the common law-第75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！



Absurd　or　not；　the　similes　as　well　as　the　principles　of　the　Roman　law　reappear　in　Bracton。　He　says；　〃The　servitude　by　which　land　is　subjected　to　＇other＇　land；　is　made　on　the　likeness　of　that　by　which　man　is　made　the　slave　of　man。〃　/1/　For　rights　belong　to　a　free　tenement；　as　well　as　tangible　things。。。。　They　may　be　called　rights　or　liberties　with　regard　to　the　tenements　to　which　they　are　owed；　but　servitudes　with　regard　to　the　tenements　by　which　they　are　owed　。。。。　One　estate　is　free；　the　other　subjected　to　slavery。〃　/2/　〃＇A　servitude＇　may　be　called　an　arrangement　by　which　house　is　subjected　to　house；　farm　to　＇386＇　farm；　holding　to　holding。〃　/1/　No　passage　has　met　my　eye　in　which　Bracton　expressly　decides　that　an　easement　goes　with　the　dominant　estate　upon　a　disseisin；　but　what　he　says　leaves　little　doubt　that　he　followed　the　Roman　law　in　this　as　in　other　things。

The　writ　against　a　disseisor　was　for　〃so　much　land　and　its　appurtenances；〃　/2/　which　must　mean　that　he　who　had　the　land　even　wrongfully　had　the　appurtenances。　So　Bracton　says　an　action　is　in　rem　〃whether　it　is　for　the　principal　thing；　or　for　a　right　which　adheres　to　the　thing；　。。。　as　when　one　sues　for　a　right　of　way；　。。。　since　rights　of　this　sort　are　all　incorporeal　things；　and　are　quasi　possessed　and　reside　in　bodies；　and　cannot　be　got　or　kept　without　the　bodies　in　which　they　inhere；　nor　in　any　way　had　without　the　bodies　to　which　they　belong。〃　/3/　And　again；　〃Since　rights　do　not　admit　of　delivery；　but　are　transferred　with　the　thing　in　which　they　are；　that　is；　the　bodily　thing；　he　to　whom　they　are　transferred　forthwith　has　a　quasi　possession　of　those　rights　as　soon　as　he　has　the　body　in　which　they　are。〃　/4/

There　is　no　doubt　about　the　later　law；　as　has　been　said　at　the　outset。

We　have　thus　traced　two　competing　and　mutually　inconsistent　principles　into　our　law。　On　the　one　hand　is　the　conception　of　succession　or　privity；　on　the　other；　that　of　rights　inhering　in　a　thing。　Bracton　seems　to　have　vacillated　a　little　from　a　feeling　of　the　possibility　of　conflict　between　the　two。　The　benefit　of　a　warranty　was　confined　to　those　who；　by　the　act　and　consent　of　the　＇387＇　grantee；　succeeded　to　his　place。　It　did　not　pass　to　assigns　unless　assigns　were　mentioned。　Bracton　supposes　grants　of　easements　with　or　without　mention　of　assigns；　which　looks　as　if　he　thought　the　difference　might　be　material　with　regard　to　easements　also。　He　further　says；　that　if　an　easement　be　granted　to　A；　his　heirs　and　assigns；　all　such　by　the　form　of　the　grant　are　allowed　the　use　in　succession；　and　all　others　are　wholly　excluded。　/1/　But　he　is　not　speaking　of　what　the　rights　of　a　disseisor　would　be　as　against　one　not　having　a　better　title；　and　he　immediately　adds　that　they　are　rights　over　a　corporeal　object　belonging　to　a　corporeal　object。

Although　it　may　be　doubted　whether　the　mention　of　assigns　was　ever　necessary　to　attach　an　easement　to　land；　and　although　it　is　very　certain　that　it　did　not　remain　so　long；　the　difficulty　referred　to　grew　greater　as　time　went　on。　It　would　have　been　easily　disposed　of　if　the　only　rights　which　could　be　annexed　to　land　were　easements；　such　as　a　right　of　way。　It　then　might　have　been　said　that　these　were　certain　limited　interests　in　land；　less　than　ownership　in　extent；　but　like　it　in　kind；　and　therefore　properly　transferred　by　the　same　means　that　ownership　was。　A　right　of　way；　it　might　have　been　argued；　is　not　to　be　approached　from　the　point　of　view　of　contract。　It　does　not　presuppose　any　promise　on　the　part　of　the　servient　owner。　His　obligation；　although　more　troublesome　to　him　than　to　others；　is　the　same　as　that　of　every　one　else。　It　is　the　purely　negative　duty　not　to　obstruct　or　interfere　with　a　right　of　property。　/2/

＇388＇　But　although　the　test　of　rights　going　with　the　land　may　have　been　something　of　that　nature；　this　will　not　help　us　to　understand　the　cases　without　a　good　deal　of　explanation。　For　such　rights　might　exist　to　active　services　which　had　to　be　performed　by　the　person　who　held　the　servient　estate。　It　strikes　our　ear　strangely　to　hear　a　right　to　services　from　an　individual　called　a　right　of　property　as　distinguished　from　contract。　Still　this　will　be　found　to　have　been　the　way　in　which　such　rights　were　regarded。　Bracton　argues　that　it　is　no　wrong　to　the　lord　for　the　tenant　to　alienate　land　held　by　free　and　perfect　gift；　on　the　ground　that　the　land　is　bound　and　charged　with　the　services　into　whose　hands　soever　it　may　come。　The　lord　is　said　to　have　a　fee　in　the　homage　and　services；　and　therefore　no　entry　upon　the　land　which　does　not　disturb　them　injures　him。　/1/　It　is　the　tenement　which　imposes　the　obligation　of　homage；　/2/　and　the　same　thing　is　true　of　villein　and　other　feudal　services。　/3/

The　law　remained　unchanged　when　feudal　services　took　the　form　of　rent。　/4/　Even　in　our　modern　terms　for　years　rent　is　still　treated　as　something　issuing　out　of　the　leased　premises；　so　that　to　this　day；　although；　if　you　hire　a　whole　house　and　it　burns　down；　you　have　to　pay　without　abatement；　because　you　have　the　land　out　of　which　the　rent　issues；　yet　if　you　only　hire　a　suite　of　rooms　and　they　are　burned；　you　pay　rent　no　longer；　because　you　no　longer　have　the　tenement　out　of　which　it　comes。　/5/

＇389＇　It　is　obvious　that　the　foregoing　reasoning　leads　to　the　conclusion　that　a　disseisor　of　the　tenant　would　be　bound　as　much　as　the　tenant　himself；　and　this　conclusion　was　adopted　by　the　early　law。　The　lord　could　require　the　services；　/1/　or　collect　the　rent　/2/　of　any　one　who　had　the　land；　because；　as　was　said　in　language　very　like　Bracton's；　〃the　charge　of　the　rent　goes　with　the　land。〃　/3/

Then　as　to　the　right　to　the　rent。　Rent　was　treated　in　early　law　as　a　real　right；　of　which　a　disseisin　was　possible；　and　for　which　a　possessory　action　could　be　brought。　If；　as　was　very　frequently　the　case；　the　leased　land　lay　within　a　manor；　the　rent　was　parcel　of　the　manor；　/4/　so　that　there　was　some　ground　for　saying　that　one　who　was　seised　of　the　manor；　that　is；　who　possessed　the　lands　occupied　by　the　lord　of　the　manor；　and　was　recognized　by　the　tenants　as　lord；　had　the　rents　as　incident　thereto。　Thus　Brian；　Chief　Justice　of　England　under　Henry　VII。；　says；　〃If　I　am　disseised　of　a　manor；　and　the　tenants　pay　their　rent　to　the　disseisor；　and　then　I　re…enter；　I　shall　not　have　the　back　rent　of　my　tenants　which　they　have　paid　to　my　disseisor；　but　the　disseisor　shall　pay　for　all　in　trespass　or　assize。〃　/5/　This　opinion　was　evidently　founded　on　the　notion　that　the　rent　was　attached　to　the　chief　land　like　an　easement。　Sic　fit　ut　debeantur　rei　a　re。　/6/

Different　principles　might　have　applied　when　the　rent　was　not　parcel　of　a　manor；　and　was　only　part　of　the　reversion；　that　is；　part　of　the　landlord's　fee　or　estate　out　of　＇390＇　which　the　lease　was　carved。　If　the　lease　and　rent　were　merely　internal　divisions　of　that　estate；　the　rent　could　not　be　claimed　except　by　one　who　was　privy　to　that　estate。　A　disseisor　would　get　a　new　and　different　fee；　and　would　not　have　the　estate　of　which　the　rent　was　part。　And　therefore　it　would　seem　that　in　such　a　case　the　tenant　could　refuse　to　pay　him　rent；　and　that　payment　to　him　would　be　no　defence　against　the　true　owner。　/1/　Nevertheless；　if　the　tenant　recognized　him；　the　disseisor　would　be　protected　as　against　persons　who　could　not　show　a　better　title。　/2/　Furthermore；　the　rent　was　so　far　annexed　to　the　land　that　whoever　came　by　the　reversion　lawfully　could　collect　it；　including　the　superior　lord　in　case　of　escheat。　/3/　Yet　escheat　meant　the　extinction　of　the　fee　of　which　the　lease　and　rent　were　parts；　and　although　Bracton　regarded　the　lord　as　coming　in　under　the　tenant's　title　pro　herede；　in　privity；　it　was　soon　correctly　settled　that　he　did　not；　but　came　in　paramount。　This　instance；　therefore；　comes　very　near　that　of　a　disseisor。

Services　and　rent；　then；　were；　and　to　some　extent　are　still；　dealt　with　by　the　law　from　the　point　of　view　of　property。　They　were　things　which　could　be　owned　and　transferred　like　other　property。　They　could　be　possessed　even　by　wrong；　and　possessory　remedies　were　given　for　them。

No　such　notion　was　applied　to　warranties；　or　to　any　right　which　was　regarded　wholly　from　the　point　of　view　of　contract。　And　when　we　turn　to　the　history　of