Strotton, Plowden, 298, at p. 302, M. 7 & 8 Eliz.
259/2 Pillans v. Van Mierop, 3 Burrow, 1663, 1669.
260 (return)
260/1 1 Thorpe, Anc. Laws, 181, Oaths, 7, 8.
260/2 Glanv., Lib. X. c. 5 (Beames, p. 251); Y.B. 7 Ed. II. 242; Novae Narr. Dette-Vers plege, Rastell's Law Tracts, p. 253, D, 2 Finl. Reeves, 376.
261 (return)
261/1 Glanv., Lib. X. c. 22 (Beames, p. 263); Bract., fol. 398 b, Section 1. The favorite proof by duel was also allowed, but this disappeared. When the inquest became general, the execution of the deed was tried, like any other fact, by that means.
261/2 Bract., fol. 315 b, Section 6, 400 b; Coke, 2d Inst., 44, 45.
262 (return)
262/1 Glanv., Lib. X. c. 12 (Beames, p. 263); Bract., fol. 100 b, Section 9.
262/2 Glanv., Lib. X. c. 17 (Beames, p. 272).
262/3 Bract., fol. 400 b, Section 9.
262/4 Cf. Y.B. 20 Ed. I. 304, and 34 Ed. II., 150, 152; ib. 330, 332; 35 Ed. I. 546.
263 (return)
263/1 Bract., fol. 400 b, Section 8.
263/2 Cf. Y.B. 20 Ed. I. 304.
263/3 Cap. 28; 32 & 33 Ed. I. 516; 18 Ed. II. 582; Fleta, II. c, 63, Section 9; Coke, 2d Inst., 44; 3 Bl. Comm. 344.
263/4 Y.B. 18 Ed. II. 582; 17 Ed. III. 48 b, pl. 14.
264 (return)
264/1 Y.B. 29 Ed. III. 25, 26; cf. 48 Ed. III. 6, pl. 11; Fleta, II. c. 60, Section 25; Glanvill, Lib. X. c. 12.
264/2 Cf. Bro..Acc. sur le Case, pl. 5; S.C., 27 Hen. VIII. 24, 25, pl. 3.
264/3 Y.B. 18 Ed. III. 13, pl. 7.
264/4 Y.B. 44 Ed. III. 21, pl. 23.
264/5 F. N. B. 122, I, in margin. Cf. F. N. B. 122 K; Y.B. 43 Ed. III. 11, pl. 1; S.C., Bro. Pledges, pl. 3; 9 Hen. V. 14, pl. 23.
265 (return)
265/1 Y.B. 17 Ed. III. 48 b, pl. 14. Cf. Fortescue (Amos), 67, n.; 3 Bl. Comm. 295.
265/2 For limit, see Constit. of Clarendon, c. 15; Glanv., Lib. X. c. 8, 12; Y.B. 22 Ass., pl. 70, fol. 101; 45 Ed. III. 24, pl. 30; 19 R. II., Fitzh. Abr. Dett, pl. 166; 37 Hen. VI. 8, pl. 18; 14 Ed. IV. 6, pl. 3; 15 Ed. IV. 32, pl. 14; 19 Ed. IV. 10, pl. 18; 20 Ed. IV. 3, pl. 17.
266 (return)
266/1 See for an illustration 2 Kent's Comm. (12th ed.), 451, n. 1 (b).
266/2 Repromittatur, but cf. pro servitio tuo vel pro homagio, Fleta, II. c. 60, Section 25.
267 (return)
267/1 Y.B. 29 Ed. III. 25, 26. But cf. 48 Ed. III. 3, pl. 6.
267/2 19 R. II., Fitzh. Abr. Dett, pl. 166.
267/3 Y.B. 12 Hen. IV. 17, pl. 13, ad fin.
267/4 Y.B. 9 Hen. V. 14, pl. 23.
267/5 (Cf. 13 Ed. II. 403; 17 Ed. IIL 48, pl. 14; 29 Ed. III. 25, 26.) 41 Ed. III. 7, pl. 15; 46 Ed. III. 6, pl. 16; Fitzh. Abr. Dett, pl. 166.
267/6 Y.B. 3 Hen, VI. 36, pl. 33.
268 (return)
268/1 Y.B. 37 Hen. VI. 8, pl. 18.
268/2 E. g., Rolfe in Y.B. 3 Hen. VI. 36, pl. 23.
269 (return)
269/1 Y.B. 37 Hen. VI. 8, pl. 18. Cf. Bro. Feoffements al Uses, pl. 54; Plowden, 301.
269/2 Y.B. 15 Ed. IV. 32, pl. 14; (S.C., 14 Ed. IV. 6, pl. 3;) 17 Ed. 4, pl. 4.
269/3 Cf. Y.B. 37 Hen. VI. 8, pl. 18; 17 Ed. IV. 4, 5; Plowden, 305, 306.
269/4 Y.B. 3 Hen. VI. 36, pl. 33.
269/5 Y.B. 37 Hen. VI. 13.
269/6 As to requirement of certain sum, cf. Y.B. 12 Ed. II. 375; Fleta, II. c. 60, Section 24.
270 (return)
270/1 Y.B. 29 Ed. III. 25, 26; 40 Ed. III. 24, pl. 27; 43 Ed. II1. 2, pl. 5.
270/2 Y.B. 43 Ed. III. 2, pl. 5; 46 Ed. III. 25, pl. 10; 50 Ed. III. 5, pl. 11.
270/3 Cf. Glanv., Lib. X. c. 8; Fleta, II. c. 60, Section 25.
270/4 Y.B. 35 Ed. I. 454; 12 Ed. II. 375.
272 (return)
272/1 Ducange, "Sigilium"; Ingulph. 901.
272/2 Big. Pl. Ang. Norm. 177.
272/3 Big. Pl. Ant. Norm. 177; Bract., fol. 100 b, Section 9, "scriptura." But cf. Y.B. 30 Ed. I. 158; Fleta, II. c. 60, Section 25.
272/4 Y.B. 33 Ed. I. 354, 356; 35 Ed. I. 455, top; 41 Ed. III. 7, pl. 15; 44 Ed. III. 21, pl. 23. Cf. 39 Hen. VI. 34, pl. 46.
272/5 Y.B. 7 Ed. I. 242. Cf. 35 Ed. I. 452.
272/6 Cf. Bract., fol. 100 b, Section 9.
272/7 Cf. Glanv., Lib. X. c. 12; Dugdale, Antiq. Warwic. 673, cited Ducange, "Sigillum"; Bract., fol. 396 b, Section 3; I Britt. (Nich.)163, Section 17; Abbrev. Plac. 8 Joh., Berk. rot. 4, pp. 55, 56; ib. 19 Ed. I., Norf. & Surf. rot. 7, p. 284; ib. Index "Sigillum."
272/8 Y.B. 30 Ed. I. 158; Fleta, II. c. 60, Section 25, p. 130.
273 (return)
273/1 45 Ed. III. 24, pl. 30.
273/2 Bract., fol. 100 b, Section 9.
275 (return)
275/1 Cf. 5 Co. Rep. 13 b, 14 a, with 1 Roll. Rep. 126, 128; Y.B. 43 Ed. III 30, pl. 15.
275/2 Y.B. 46 Ed. III. 19, pl. 19; S.C. Bro. Acc. sur le Case, pl. 22.
275/3 Y.B. 22 Ass., pl. 4i, fol. 94.
276 (return)
276/1 Y.B. 43 Ed. III. 33, pl. 38.
277 (return)
277/1 Y.B. 11 Hen. IV. 33, pl. 60.
277/2 Y.B. 3 Hen. VI. 36, pl. 33.
277/3 Y.B. 2 Hen. IV. 3, pl. 9; 11 Hen. IV. 33, pl. 60. Cf. 3 Hen. VI. 36, 83.
279 (return)
279/1 Cf. 19 Hen. VI. 49, pl. 5 ad fin., Newton, C. J.
280 (return)
280/1 Cf. Y.B. 48 Ed. III. 6, pl. 11.
280/2 Cases supra; Y.B. 2 Hen. IV. 3, pl. 9; 11 Hen. IV. 33. Cf. 3 Hen. VI. 36, pl. 33; 20 Hen. VI. 34, pl. 4; 2 Hen. VII. 11, pl. 9.
281 (return)
281/1 Y.B. 48 Ed. III. 6, pl. 11. Cf. Fitzh. Abr. Acc. sur le case, pl. 37, 11 R. II; 14 Hen. VI. 18. But cf. 43 Ed. III. 33, pl. 38.
282 (return)
282/1 Cf. Candish's reasons for allowing wager of law with Y.B. 32 & 33 Ed. I., Preface, p. xxxvi., citing the old rules of pleading printed at the end of the tract entitled, Modus tenendi unum Hundredum sire Curiam de Recordo, in Rastell's Law Tracts, p. 410, E, F, G.
282/2 Y.B. 3 Hen. VI. 36, pl. 33.
282/3 Y.B. 2 Hen. IV. 3, pl. 9; 11 Hen. IV. 33, pl. 60; 3 Hen. VI. 36, pl. 33.
282/4 3 Hen. VI. 36, pl. 33.
283 (return)
283/1 Y.B. 14 Hen. VI. 18, pl. 58.
283/2 Ibid. Cf. 48 Ed. III 6, pl. 11.
283/3 Y.B. 19 Hen. VI. 49, pl. 5. See, further, Y.B. 20 Hen. VI. 25, pl. 11.
284 (return)
284/1 Cf. Y.B. 3 Hen. VI. 36, pl. 33.
284/2 Y.B. 2 Hen. VII. 11, pl. 9. Cf. 20 Hen. VI. 34, pl. 4.
284/3 Cf. Y.B. 14 Hen. VI. 18, pl. 58; 21 Hen. VII. 41, pl. 66, Fineux, C. J.
284/4 Keilway, 160, pl. 2 (2 Hen. VIII.); Powtuary v. Walton, 1 Roll. Abr. 10, pl. 5 (39 Eliz.); Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Ld. Raym. 909 (2 Anne, A.D. 1703). Supra, p. 195.
285 (return)
285/1 Sands v. Trevilian, Cro. Car. 193, 194 (Mich. 4 Car. I., A.D. 1629).
285/2 Bro. Acc. sur le Case, pl. 5; S.C., Y.B. 27 Hen. VIII. 24, 25, pl. 3; Sidenham v. Worlington, 2 Leon. 224, A.D. 1585.
285/3 Y.B. 21 Hen. VII. 30, pl. 5; ib. 41, pl. 66.
285/4 Y.B. 3 Hen. VI. 36, pl. 33.
286 (return)
286/1 Sharington v. Strotton, Plowden, 298 (Mich. 7 & 8 Eliz.); ib. 309, note on "the civil law."
286/2 Hunt v. Bate, 3 Dyer, 272 a (10 Eliz., A.D. 1568).
286/3 See Lecture VIII. Mr. Langdell, Contracts, Sections 92, 94, suggests the ingenious explanation for this doctrine, that it was then held that no promise could be implied in fact from the request. There may be evidence which I do not know, but the case cited (Bosden v. Thinne, Yelv. 40) for this statement was not decided until A.D. 1603, while the implication of Hunt v. Bate, supra, which was the authority followed by the cases to be explained, is all the other way.
286/4 Sidenham v. Worlington, 2 Leon. 224, A.D. 1585.
287 (return)
287/1 Read v. Baxter, 3 Dyer, 272 b, n. (26 & 27 Eliz.). Cf. Richards and Bartlet's Case, 1 Leon. 19 (26 Eliz.).
287/2 Bro. Acc. sur le Case, pl. 5; S.C., Y.B. 27 Hen. VIII. 24, 25, pl. 3; 3 Dyer, 272, n.
287/3 Marsh v. Rainsford, 3 Dyer, 272 b, n.; S.C., 2 Leon. 111, and Cro. Eliz. 59, sub. nom. Marsh v. Kavenford.
287/4 Smith and Smith's Case, 3 Leon. 88, A.D. 1583; Riches and Briggs, Yelv. 4, A.D. 1601; Pickas v. Guile, Yelv. 128, A.D. 1608.
288 (return)
288/1 Supra, p. 195. Lord Coke's caution not to rely on the abridgments is very necessary to the proper study of the history of consideration. The abridgments apply the doctrine to cases which make no mention of it, and which were decided before it was ever heard of.
290 (return)
290/1 Y.B. 46 Ed. III. 19, pl. 19; 19 Hen. VI. 49, pl. 5; Keilway, 160, pl. 2; Powtuary v. Walton, 1 Roll. Abr. 10, pl. 5; Coggs v. Bernaard, 2 Ld. Raym. 909.
290/2 Riches and Briggs, Yelv. 4, A.D. 1601; Pickas v. Guile, Yelv. 128.
291 (return)
291/1 Bainbridge v. Firmstone, 8 Ad. & El. 743, A.D. 1838.
291/2 Wilkinson v. Oliveira, 1 Bing. N. C. 490, A.D. 1835; Haigh v. Brooks, 10 Ad. & El. 309; lb. 323; Hart v. Miles, 4 C.B. N.S. 371, A.D. 1858.
291/3 Wheatley v. Low, Cro. Jac. 668, A.D. 1623. Cf. Byne and Playne's Case, 1 Leon. 220, 221 (32 & 33 Eliz.).
291/4 Wilkinson v. Oliveira, 1 Bing. N. C. 490; Haigh v. Brooks, 10 Ad. & El. 309; Hart v. Miles, 4 C.B. N.S. 371; 6 Am. Law Rev. 47, Oct. 1871.
292 (return)
292/1 Supra, pp. 196, 197. See also Lecture VII.
292/2 Byles, J., in Shadwell v. Shadwell, 30 L. J. C.P. 145, 149.
292/3 Shadwell v. Shadwell, ubi supra; Burr v. Wilcox, 13 Allen, 269, 272, 273.
292/4 Thomas v. Thomas, 2 Q.B.851.
293 (return)
293/1 Price v. Jenkins, 5 Ch. D. 619. Cf. Grabbe v. Moxey, 1 W. R. 226; Thomas v. Thomas, 2 Q.B.851; Monahan, Method of Law, 141 et seq.
294 (return)
294/1 Ellis v. Clark, 110 Mass. 389.
294/2 Fitch v. Snedaker, 38 N. Y. 248, criticising Williaws v. Carwardine, 4 Barn. & Ad. 621, where, however, it does not appear that the plaintiff did not know of the offer of a reward, but merely that the jury found that she was in fact actuated by other motives, a finding wholly beside the mark.
296 (return)
296/1 Y.B. 29 Ed. III. 25, 26.
296/2 19 R. II., Fitzh. Abr. Dett, pl. 166.
296/3 Hunt v. Bate, Dyer, 272, A.D. 1568.
297 (return)
297/1 See Barker v. Halifax, Cro. Eliz. 741; S.C. 3 Dyer, 272 a, n. 32.
297/2 Sidenham v. Worlington, 2 Leonard, 224; Bosden v. Thinne, Yelv. 40; Lampleigh v. Brathwait, Hobart, 105; Langdell, Cas. on Contr. (2d ed.), ch. 2, Section 11, Summary, Sections 90 et seq. See above, Lecture VII. p. 286.
297/3 Pollock, Contr. (lst ed.), p. 6.
298 (return)
298/1 Canham v. Barry, 15 C.B. 597, 619; Jones v. How, 9 C.B. 1, 9; Com. Dig. Condition, D. 2; I Roll. Abr. 420 (D), pl. 1; Y.B. 22 Ed. IV. 26, pl. 6.
301 (return)
301/1 Gee v. Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway Co., 6 H. & N. 211, 218, Bramwell, B. Cf. Hydraulic Engineering Co. v. McHaffie, 4 Q.B.D. 670, 674, 676.