the common law-第67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！


word　just　quoted　from　Savigny；　and　accordingly　successions　will　be　the　subject　of　this　and　the　following　Lecture。　I　shall　begin　by　explaining　the　theory　of　succession　to　persons　deceased；　and　after　that　is　done　shall　pass　to　the　theory　of　transfer　between　living　＇342＇　people；　and　shall　consider　whether　any　relation　can　be　established　between　the　two。

The　former　is　easily　shown　to　be　founded　upon　a　fictitious　identification　between　the　deceased　and　his　successor。　And　as　a　first　step　to　the　further　discussion；　as　well　as　for　its　own　sake；　I　shall　briefly　state　the　evidence　touching　the　executor；　the　heir；　and　the　devisee。　In　order　to　understand　the　theory　of　our　law　with　regard　to　the　first　of　these；　at　least；　scholars　are　agreed　that　it　is　necessary　to　consider　the　structure　and　position　of　the　Roman　family　as　it　was　in　the　infancy　of　Roman　society。

Continental　jurists　have　long　been　collecting　the　evidence　that；　in　the　earlier　periods　of　Roman　and　German　law　alike；　the　unit　of　society　was　the　family。　The　Twelve　Tables　of　Rome　still　recognize　the　interest　of　the　inferior　members　of　the　family　in　the　family　property。　Heirs　are　called　sui　heredes；　that　is；　heirs　of　themselves　or　of　their　own　property；　as　is　explained　by　Gaius。　/1/　Paulus　says　that　they　are　regarded　as　owners　in　a　certain　sense；　even　in　the　lifetime　of　their　father；　and　that　after　his　death　they　do　not　so　much　receive　an　inheritance　as　obtain　the　full　power　of　dealing　with　their　property。　/2/

Starting　from　this　point　it　is　easy　to　understand　the　＇343＇　succession　of　heirs　to　a　deceased　paterfamilias　in　the　Roman　system。　If　the　family　was　the　owner　of　the　property　administered　by　a　paterfamilias；　its　rights　remained　unaffected　by　the　death　of　its　temporary　head。　The　family　continued；　although　the　head　died。　And　when；　probably　by　a　gradual　change；　/1/　the　paterfamilias　came　to　be　regarded　as　owner；　instead　of　a　simple　manager　of　the　family　rights；　the　nature　and　continuity　of　those　rights　did　not　change　with　the　title　to　them。　The　familia　continued　to　the　heirs　as　it　was　left　by　the　ancestor。　The　heir　succeeded　not　to　the　ownership　of　this　or　that　thing　separately；　but　to　the　total　hereditas　or　headship　of　the　family　with　certain　rights　of　property　as　incident；　/2/　and　of　course　he　took　this　headship；　or　right　of　representing　the　family　interests；　subject　to　the　modifications　effected　by　the　last　manager。

The　aggregate　of　the　ancestor's　rights　and　duties；　or；　to　use　the　technical　phrase；　the　total　persona　sustained　by　him；　was　easily　separated　from　his　natural　personality。　For　this　persona　was　but　the　aggregate　of　what　had　formerly　been　family　rights　and　duties；　and　was　originally　sustained　by　any　individual　only　as　the　family　head。　Hence　it　was　said　to　be　continued　by　the　inheritance；　/3/　and　when　the　heir　assumed　it　he　had　his　action　in　respect　of　injuries　previously　committed。　/4/

Thus　the　Roman　heir　came　to　be　treated　as　identified　with　his　ancestor　for　the　purposes　of　the　law。　And　thus　it　is　clear　how　the　impossible　transfers　which　I　seek　to　explain　were　accomplished　in　that　instance。　Rights　to　which　B　＇344＇　as　B　could　show　no　title；　he　could　readily　maintain　under　the　fiction　that　he　was　the　same　person　as　A；　whose　title　was　not　denied。

It　is　not　necessary　at　this　point　to　study　family　rights　in　the　German　tribes。　For　it　is　not　disputed　that　the　modern　executor　derives　his　characteristics　from　the　Roman　heir。　Wills　also　were　borrowed　from　Rome；　and　were　unknown　to　the　Germans　of　Tacitus。　/1/　Administrators　were　a　later　imitation　of　executors；　introduced　by　statute　for　cases　where　there　was　no　will；　or　where；　for　any　other　reason；　executors　were　wanting。

The　executor　has　the　legal　title　to　the　whole　of　the　testator's　personal　estate；　and；　generally　speaking；　the　power　of　alienation。　Formerly　he　was　entitled　to　the　undistributed　residue；　not；　it　may　fairly　be　conjectured；　as　legatee　of　those　specific　chattels；　but　because　he　represented　the　person　of　the　testator；　and　therefore　had　all　the　rights　which　the　testator　would　have　had　after　distribution　if　alive。　The　residue　is　nowadays　generally　bequeathed　by　the　will；　but　it　is　not　even　now　regarded　as　a　specific　gift　of　the　chattels　remaining　undisposed　of；　and　I　cannot　help　thinking　that　this　doctrine　echoes　that　under　which　the　executor　took　in　former　times。

No　such　rule　has　governed　residuary　devises　of　real　estate；　which　have　always　been　held　to　be　specific　in　England　down　to　the　present　day。　So　that；　if　a　devise　of　land　should　fail；　that　land　would　not　be　disposed　of　by　the　residuary　clause；　but　would　descend　to　the　heir　as　if　there　had　been　no　will。

Again；　the　appointment　of　an　executor　relates　back　to　the　date　of　the　testator's　death。　The　continuity　of　person　＇345＇　is　preserved　by　this　fiction；　as　in　Rome　it　was　by　personifying　the　inheritance　ad　interim。

Enough　has　been　said　to　show　the　likeness　between　our　executor　and　the　Roman　heir。　And　bearing　in　mind　what　was　said　about　the　heres；　it　will　easily　be　seen　how　it　came　to　be　said；　as　it　often　was　in　the　old　books；　that　the　executor　〃represents　the　person　of　his　testator。〃　/1/　The　meaning　of　this　feigned　identity　has　been　found　in　history；　but　the　aid　which　it　furnished　in　overcoming　a　technical　difficulty　must　also　be　appreciated。　If　the　executor　represents　the　person　of　the　testator；　there　is　no　longer　any　trouble　in　allowing　him　to　sue　or　be　sued　on　his　testator's　contracts。　In　the　time　of　Edward　III。；　when　an　action　of　covenant　was　brought　against　executors；　Persay　objected：　〃I　never　heard　that　one　should　have　a　writ　of　covenant　against　executors；　nor　against　other　person　but　the　very　one　who　made　the　covenant；　for　a　man　cannot　oblige　another　person　to　a　covenant　by　his　deed　except　him　who　was　party　to　the　covenant。〃　/2/　But　it　is　useless　to　object　that　the　promise　sued　upon　was　made　by　A；　the　testator；　not　by　B；　the　executor；　when　the　law　says　that　for　this　purpose　B　is　A。　Here　then　is　one　class　of　cases　in　which　a　transfer　is　accomplished　by　the　help　of　a　fiction；　which　shadows；　as　fictions　so　often　do；　the　facts　of　an　early　stage　of　society；　and　which　could　hardly　have　been　invented　had　these　facts　been　otherwise。

Executors　and　administrators　afford　the　chief；　if　not　the　only；　example　of　universal　succession　in　the　English　＇346＇　law。　But　although　they　succeed　per　universitatem；　as　has　been　explained；　they　do　not　succeed　to　all　kinds　of　property。　The　personal　estate　goes　to　them；　but　land　takes　another　course。　All　real　estate　not　disposed　of　by　will　goes　to　the　heir；　and　the　rules　of　inheritance　are　quite　distinct　from　those　which　govern　the　distribution　of　chattels。　Accordingly；　the　question　arises　whether　the　English　heir　or　successor　to　real　estate　presents　the　same　analogies　to　the　Roman　heres　as　the　executor。

The　English　heir　is　not　a　universal　successor。　Each　and　every　parcel　of　land　descends　as　a　separate　and　specific　tiling。　Nevertheless；　in　his　narrower　sphere　he　unquestionably　represents　the　person　of　his　ancestor。　Different　opinions　have　been　held　as　to　whether　the　same　thing　was　true　in　early　German　law。　Dr。　Laband　says　that　it　was；　/1/　Sohm　takes　the　opposite　view。　/2/　It　is　commonly　supposed　that　family　ownership；　at　least　of　land；　came　before　that　of　individuals　in　the　German　tribes；　and　it　has　been　shown　how　naturally　representation　followed　from　a　similar　state　of　things　in　Rome。　But　it　is　needless　to　consider　whether　our　law　on　this　subject　is　of　German　or　Roman　origin；　as　the　principle　of　identification　has　clearly　prevailed　from　the　time　of　Glanvill　to　the　present　day。　If　it　was　not　known　to　the　Germans；　it　is　plainly　accounted　for　by　the　influence　of　the　Roman　law。　If　there　was　anything　of　the　sort　in　the　Salic　law；　it　was　no　doubt　due　to　natural　causes　similar　to　those　which　gave　rise　to　the　principle　at　Rome。　But　in　either　event　I　cannot　doubt　that　the　modern　doctrine　has　taken　a　good　deal　of　its　form；　and　perhaps　some　of　its　substance；　from　the　mature　system　＇347＇　of　the　civilians；　in　whose　language　it　was　so　long　expressed。　For　the　same　reasons　that　have　just　been　mentioned；　it　is　also　needless　to　weigh　the　evidence　of　the　Anglo…Saxon　sources；　although　it　seems　tolerably　clear　from　several　passages