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！
des appellavit of the Salic law just mentioned； and may be compared with the language of a Norman charter of about the year 1190： 〃To W。 and his heirs； to wit those whom he may constitute his heirs。〃 /1/
A perfect example of a singular succession worked out by the fiction of kinship is to be found in the story of Burnt Njal； an Icelandic saga； which gives us a living picture of a society hardly more advanced than the Salian Franks； as we see them in the Lex Salica。 A lawsuit was to be transferred by the proper plaintiff to another more versed in the laws； and better able to carry it on； in fact； to an attorney。 But a lawsuit was at that time the alternative of a feud； and both were the peculiar affair of the family concerned。 /2/ Accordingly； when a suit for killing a member of the family was to be handed over to a stranger； the innovation had to be reconciled with the theory that such suit belonged only to the next of kin。 Mord is to take upon himself Thorgeir's suit against Flosi for killing Helgi； and the form of transfer is described as follows。
〃Then Mord took Thorgeir by the hand and named two witnesses to bear witness； 'that Thorgeir Thofir's son hands me over a suit for manslaughter against Flosi Thord's son； to plead it for the slaying of Helgi Njal's son； with all those proofs which have to follow the suit。 Thou handest over to me this suit to plead and to settle； and to enjoy all rights in it； as though I were the rightful next of kin。 Thou handest it over to me by law； and I ＇360＇ take it from thee by law。'〃 Afterwards； these witnesses come before the court； and bear witness to the transfer in like words： 〃He handed over to him then this suit； with all the proofs and proceedings which belonged to the suit； he handed it over to him to plead and to settle； and to make use of all rights； as though he were the rightful next of kin。 Thorgeir handed it over lawfully； and Mord took it lawfully。〃 The suit went on； notwithstanding the change of hands； as if the next of kin were plaintiff。 This is shown by a further step in the proceedings。 The defendant challenges two of the court； on the ground of their connection with Mord； the transferee； by blood and by baptism。 But Mord replies that this is no good challenge； for 〃he challenged them not for their kinship to the true plaintiff； the next of kin； but for their kinship to him who pleaded the suit。〃 And the other side had to admit that Mord was right in his law。
I now turn from the German to the Roman sources。 These have the closest connection with the argument； because much of the doctrine to be found there has been transplanted unchanged into modern law。
The early Roman law only recognized as relatives those who would have been members of the same patriarchal family； and under the same patriarchal authority； had the common ancestor survived。 As wives passed into the families of their husbands； and lost all connection with that in which they were born； relationship through females was altogether excluded。 The heir was one who traced his relationship to the deceased through males alone。 With the advance of civilization this rule was changed。 The praetor gave the benefits of the inheritance to the blood relations； although they were not heirs； and could ＇361＇ not be admitted to the succession according to the ancient law。 /1/ But the change was not brought about by repealing the old law； which still subsisted under the name of the jus civile。 The new principle was accommodated to the old forms by a fiction。 The blood relation could sue on the fiction that he was an heir； although he was not one in fact。 /2/
One the early forms of instituting an heir was a sale of the familia or headship of the family to the intended heir； with all its rights and duties。 /3/ This sale of the universitas was afterwards extended beyond the case of inheritance to that of bankruptcy； when it was desired to put the bankrupt's property into the hands of a trustee for distribution。 This trustee also could make use of the fiction； and sue as if he had been the bankrupt's heir。 /4/ We are told by one of the great jurisconsults that in general universal successors stand in the place of heirs。 /5/
The Roman heir； with one or two exceptions； was always a universal successor； and the fiction of heirship； as such； could hardly be used with propriety except to enlarge the sphere of universal successions。 So far as it extended； however； all the consequences attached to the original fiction of identity between heir and ancestor followed as of course。
＇362＇ To recur to the case of rights acquired by prescription； every universal successor could add the time of his predecessor's adverse use to his own in order to make out the right。 There was no addition； legally speaking； but one continuous possession。
The express fiction of inheritance perhaps stopped here。 But when a similar joinder of times was allowed between a legatee or devisee （legatarius） and his testator； the same explanation was offered。 It was said； that； when a specific thing was left to a person by will； so far as concerned having the benefit of the time during which the testator had been in possession for the purpose of acquiring a title； the legatee was in a certain sense quasi an heir。 /1/ Yet a legatarius was not a universal successor； and for most purposes stood in marked contrast with such successors。 /2/
Thus the strict law of inheritance had made the notion familiar that one man might have the advantage of a position filled by another； although it was not filled； or was only partially filled； by himself； and the second fiction； by which the privileges of a legal heir in this respect as well as others had been extended to other persons； broke down the walls which might otherwise have confined those privileges to a single case。 A new conception was introduced into the law； and there was nothing to hinder its further application。 As has been shown； it was applied in terms to a sale of the universitas for business purposes； and to at least one case where the succession was confined to a single specific thing。 Why； then； might not every gift or sale be regarded as a succession； so far as to insure the same advantages？
＇363＇ The joinder of times to make out a title was soon allowed between buyer and seller； and I have no doubt； from the language always used by the Roman lawyers； that it was arrived at in the way I have suggested。 A passage from Scaevola （B。 C。 30） will furnish sufficient proof。 Joinder of possessions； he says； that is； the right to add the time of one's predecessor's holding to one's own； clearly belongs to those who succeed to the place of others； whether by contract or by will： for heirs and those who are treated as holding the place of successors are allowed to add their testator's possession to their own。 Accordingly； if you sell me a slave I shall have the benefit of your holding。 /1/
The joinder of times is given to those who succeed to the place of another。 Ulpian cites a like phrase from a jurisconsult of the time of the Antonines； 〃to whose place I have succeeded by inheritance； or purchase； or any other right。〃 /2/ Succedere in locum aliorum； like sustinere personam； is an expression of the