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.
209/1 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.
210/1 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.
211/1 Infra, p. 243.
211/2 R. d. Besitzes, 494.
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.
213/1 Cf. Wake, Evolution of Morality, Part I. ch. 4, pp. 296 et seq.
215/1 Asher v. Whitlock, L.R. 1 Q.B.1.
215/2 People v. Shearer, 30 Cal. 645.
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).
218/1 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.
219/1 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.
221/1 15 Jur. 1079; 21 L. J. Q.B.75; 7 Eng. L. & Eq. 424.
222/1 11 Allen, 548.
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.
224/1 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. 13Ed. 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.
225/1 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.
226/1 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.
227/1 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; 13Iredell, 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.
228/1 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; 2Kent, 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.
229/1 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.
230/1 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.
