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！
the owners of ships in all the more common cases of maritime loss can surrender the vessel and her freight then pending to the losers； and it is provided that； thereupon； further proceedings against the owners shall cease。 The legislators to whom we owe this act argued that； if a merchant embark a portion of his property upon a hazardous venture； it is reasonable that his stake should be confined to what ＇7＇ he puts at risk；a principle similar to that on which corporations have been so largely created in America during the last fifty years。
It has been a rule of criminal pleading in England down into the present century； that an indictment for homicide must set forth the value of the instrument causing the death； in order that the king or his grantee might claim forfeiture of the deodand； 〃as an accursed thing；〃 in the language of Blackstone。
I might go on multiplying examples； but these are enough to show the remoteness of the points to be brought together。 As a first step towards a generalization； it will be necessary to consider what is to be found in ancient and independent systems of law。
There is a well…known passage in Exodus； /1/ which we shall have to remember later： 〃If an ox gore a man or a woman； that they die： then the ox shall be surely stoned； and his flesh shah not be eaten； but the owner of the ox shall be quit。〃 When we turn from the Jews to the Greeks； we find the principle of the passage just quoted erected into a system。 Plutarch； in his Solon； tells us that a dog that had bitten a man was to be delivered up bound to a log four cubits long。 Plato made elaborate provisions in his Laws for many such cases。 If a slave killed a man； he was to be given up to the relatives of the deceased。 /2/ If he wounded a man； he was to be given up to the injured party to use him as he pleased。 /3/ So if he did damage to which the injured party did not contribute as a joint cause。 In either case； if the owner ＇8＇ failed to surrender the slave； he was bound to make good the loss。 /1/ If a beast killed a man； it was to be slain and cast beyond the borders。 If an inanimate thing caused death； it was to be cast beyond the borders in like manner； and expiation was to be made。 /2/ Nor was all this an ideal creation of merely imagined law； for it was said in one of the speeches of Aeschines； that 〃we banish beyond our borders stocks and stones and steel； voiceless and mindless things； if they chance to kill a man； and if a man commits suicide； bury the hand that struck the blow afar from its body。〃 This is mentioned quite as an every…day matter； evidently without thinking it at all extraordinary； only to point an antithesis to the honors heaped upon Demosthenes。 /3/ As late as the second century after Christ the traveller Pausanias observed with some surprise that they still sat in judgment on inanimate things in the Prytaneum。 /4/ Plutarch attributes the institution to Draco。 /5/
In the Roman law we find the similar principles of the noxoe deditio gradually leading to further results。 The Twelve Tables （451 B。C。） provided that； if an animal had done damage； either the animal was to be surrendered or the damage paid for。 /6/ We learn from Gains that the same rule was applied to the torts of children or slaves； /7/ and there is some trace of it with regard to inanimate things。
The Roman lawyers； not looking beyond their own ＇9＇ system or their own time； drew on their wits for an explanation which would show that the law as they found it was reasonable。 Gaius said that it was unjust that the fault of children or slaves should be a source of loss to their parents or owners beyond their own bodies； and Ulpian reasoned that a fortiori this was true of things devoid of life； and therefore incapable of fault。 /1/ This way of approaching the question seems to deal with the right of surrender as if it were a limitation of a liability incurred by a parent or owner； which would naturally and in the first instance be unlimited。 But if that is what was meant； it puts the cart before the horse。 The right of surrender was not introduced as a limitation of liability； but； in Rome and Greece alike； payment was introduced as the alternative of a failure to surrender。
The action was not based； as it would be nowadays； on the fault of the parent or owner。 If it had been； it would always have been brought against the person who had control of the slave or animal at the time it did the harm complained of； and who； if any one； was to blame for not preventing the injury。 So far from this being the course； the person to be sued was the owner at the time of suing。 The action followed the guilty thing into whosesoever hands it came。 /2/ And in curious contrast with the principle as inverted to meet still more modern views of public policy； if the animal was of a wild nature； that is； in the very case of the most ferocious animals； the owner ceased to be liable the moment it escaped； because at that moment he ceased to be owner。 /3/ There ＇10＇ seems to have been no other or more extensive liability by the old law； even where a slave was guilty with his master's knowledge； unless perhaps he was a mere tool in his master's hands。 /1/ Gains and Ulpian showed an inclination to cut the noxoe deditio down to a privilege of the owner in case of misdeeds committed without his knowledge； but Ulpian is obliged to admit； that by the ancient law； according to Celsus； the action was noxal where a slave was guilty even with the privity of his master。 /2/
All this shows very clearly that the liability of the owner was merely a way of getting at the slave or animal which was the immediate cause of offence。 In other words； vengeance on the immediate offender was the object of the Greek and early Roman process； not indemnity from the master or owner。 The liability of the owner was simply a liability of the offending thing。 In the primitive customs of Greece it was enforced by a judicial process expressly directed against the object； animate or inanimate。 The Roman Twelve Tables made the owner； instead of the thing itself； the defendant； but did not in any way change the ground of liability； or affect its limit。 The change was simply a device to allow the owner to protect his interest。 /3/
But it may be asked how inanimate objects came to be ＇11＇ pursued in this way； if the object of the procedure was to gratify the passion of revenge。 Learned men have been ready to find a reason in the personification of inanimate nature common to savages and children； and there is much to confirm this view。 Without such a personification； anger towards lifeless things would have been transitory； at most。 It is noticeable that the commonest example in the most primitive customs and laws is that of a tree which falls upon a man； or from which he falls and is killed。 We can conceive with comparative ease how a tree might have been put on the same footing with animals。 It certainly was treated like them； and was delivered to the relatives； or chopped to pieces for the gratification of a real or simulated passion。 /1/
In the Athenian process there is also； no doubt； to be traced a different thought。 Expiation is one of the ends most insisted on by Plato； and appears to have been the purpose of the procedure mentioned by Aeschines。 Some passages in the Roman historians which will be mentioned again seem to point in the same direction。 /2/
Another peculiarity to be noticed is； that the liability seems to have been regarded as attached to the body doing the damage； in an almost physical sense。 An untrained intelligence only imperfectly performs the analysis by which jurists carry responsibility back to the beginning of a chain of causation。 The hatred for anything giving us pain； which wreaks itself on the manifest cause； and which leads even civilized man to kick a door when it pinches his finger； is embodied in the noxoe deditio and ＇12＇ other kindred doctrines of early Roman law。 There is a defective passage in Gaius； which seems to say that liability may sometimes be escaped by giving up even the dead body of the offender。 /1/ So Livy relates that； Brutulus Papins having caused a breach of truce with the Romans； the Samnites determined to surrender him； and that； upon his avoiding disgrace and punishment by suicide； they sent his lifeless body。 It is noticeable that the surrender seems to be regarded as the natural expiation for the breach of treaty； /2/ and that it is equally a matter of course to send the body when the wrong…doer has perished。 /3/
The most curious examples of this sort occur in the region of what we should now call contract。 Livy again furnishes an example； if； indeed； the last is not one。 The Roman Consul Postumius concluded the disgraceful peace of the Caudine Forks （per sponsionem； as Livy says； denying the common story that it was per feedus）； and he was sent to Rome to obtain the sanction of the people。 When there however； he proposed that the persons who had made the ＇13＇ contract； including himself； should be given up in satisfaction of it。 For； he said； the Roman people not having sanctioned the agreement； who is so ignorant of the jus fetialium as not to know that they are released from obligation by surrendering us？ The formula of surrender seems