361/5 Paulus in D. 50. 17. 128.
362/1 "In re legata in accessione temporis quo testator possedit,
legatarius quodammodo quasi heres est." D. 41. 3. 14, Section 1.
362/2 D. 41.1.62; 43. 3. 1, Section 6; Gaii Inst. II. Section 97;
Just. Inst. 2. 10, Section 11.
363/1 "[Accessiones possessionum] plane tribuuntur his qui in
locum aliorum succedunt sive ex contractu sive voluntate:
heredibus enum et his, qui successorum loco habentur, datur
accessio testatoris. Itaque si mihi vendideris servum utar
accesssione tua." D. 44.3.14, Sections 1, 2.
363/2 "Ab eo . . . in cujus locum hereditate vel emptione aliove
quo iure successi." D. 43. 19. 3, Section 2.
363/3 D. 50. 4. 1, Section 4. Cf. Cic. de Off. 3. 19. 76; Gaii
Inst. IV. Section 34.
363/4 C. 2. 3. 21; C. 6. 16. 2; cf. D. 38. 8. 1, pr.
364/1 "In locum successisse accipimus sive per universitatem sive
in rem sit successum." D. 43. 3. 1, Section 13. Cf. D. 21.3.3,
Section 1; D. 12.2.7&8;D. 39. 2. 24, Section 1.
364/2 D. 41.2. 13, Sections 1, 11. Other cases put by Ulpian may
stand on a different fiction. After the termination of a precarium,
for instance, fingitur fundus nunquam fuisse possessus ab ipso
detentore. Gothofred, note 14 (Elz. ed.). But cf. Puchta, in
Weiske, R. L., art. Besitz, p. 50, and D. 41.2.13, Section7.
364/3 Inst. 2. 6, Sections 12, 13. Cf. D. 44. 3. 9. See, for a
fuller statement, 11 Am. Law Rev. 644, 645.
365/1 Recht des Besitzes, Section11 (7th ed.), p. 184, n. 1, Eng.
tr. 124, n. t.
365/2 Paulus, D. 8. 6. 18, Section 1. This seems to be written of
a rural servitude (aqua) which was lost by mere disuse, without
adverse user by the servient owner.
365/3 Hermogenianus, D. 21. 3. 3; Exe. rei jud., D. 44. 2. 9,
Section 2; ib. 28; ib. 11, Sections 3, 9; D. 10. 2. 25, Section 8;
D. 46. 8. 16, Section I; Keller, Roem. Civilproc., Section 73.
Cf. Bracton, fol. 24 b, Section 1 ad fin.
365/4 "Recte a me via uti prohibetur et interdictum ei inutile
est, quia a me videtur vi vel clam vel precario possidere, qui ab
auctore meo vitiose possidet. nam et Pedius scribit, si vi aut
clam aut precario ab co sit usus, in cuius locum hereditate vel
emptione aliove quo lure suceessi, idem esse dicendum: cum enim
successerit quis in locum eorum, aequum non est nos noceri hoc,
quod adversus eum non nocuit, in cuius locum successimus." D. 43.
19. 3, Section 2. The variation actore, argued for by Savigny, is
condemned by Mommsen, in his edition of the Digest, --it seems
rightly.
365/5 D. 12. 2. 7 & 8.
366/1 Ulpian, D. 39. 2. 24, Section1. Cf. D. 8. 5.7; D. 39. 2.
17, Section 3,
n. 79 (Elzevir ed.); Paulus, D. 2. 14. 17, Section 5.
366/2 "Cum quis in alii locum successerit non est aequum ei
nocere hoc, quod adversus eum non nocuit, in cujus locum
successit. Plerumque emptoris eadem causa esse debet circa
petendum ac defendendum, quae fuit auctoris." Ulp. D. 50. 17.
156, Sections 2, 3. "Qui in ius dominiumve alterius succedit,
iure ejus uti debet." Paulus, D. 50. 17. 177. "Non debeo melioris
condieionis esse, quam auctor meus, a quo ius in me transit."
Paulus, D. 50. 17. 175, Section 1. "Quod ipsis qui contraxerunt
obstat, et successoribus eoturn obstabit." Ulp. D. 50. 17. 143.
"Nemo plus iuris ad alium transferre potest, quam ipse haberet."
Ulp. D. 50. 17. 54; Bract., fol. 31 b. Cf. Decret. Greg. Lib. II.
Tit. XIII. c. 18, De rest. spoliat.: "Cum spoliatori quasi succedat
in vitium." Bruns, R. d. Besitzes, p. 179. Windscheid, Pand.,
Section 162 a, n. 10.
366/3 "Ne vitiosae quidam possessioni ulla potest accedere: sed
nec vitiosa ei, quse vitiosa non est." D. 41. 2. 13, Section 13.
367/1 Hill v. Ellard, 3 Salk. 279. Cf. Withers v. Iseham, Dyer,
70 a, 70 b, 71 a; Gateward's Case, 6 Co. Rep. 59b, 60b; Y.B. 20 &
21 Ed. I 426; 205; 12 Hen. IV. 7.
368/1 Doe v. Barnard, 13 Q.B.945, 952, 953, per Cur., Patteson,
J. Cf. Asher v. Whitlock, L.R. 1 Q.B.1, 3, 6, 7.
368/2 See, further, Sawyer v. Kendall, 10 Cush. 241; 2 Bl. Comm.
263 et seq.; 3 Ch. Pl. 1119 (6th Am. ed.); 3 Kent, 444, 445;
Angell, Limitations, ch. 31, Section 413. Of course if a right
had already been acquired before the disseisin different
considerations would apply. If the right claimed is one of those
which are regarded as incident to land, as explained in the
following Lecture, the disseisor will have it. Jenk. Cent. 12,
First Cent. Case 21.
370/1 Ared v. Watkin, Cro. Eliz. 637; S.C., ib. 651. Cf. Y.B. 5
Hen. VII. 18, pl. 12; Dyer, 4 b, n. (4).
370/2 Roe v. Hayley, 12 East, 464, 470 (1810).
371/1 Boyer v. Rivet, 3 Bulstr. 317, 321.
372/1 Essays in A. S. Law, 219.
372/2 "Per medium," Bracton, fol. 37b, Section10 ad fin.
374/1 Bract., fol. 17 b. Cf. Fleta, III. c. 14, Section 6.
374/2 See, further, Middlemore v. Goodale, Cro. Car. 503, stated
infra, p. 379.
374/3 See also Bract., fol. 380 b, 381. "Et quod de haeredibus
dicitur, idem dici poterit de assignatis .... Et quod assignatis
fieri debet warrantia per modum donationis: probatur in itinere
W. de Ralegh in Com. Warr. circa finem rotuli, et hoc maxime, si
primus dominus capitalis, et primus feoffator, ceperit homagium
et servitium assignati." Cf. Fleta, VI. Section 6; Moore, 93, pl.
230; Sheph. Touchst. 199, 200. As to the reason which led to the
mention of assigns, cf. Bract., fol. 20 b, Section 1; 1 Britt.
(Nich.), 223, 312.
375/1 I do not stop to inquire whether this was due to the
statute of Quia Emptores, by which the assign was made to hold
directly of the first grantor, or whether some other explanation
must be found. Cf. Bract., fol. 37 b; c. 14, Sections 6, 11; VI.
c. 28, Section 4; 1 Britton (Nich.), 256, [100 b].
375/2 Fleta, III. c. 14, Section 6, fol. 197; 1 Britton (Nich.),
223, 233, 244, 255, 312; Co. Lit. 384 b; Y.B. 20 Ed. I. 232; Abbr.
Placit., fol. 308, 2d col., Dunelm, rot. 43; Y.B. 14 Hen. IV. 5, 6.
377/1 Fol. 67 a; cf. 54 a.
377/2 Fol. 381; supra, p. 874, n. 3.
378/1 Cf. Pincombe v. Rudge, Hobart, 3; Bro. Warrantia Carte, pl.
8; S.C., Y.B. 2 Hen. IV. 14, pl. 5.
378/2 Y.B. 50 Ed. III. 12b & 13.
378/3 Y.B. 42 Ed. III. 3, pl. 14, per Belknap, arguendo.
378/4 Noke v. Awder, Cro. Eliz. 373; S.C., ib. 436. Cf. Lewis v.
Campbell, 8 Taunt. 715; S.C., 3 J. B. Moore, 35.
379/1 Middlemore v. Goodale, Cro. Car. 503; S.C., ib. 505, Sir
William Jones, 406.
379/2 Harper v. Bird, T. Jones, 102 (Pasch. 30 Car. II.). These
cases show an order of development parallel to the history of the
assignment of other contracts not negotiable.
380/1 Andrew v. Pearce, 4 Bos. & Pul. 158 (1805).
383/1 Austin, Jurisprudence, II. p. 842 (3d ed.).
383/2 "Quoniam non personae, sed praedia deberent, neque adquiri
libertas neque remitti servitus per partem poterit." D. 8. 3. 34,
pr.
383/3 "Qui fundum alienum bona fide emit, itinere quod ei fundo
debetur usus est: retinetur id ius itineris: atque etiam, si
precario aut vi deiecto domino possidet: fundus enim qualiter se
habens ita, cum in suo habitu possessus est, ius non deperit,
neque refert, iuste nec ne possideat qui talem eum possidet." D.
8. 6. 12.
383/4 Elzevir ed., n. 51, ad loc. cit.; Cicero de L. Agr. 3. 2. 9.
383/5 D. 50. 16, 86. Cf. Ulpian, D. 41. 1. 20, Section 1; D. 8.
3. 23, Section 2.
383/6 Inst. 2. 3, Section 1.
384/1 D. 8. 1. 14, pr. Cf. Elzevir ed., n. 58, "Et sic jura . . .
accessiones ease possunt corporum."
384/2 "Cum fundus fundo servit." D. 8. 4. 12. Cf. D. 8. 5. 20,
Section 1; D. 41. 1. 2O, Section 1.
384/3 Jurisprudence, II. p. 847 (3d ed.).
384/4 Cf. Windscheid, Pand., Section 57, n. 10 (4th ed.), p. 150.
385/1 Fol. 10b, Section 3.
385/2 Fol. 220b, Section 1.
386/1 Fol. 221.
386/2 Fol. 219a, b.
386/3 Fol. 102a, b.
386/4 Fol. 226 b, Section 13. All these passages assume that a
right has been acquired and inheres in the land.
387/1 Fol. 53 a; cf. 59 b, ad fin., 242 b.
387/2 "Nihil praescribitur nisi quod possidetur," cited from Hale
de Jur. Maris, p. 32, in Blundell v. Catterall, 5 B. & Ald. 268,
277.
388/1 Bract., fol. 46b; cf. 17b, 18, 47 b, 48.
388/2 Fol. 81, 81 b, 79 b, 80 b.
388/3 Fol. 24 b, 26, 35 b, 86, 208 b, &c. Cf. F. N. B. 123, E;
Laveleye, Propriete, 67, 68, 116.
388/4 Abbr. Plac. 110; rot. 22, Devon. (Hen. III.}.
388/5 Stockwell v. Hunter, 11 Met. (Mass.) 448.
389/1 Keilway, 130 b, pl. 104.
389/2 Keilway, 113 a, pl. 45; Dyer, 2b.
389/3 Keilway, 113a, pl. 45. Cf. Y.B. 33-35 Ed. I. 70; 45 Ed.
III. 11, 12.
389/4 Litt. Section 589.
389/5 Keilway, 2 a, pl. 2 ad fin. (12 Hen. VII.). But cf. Y.B. 6
Hen. VII. 14, pl. 2 ad fin.
389/6 4 Laferriere, Hist. du Droit. Franc. 442; Bracton, fol. 53a.
390/1 Cf. Co. Lit. 322 b, et seq.; Y.B. 6 Hen. VII. 14, pl. 2 ad
fin.
390/2 Daintry v. Brocklehurst, 3 Exch. 207.
390/3 Y.B. 5 Hen. VII. 18, pl. 12.
391/1 Y.B. 9 Hen. VI. 16, pl. 7.
391/2 Y.B. 14 Hen. VI. 26, pl. 77.
391/3 Y.B. 5 Hen. VII. 18, pl. 12.
391/4 Cf. Theloall, Dig. I. c. 21, pl. 9.
391/5 Buskin v. Edmunds, Cro. Eliz. 636.
391/6 Harper v. Bird, T. Jones, 102 (30 Car. II.).
391/7 Bolles v. Nyseham, Dyer, 254 b; Porter v. Swetnam, Style,
406; S.C., ib. 431.
391/8 3 Bl. Comm. 231, 232.
392/1 Yielding v. Fay, Cro. Eliz. 569.
392/2 Pakenham's Case, Y.B. 42 Ed. III. 3, pl. 14; Prior of
Woburn's Case, 22 Hen. VI. 46, pl. 36; Williams's Case, 5 Co.
Rep. 72 b, 73 a; Slipper v. Mason, Nelson's Lutwyche, 43, 45
(top).
392/3 F. N. B. 127; Nowel v. Smith, Cro. Eliz. 709; Star v.
Rookesby, 1 Salk. 335, 336; Lawrence v. Jenkins, L.R. 8 Q.B.274.
392/4 Dyer, 24 a, pl. 149; F. N. B. 180 N.
393/1 F. N. B. 128 D, E; Co. Lit. 96 b. It is assumed that, when
an obligation is spoken of as falling upon the land, it is
understood to be only a figure of speech. Of course rights and
obligations are confined to human beings.
393/2 Keilway, 145 b, 146, pl. 15; Sir Henry Nevil's Case, Plowd.
377, 381; Chudleigh's Case, 1 Co. Rep. 119 b, 122 b.
393/3 F. N. B. 180 N.; Co. Lit. 385 a; Spencer's Case, 5 Co. Rep.
16 a, 17 b; Pakenham's Case, Y.B. 42 Ed. III. 3, pl. 14; Keilway,
145 b, 146, pl. 15; Comyns's Digest, Covenant (B, 3).
394/1 Holms v. Seller, 3 Lev. 305; Rowbotham v. Wilson, 8 H. L.
C. 348; Bronson v. Coffin, 108 Mass. 175, 180. Cf. Bro. Covenant,
pl. 2.
394/2 Y.B. 21 Ed. III. 2, pl. 5; F. N. B. 180 N.
394/3 The action is case in the Prior of Woburn's Case, Y.B. 22
Hen. VI. 46, pl. 36. In F. N. B. 128 E, n. (a), it is said that a
curia claudenda only lay upon a prescriptive right, and that if
the duty to fence was by indenture the plaintiff was put to his
writ of covenant. But see below, pp. 396, 400.
394/4 Y.B. 32 & 33 Ed. I. 430.
395/1 Y.B. 20 Ed. I. 360.
395/2 Y.B. 32 & 33 Ed. I. 516.
395/3 "Quia res cum homine [obviously a misprint for onere]
transit ad quemcunque." Fol. 382, 382 b.
395/4 Lib. VI. c. 23, Section 17.
395/5 Pakenham's Case, Y.B. 42 Ed. III. 3, pl. 14.
395/6 Sugd. V. & P. (14th ed.), 587; Rawle, Covenants for Title
(4th ed.), p. 314. Cf. Vyvyan v. Arthur, 1 B. & C. 410; Sharp v.
Waterhouse, 7 El. & Bl. 816, 823.
396/1 Co. Lit. 385 a.
396/2 Cf. Finchden as to rent in Y. B, 45 Ed. III. 11, 12.
396/3 Cf. Y.B. 50 Ed. III. 12, 13, pl. 2.
397/1 Covenant, pl. 17.
397/2 There is a colon here in both editions of the Year Books,
marking the beginning of a new argument.
397/3 Pakenham's Case, Y.B. 42 Ed. III. 3, pl. 14.
398/1 Bro. Covenant, pl. 5. Cf. Spencer's Case, 5 Co. Rep. 16 a,
17 b, 18 a.
398/2 Horne's Case, Y.B. 2 Hen. IV. 6, pl. 25.
399/1 "Quod conceditur." Cf. Spencer's Case, 5 Co. Rep. 16 a, 18
a.
399/2 It was quite possible that two liabilities should exist
side by side. Bro. Covenant, pl. 32; Brett v. Cumberland, Cro.
Jac. 521, 523.
399/3 1 Co. Rep. 122 b; S.C., sub nom. Dillon v. Fraine, Popham,
70, 71.
400/1 Essays in Ang. Sax. Law, 248.
400/2 Y.B. 22 Ed. I. 494, 496.
400/3 Y.B. 4 Ed. III. 57, pl. 71; S.C., 7 Ed. III. 65, pl. 67.
401/1 Bract., fol. 17 b, 37 b; Fleta, III. c. 14, Section 6;
1 Britton (Nich.), 223, 233, 244, 255, 312; Abbrev. Plac.
p. 308, col 2, Dunelm, rot. 43 (33 I.); Y. B, 20 Ed. I. 232;
Co. Lit. 384 b.
401/2 Hyde v. Dean of Windsor, Cro. Eliz. 552.
401/3 Spencer's Case, 5 Co. Rep. 16 a. Cf. Minshill v. Oakes, 2
H. & N. 793, 807.
402/1 Hyde v. Dean of Windsor, Cro. Eliz. 552, 553; S.C., ib.
457. Cf. Bally v. Wells, 3 Wilson, 25, 29.
402/2 Dean of Windsor's Case, 5 Co. Rep. 24 a; S.C., Moore, 399.
Cf. Bro. Covenant, pl. 32. Cf. further, Conan v. Kemise, W.
Jones, 245 (7 Car. I.).
403/1 F. N. B. 181 N; Sir Henry Nevil's Case, Plowden, 377, 381.
403/2 Ewre v. Strickland, Cro. Jac. 240. Cf. Brett v. Cumberland,
1 Roll R. 359, 360 "al comen ley"; S.C., Cro. Jac. 399, 521.
403/3 Cockson v. Cock, Cro. Jac. 125.
403/4 Sale v. Kitchingham, 10 Hod. 158 (E. 12 Anne).
403/5 Supra, pp. 396, 398, 400. Cf., however, Lord Wensleydale,
in Rowbotham v. Wilson, 8 H. L. C. 348, 362, and see above, p.
391, as to rents.
404/1 4 Kent (12th ed.), 480, n. 1.
404/2 It is used in a somewhat different sense is describing the
relation between a tenant for life or years and a reversioner.
Privity between them follows as an accidental consequence of
their being as one tenant, and sustaining a single persona
between them.
406/1 Rowbotham v. Wilson, 8 H. L. C. 348, 362 (Lord
Wensleydale).
406/2 Harbidge v. Warwick, 3 Exch. 552, 556.
406/3 Rowbotham v. Wilson, 8 El. & Bl. 123, 143, 144.
404/4 5 Co. Rep. 16, a.
407/1 Y.B. 8 Ed. IV. 5, 6, pl. 1; 22 Ed. IV. 6, pl. 18. Cf. 5 Ed.
IV. 7, pl. 16.
407/2 Cf. Keilway, 42 b, 46 b; 2 Bl. Comm. 329.
408/1 Y.B. 14 Hen. VIII. 6, pl. 5. Cf. Chudleigh's Case, 1 Co.
Rep. 120a, 122 b; S.C., nom. Dillon v. Fraine, Popham, 70-72.
408/2 Lewin, Trusts, Ch. I. (7th ed.), pp. 16, 15.
408/3 4 Inst. 85; Gilb. Uses (Sugd.), 429, n. (6); Lewin, Trusts
(7th ed.), pp. 15, 228.
408/4 Burgess v. Wheate, 1 Eden, 177, 203, 246.
408/5 Lewin, Trusts, Introd. (7th ed.), p. 3.
408/6 1 Rich. III. c. 1. Cf. Rex v. Holland, Aleyn, 14, Maynard's
arg.; Bro. Feoffements al Uses, pl. 44; Gilb. Uses, 26* (Sugd.
ed., 50).
409/1 4th Inst. 85; S.C., Dyer, 869, pl. 50; Jenk. Cent. 6, c.
30. Cf. Gilb. Uses, 198* (Sugd. ed. 399).
409/2 Gilb. Uses, 35* (Sugd. ed. 70).
409/3 Theloall's Dig., I. 16, pl. 1.
End of Project Gutenberg's The Common Law, by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.