Page images
PDF
EPUB

[joint property; and there is no survivorship therein (m). This principle is expressed in the maxim "Jus accrescendi inter mercatores non habet."]

It remains to add, that, as in the case of things real, so in the case of things personal, the legal property may be vested in one man, to the use of or in trust for another. For instance, stocks, shares, and other choses in action, as well as, more rarely, choses in possession, are frequently assigned to trustees by way of settlement on marriage or otherwise. Of course the Statute of Uses does not apply to personal property at all.

(m) Waterer v. Waterer (1873), L. R. 15 Eq. 402.

CHAPTER II.

OF TITLE TO THINGS PERSONAL-AND FIRST OF

TITLE BY OCCUPANCY.

We shall now proceed to consider the title to things personal, or the various means of acquiring and of losing such property as may be had therein. Both of these considerations of gain and loss shall be blended together in one and the same view, as was done in our observations upon real property; since it is, for the most part, impossible to contemplate the one without contemplating the other also. Now there are six modes of making title to things personal, which we shall have occasion to consider, and these are:

1. By occupancy;

2. By invention;

3. By gift and assignment;

4. By contract;

5. By bankruptcy; and

6. By will and administration.

[And, first, the title by OCCUPANCY,-which, we have more than once remarked, was the original method of acquiring property; and which is still permitted to subsist. in certain cases.

1. Thus, in the first place, it was formerly said, that anybody may seize to his own use such goods as belong to an alien enemy (a); for such enemies, not being looked upon as members of our society, are not entitled, during their state of enmity, to the benefit or protection of our laws. This doctrine is, however, in modern times,

(a) Finch, Discourse, 178.

[restrained, as regards seizures on the high seas, to such captors as are authorized by the authority of the Crown (b); and, as regards inland seizures, to such goods as are brought into this country by an alien enemy, after declaration of war, without a safe-conduct or passport. And therefore it has been held, that where a foreigner is resident in England, and afterwards a war breaks out between his country and ours, his goods are not liable to be seized (c); and if a contract be made with a foreigner during peace, the right of action upon it is not absolutely forfeited by the subsequent outbreak of war between his country and ours, but is simply suspended until peace be again restored (d). But where the circumstances of the case render the capture from an enemy legal, the title by capture, i.e., by occupancy, is good; and so good in fact, that, by our more antient law, such title would sometimes have prevailed, even against the claim of the former true British owner, from whom the goods had been previously taken by the same enemy. For the law of this country in such a case was, that goods and chattels so re-captured became vested in the recaptor, unless the recapture was on the same day as the first capture, and the owner before sunset put in his claim to them (e); a doctrine agreeable also to the law of nations, as understood in the time of Grotius (f). But the law of recapture at sea was much modified after the time of Grotius; and the later authorities required, that, before the goods became the property of the captors, they must have been brought into port, and have continued a night infra præsidia, in a place of safe custody (g), and, further, that, in order to vest such property in the captors, so as to bar the title of the

(b) The King v. Williamson

(1672), Freem. 40.

(c) Bro. Ab. tit. Propertie, 38, Forfeiture, 57.

(d) Clemontson v. Blessig (1856), 11 Exch. 135; Flindt v. Waters (1812), 15 East, 260.

(e) Bro. Ab. tit. Propertie, 38, Forfeiture, 57.

(f) De Jure B. ac P. 1. 3, ch. 6,

s. 3.

(g) Bynkersh. Quæst. Jur. Pub. b. 1, ch. 4.

[original owner thereto, the vessel must have been condemned as prize, by legal sentence (h).] As regards British owners, according to the present law, whatever period of time may have intervened between the capture and any such claim, and whether sentence of condemnation of the vessel shall have been obtained or not, the goods must in all cases be restored to the original owners on payment of salvage, or money in lieu of salvage, according as shall have been determined in the Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice (i); and the same rule would probably be applicable also to all owners who for the time being were subjects of the King. On the other hand, as regards captures from the enemy (that is to say, from alien owners being enemies), goods so captured are called naval prize of war; and the title thereto and the distribution of such goods is now regulated by the Naval Prize Act, 1864, under which all questions are referred to the jurisdiction of the Prize Courts. This jurisdiction is now ordinarily exercised by the Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice (k), and may (in certain cases) be exercised by the Colonial Courts of Admiralty (1).

2. [Again, with regard to animals feræ naturæ, all mankind had an original natural right to pursue and take any fowl of the air, any fish of the sea, and any beast of the field; and this right still continues in every individual, except so far as it has been restrained by the laws of the country. By the law of England, accordingly, all persons may, generally speaking, on their own lands, or on the high seas, exercise this right, though it was formerly the exclusive right of the monarch to take certain royal fish, such as the whale and sturgeon. Animals so captured

(h) 1 Rob. Rep. 139; 3 ib. 97; 1 Kent. Com. 97.

(i) 1 Bl. Rep. 27; Admiralty Court Act, 1840.

(k) See Holland, Manual of Prize Law.

(7) Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890; Prize Courts Act, 1894.

[by a private individual become, subject to the conditions already mentioned, his qualified property, or, if dead, his absolute property; so that to steal them, or otherwise invade his property therein, is, according to the nature of the case, sometimes a criminal offence, sometimes a civil injury.] But the right to take animals feræ naturæ is subject to many arbitrary restrictions and regulations. imposed by the legislature, such as the restrictions and regulations contained in the Game Laws; and the statutes severally passed for the protection of sea-birds and certain other wild birds (m), of sand-grouse (n), and of freshwater fish (o), and shell-fish generally (p). Inasmuch as the law of fisheries (including sea-fisheries) is fully discussed elsewhere in this treatise, we will here only discuss, with any approach to detail, the laws relative to game.

[The Game Laws were, in early times, very stringent, and even as late as the reign of Charles II., none were permitted to take or sell game unless duly qualified in respect of property,—the ordinary qualification, as imposed by the Qualification Act, 1671 (22 & 23 Car. 2, c. 25), having been the ownership of lands or tenements in possession, for an estate of inheritance of the yearly value of £100, or an ownership for life, or for ninety-nine years or upwards, of lands of the yearly value of £150. This qualification was originally imposed chiefly for the preservation of the different species of game.]

It was subsequently made necessary, however, for sportsmen to take out a yearly game certificate, attesting the payment by them of a certain amount of duty. The Game Act, 1831, repealed the Qualification Act of Charles II.'s reign, and provided in substance, that the exclusive right to kill game upon any land should be vested

(m) Wild Birds Protection Acts, 1880, 1881, 1894, 1896 and 1902. (n) Sand Grouse Protection Act, 1888.

(0) Freshwater Fisheries Acts, 1878 and 1884.

(p) Shell Fish Regulation Act, 1894.

« EelmineJätka »