the common law-第68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！


gh　the　evidence　of　the　Anglo…Saxon　sources；　although　it　seems　tolerably　clear　from　several　passages　in　the　laws　that　there　was　some　identification。　/1/

As　late　as　Bracton；　two　centuries　after　the　Norman　conquest；　the　heir　was　not　the　successor　to　lands　alone；　but　represented　his　ancestor　in　a　much　more　general　sense；　as　will　be　seen　directly。　The　office　of　executor；　in　the　sense　of　heir；　was　unknown　to　the　Anglo…Saxons；　/2/　and　even　in　Bracton's　time　does　not　seem　to　have　been　what　it　has　since　become。　There　is；　therefore；　no　need　to　go　back　further　than　to　the　early　Norman　period；　after　the　appointment　of　executors　had　become　common；　and　the　heir　was　more　nearly　what　he　is　now。

When　Glanvill　wrote；　a　little　more　than　a　century　after　the　Conquest；　the　heir　was　bound　to　warrant　the　reasonable　gifts　of　his　ancestor　to　the　grantees　and　their　heirs；　/3/　and　if　the　effects　of　the　ancestor　were　insufficient　to　pay　his　debts；　the　heir　was　bound　to　make　up　the　deficiency　from　his　own　property。　/4/　Neither　Glanvill　nor　his　Scotch　imitator；　the　Regiam　Majestatem；　/5/　limits　the　liability　to　the　amount　of　property　inherited　from　the　same　source。　This　makes　the　identification　of　heir　and　ancestor　as　complete　as　that　of　the　Roman　law　before　such　a　limitation　was　introduced　by　Justinian。　On　the　other　hand；　a　century　＇348＇　later；　it　distinctly　appears　from　Bracton；　/1/　that　the　heir　was　only　bound　so　far　as　property　had　descended　to　him；　and　in　the　early　sources　of　the　Continent；　Norman　as　well　as　other；　the　same　limitation　appears。　/2/　The　liabilities　of　the　heir　were　probably　shrinking。　Britton　and　Fleta；　the　imitators　of　Bracton；　and　perhaps　Bracton　himself；　say　that　an　heir　is　not　bound　to　pay　his　ancestor's　debt；　unless　he　be　thereto　especially　bound　by　the　deed　of　his　ancestor。　/3/　The　later　law　required　that　the　heir　should　be　mentioned　if　he　was　to　be　held。

But　at　all　events　the　identification　of　heir　and　ancestor　still　approached　the　nature　of　a　universal　succession　in　the　time　of　Bracton；　as　is　shown　by　another　statement　of　his。　He　asks　if　the　testator　can　bequeath　his　rights　of　action；　and　answers；　No；　so　far　as　concerns　debts　not　proved　and　recovered　in　the　testator's　life。　But　actions　of　that　sort　belong　to　the　heirs；　and　must　be　sued　in　the　secular　court；　for　before　they　are　so　recovered　in　the　proper　court；　the　executor　cannot　proceed　for　them　in　the　ecclesiastical　tribunal。　/4/

This　shows　that　the　identification　worked　both　ways。　The　heir　was　liable　for　the　debts　due　from　his　ancestor；　and　he　could　recover　those　which　were　due　to　him；　until　＇349＇　the　executor　took　his　place　in　the　King's　Courts；　as　well　as　in　those　of　the　Church。　Within　the　limits　just　explained　the　heir　was　also　bound　to　warrant　property　sold　by　his　ancestor　to　the　purchaser　and　his　heirs。　/1/　It　is　not　necessary；　after　this　evidence　that　the　modern　heir　began　by　representing　his　ancestor　generally；　to　seek　for　expressions　in　later　books；　since　his　position　has　been　limited。　But　just　as　we　have　seen　that　the　executor　is　still　said　to　represent　the　person　of　his　testator；　the　heir　was　said　to　represent　the　person　of　his　ancestor　in　the　time　of　Edward　I。　/2/　So；　at　a　much　later　date；　it　was　said　that　〃the　heir　is　in　representation　in　point　of　taking　by　inheritance　eadam　persona　cum　antecessore；〃　/3/　the　same　persona　as　his　ancestor。

A　great　judge；　who　died　but　a　few　years　ago；　repeats　language　which　would　have　been　equally　familiar　to　the　lawyers　of　Edward　or　of　James。　Baron　Parke；　after　laying　down　that　in　general　a　party　is　not　required　to　make　profert　of　an　instrument　to　the　possession　of　which　he　is　not　entitled；　says　that　there　is　an　exception　〃in　the　cases　of　heir　and　executor；　who　may　plead　a　release　to　the　ancestor　or　testator　whom　they　respectively　represent；　so　also　with　respect　to　several　tortfeasors；　for　in　all　these　cases　there　is　a　privity　between　the　parties　which　constitutes　an　identity　of　person。〃　/4/

But　this　is　not　all。　The　identity　of　person　was　carried　＇350＇　farther　still。　If　a　man　died　leaving　male　children；　and　owning　land　in　fee；　it　went　to　the　oldest　son　alone；　but；　if　he　left　only　daughters；　it　descended　to　them　all　equally。　In　this　case　several　individuals　together　continued　the　persona　of　their　ancestor。　But　it　was　always　laid　down　that　they　were　but　one　heir。　/1/　For　the　purpose　of　working　out　this　result；　not　only　was　one　person　identified　with　another；　but　several　persons　were　reduced　to　one；　that　they　might　sustain　a　single　persona。

What　was　the　persona？　It　was　not　the　sum　of　all　the　rights　and　duties　of　the　ancestor。　It　has　been　seen　that　for　many　centuries　his　general　status；　the　sum　of　all　his　rights　and　duties　except　those　connected　with　real　property；　has　been　taken　up　by　the　executor　or　administrator。　The　persona　continued　by　the　heir　was　from　an　early　day　confined　to　real　estate　in　its　technical　sense；　that　is；　to　property　subject　to　feudal　principles；　as　distinguished　from　chattels；　which；　as　Blackstone　tells　us；　/2/　include　whatever　was　not　a　feud。

But　the　heir's　persona　was　not　even　the　sum　of　all　the　ancestor's　rights　and　duties　in　connection　with　real　estate。　It　has　been　said　already　that　every　fee　descends　specifically；　and　not　as　incident　to　a　larger　universitas。　This　appears　not　so　much　from　the　fact　that　the　rules　of　descent　governing　different　parcels　might　be　different；　/3/　so　that　the　same　person　would　not　be　heir　to　both；　as　from　the　very　nature　of　feudal　property。　Under　the　feudal　system　in　its　vigor；　the　holding　of　land　was　only　one　＇351＇　incident　of　a　complex　personal　relation。　The　land　was　forfeited　for　a　failure　to　render　the　services　for　which　it　was　granted；　the　service　could　be　renounced　for　a　breach　of　correlative　duties　on　the　part　of　the　lord。　/1/　It　rather　seems　that；　in　the　beginning　of　the　feudal　period　under　Charlemagne；　a　man　could　only　hold　land　of　one　lord。　/2/　Even　when　it　had　become　common　to　hold　of　more　than　one；　the　strict　personal　relation　was　only　modified　so　far　as　to　save　the　tenant　from　having　to　perform　inconsistent　services。　Glanvill　and　Bracton　/3/　a　tell　us　that　a　tenant　holding　of　several　lords　was　to　do　homage　for　each　fee；　but　to　reserve　his　allegiance　for　the　lord　of　whom　he　held　his　chief　estate；　but　that；　if　the　different　lords　should　make　war　upon　each　other；　and　the　chief　lord　should　command　the　tenant　to　obey　him　in　person；　the　tenant　ought　to　obey；　saving　the　service　due　to　the　other　lord　for　the　fee　held　of　him。

We　see；　then；　that　the　tenant　had　a　distinct　persona　or　status　in　respect　of　each　of　the　fees　which　he　held。　The　rights　and　duties　incident　to　one　of　them　had　no　relation　to　the　rights　and　duties　incident　to　another。　A　succession　to　one　had　no　connection　with　the　succession　to　another。　Each　succession　was　the　assumption　of　a　distinct　personal　relation；　in　which　the　successor　was　to　be　determined　by　the　terms　of　the　relation　in　question。

The　persona　which　we　are　seeking　to　define　is　the　estate。　Every　fee　is　a　distinct　persona；　a　distinct　hereditas；　or　inheritance；　as　it　has　been　called　since　the　time　of　Bracton。　We　have　already　seen　that　it　may　be　sustained　by　more　＇352＇　than　one　where　there　are　several　heirs；　as　well　as　by　one；　just　as　a　corporation　may　have　more　or　less　members。　But　not　only　may　it　be　divided　lengthwise；　so　to　speak；　among　persons　interested　in　the　same　way　at　the　same　time：　it　may　also　be　cut　across　into　successive　interests；　to　be　enjoyed　one　after　another。　In　technical　language；　it　may　be　divided　into　a　particular　estate　and　remainders。　But　they　are　all　parts　of　the　same　fee；　and　the　same　fiction　still　governs　them。　We　read　in　an　old　case　that　〃he　in　reversion　and　particular　tenant　are　but　one　tenant。〃　/1/　This　is　only　a　statement　of　counsel；　to　be　sure；　but　it　is　made　to　account　for　a　doctrine　which　seems　to　need　the　explanation；　to　the　effect　that；　after　the　death　of　the　tenant　for　life；　he　in　reversion　might　have　error　or　attaint　on　an　erroneous　judgment　or　false　verdict　given　against　the　tenant　for　life。　/2/

To　sum　up　the　results　so　far；　the　heir　of　modern　English　law　gets　his　characteristic　features　from　the　law　as　it　stood　soon　after　the　Conquest。　At　that　time　he　was　a　universal　successor　in　a　very　broad　sen