the common law-第49章

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！



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　the　primitive　procedure　which　is　found　upon　the　Continent；　as　described　by　Laband。　/1/

The　substance　of　the　plaintiff's　claim　as　set　forth　in　the　writ　of　debt　is　that　the　defendant　owes　him　so　much　and　wrongfully　withholds　it。　It　does　not　matter；　for　a　claim　framed　like　that；　how　the　defendant's　duty　arises。　It　is　not　confined　to　contract。　It　is　satisfied　if　there　is　a　duty　to　pay　on　any　ground。　It　states　a　mere　conclusion　of　law；　not　the　facts　upon　which　that　conclusion　is　based；　and　from　which　the　liability　arises。　The　old　German　complaint　was；　in　like　manner；　〃A　owes　me　so　much。〃

It　was　characteristic　of　the　German　procedure　that　the　defendant　could　meet　that　complaint　by　answering；　in　an　equally　general　form；　that　he　did　not　owe　the　plaintiff。　The　plaintiff　had　to　do　more　than　simply　allege　a　debt；　if　he　would　prevent　the　defendant　from　escaping　in　that　way。　In　England；　if　the　plaintiff　had　not　something　to　show　for　his　debt；　the　defendant's　denial　turned　him　out　of　court；　and　even　if　he　had；　he　was　liable　to　be　defeated　by　the　defendant's　swearing　with　some　of　his　friends　to　back　him　that　he　owed　nothing。　The　chief　reason　why　debt　was　supplanted　for　centuries　by　a　later　remedy；　assumpsit；　was　the　survival　of　this　relic　of　early　days。

Finally；　in　England　as　in　Germany；　debt　for　the　detention　of　money　was　the　twin　brother　of　the　action　brought　for　wrongfully　withholding　any　other　kind　of　chattel。　The　gist　of　the　complaint　in　either　case　was　the　same。

It　seems　strange　that　this　crude　product　of　the　infancy　of　law　should　have　any　importance　for　us　at　the　present　time。　Yet　whenever　we　trace　a　leading　doctrine　of　substantive　law　far　enough　back；　we　are　very　likely　to　find　some　forgotten　circumstance　of　procedure　at　its　source。　Illustrations　of　this　truth　have　been　given　already。　The　action　of　debt　and　the　other　actions　of　contract　will　furnish　others。　Debt　throws　most　light　upon　the　doctrine　of　consideration。

Our　law　does　not　enforce　every　promise　which　a　man　may　make。　Promises　made　as　ninety…nine　promises　out　o