lect09-第3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！








anciently　were　almost　always　the　cattle）　of　the　person　whom　he






believed　to　have　injured　him　or　failed　in　duty　towards　him。　He






drove　the　beasts　to　a　pound；　an　enclosed　piece　of　land　reserved






for　the　purpose；　and　generally　open　to　the　sky。　Let　me　observe　in






passing　that　there　is　no　more　ancient　institution　in　the　country






than　the　Village…Pound。　It　is　far　older　than　the　King's　Bench；






and　probably　older　than　the　Kingdom。　While　the　cattle　were　on






their　way　to　the　pound　the　owner　had　a　limited　right　of　rescue






which　the　law　recognised；　but　which　he　ran　great　risk　in






exercising。　Once　lodged　within　the　enclosure；　the　impounded






beasts；　when　the　pound　was　uncovered；　had　to　be　fed　by　the　owner






and　not　by　the　distrainor；　nor　was　the　rule　altered　till　the






present　reign。　The　distrainor's　part　in　the　proceedings　ended　in






fact　with　the　impounding；　and　we　have　to　consider　what　courses






were　thereupon　open　to　the　person　whose　cattle　had　been　seized。






Of　course　he　might　submit　and　discharge　the　demand。　Or　he　might






tender　security　for　its　acquittal。　Or　again　he　might　remain






obstinate　and　leave　his　beasts　in　the　pound。　It　might　happen；






however；　that　he　altogether　denied　the　distrainor's　right　to






distrain；　or　that　the　latter；　on　security　being　tendered　to　him






for　the　adjustment　of　his　claim；　refused　to　release　the　cattle。






In　either　of　these　casts　the　cattle…owner　（at　least　at　the　time






of　which　we　are　speaking）　might　either　apply　to　the　King's






Chancery　for　a　writ　commanding　the　Sheriff　to　'make　replevin；'　or






he　might　verbally　complain　himself　to　the　Sheriff；　who　would　then






proceed　at　once　to　'replevy。'　The　process　denoted　by　this　ancient






phrase　consisted　of　several　stages。　The　Sheriff　first　of　all






demanded　a　view　of　the　impounded　cattle；　if　this　were　refused；　he






treated　the　distrainor　as　having　committed　a　violent　breach　of






the　King's　peace；　and　raised　the　hue　and　cry　after　him。　If　the






cattle　（as　doubtless　constantly　was　the　case）　had　been　driven　to






a　distance　and　out　of　his　jurisdiction；　the　Sheriff　sought　for






cattle　of　the　distrainor　and　seized　them　to　double　the　value　of






the　beasts　which　were　not　forthcoming　　the　'taking　in






withernam'　of　old　English　law。　In　more　peaceable　times；　however；






and　among　law…abiding　people；　the　deputy　of　the　Crown　was　allowed






to　see　the　cattle；　which　he　immediately　returned　to　their






original　owner　on　a　pledge　to　abide　by　the　decision　of　a　Court　of






Justice。　A　day　was　then　appointed　for　the　trial；　which　took　place






with　the　proceeding　well　known　to　lawyers　as　the　Action　of






Replevin。　A　great　deal　of　technical　learning　has　clustered　round






it；　but　for　our　purposes　it　is　enough　to　say　that　the　plaintiff






in　the　action　was　the　owner　of　the　distrained　cattle　and　the






defendant　was　the　distrainor。






　　　　The　comparative　antiquity　of　the　various　steps　in　the






procedure　are　not；　I　think；　difficult　to　detect。　Nothing　can　be






more　archaic　than　the　picture　presented　by　its　more　venerable






details。　The　seizure　of　the　cattle；　the　rescue　and　the






counter…seizure；　belong　to　the　oldest　practices　of　mankind。　We






were　carried　back；　by　the　Legis　Actio　Sacramenti　of　the　Romans；






to　a　sudden　fight　over　disputed　property　barely　stopped　by　a






casual　passer…by。　Here；　not　in　a　city…community；　but　among　the






ancient　legal　forms　of　a　half…pastoral；　half…agricultural　people；






we　come　upon　plain　traces　of　a　foray。　But　the　foray　which






survives　in　the　old　Law　of　Distress　is　not；　like　the　combat　of






the　ancient　Roman　Action；a　mere　dramatic　representation。　Up　to　a






certain　point　it　is　a　reality；　and　the　most　probable　account　of






its　origin　is　that　it　is　a　genuinely　disorderly　proceeding　which






the　law　steps　in　to　regulate。　You　will　see　presently　that　there






are　other　independent　reasons　for　thinking　that　some　of　the






earliest　interferences　of　the　power　which　we　call　the　Law；　the






State；　or　the　King；　with　high…handed　violence　consisted；　neither






in　wholly　forbidding　it　nor　in　assuming　active　jurisdiction　over






the　quarrel　which　provoked　it；　but　in　limiting　it；　prescribing






forms　for　it；　or　turning　it　to　new　purposes。　Thus　the　next　series






of　incidents　in　the　practice　of　distraint　　the　impounding；　the






stress　laid　upon　pledge　or　security；　and　the　acknowledgment　of






continuing　ownership　which　is　implied　in　the　liability　of　the






person　distrained　upon　to　feed　the　cattle；　and　in　the　rule　that






the　distrainor　shall　not　work　them　　belong　to　a　newer　range　of






ideas　which　dictate　the　first　attempts　to　moderate　reprisals　and






regulate　revenge　for　wrong。　Distress　now　becomes　a　semi…orderly






contrivance　for　extorting　satisfaction。　Many　vestiges　of　this






ancient　function　remain。　It　has　been　observed　by　Blackstone　and






others　that　the　modified　exemption　of　certain　classes　of　goods






from　distraint　　plough…oxen；　for　example；　and　tools　of　trade　






was　not　in　its　origin　the　least　intended　as　a　kindness　to　the






owner。　It　was　entailed　by　the　very　nature　of　the　whole






proceeding；　since　without　the　instruments　of　tillage　or






handicraft　the　debtor　could　never　pay　his　debt。　A　passage　in　the






'Dialogus　de　Scaccario'　（ii。　14）；　prescribing　the　order　in　which






the　goods　of　the　King's　debtors　are　to　be　sold；　strongly　bears






out　this　view。






　　　　Latest　in　the　order　of　proceeding；　and　latest　probably　in






date；　came　the　direct　interposition　of　the　State。　The　King　steps






in；　first。　in　what　we　should　now　call　his　administrative






capacity。　His　administrative　deputy；　the　Sheriff；　on　complaint






made　by　their　owner；　Follows　up　the　cattle；　demands　a　sight　of






them；　raises　the　hue　and　cry　if　it　be　refused；　and　seizes　twice






their　number　if　the　beasts　have　been　driven　away。　Even　when　he






obtains　his　view；　he　can　do　nothing　unless　the　cattle…owner；






denying　the　right　of　his　adversary　to　distrain；　is　prepared　with






security　that　he　will　try　the　question　between　them　in　a　Court　of






Justice。　Thus　tardily　does　that　power　make　its　appearance　which






according　to　our　notions　should　long　since　have　appeared　on　the






scene；　the　judicial　power　of　the　Commonwealth。　Its　jurisdiction






is　obviously　acquired　through　the　act　of　the　Sheriff　in　restoring






the　cattle　upon　pledge　given。　The　distrainor　has　lost　his






material　security；　the　cattle。　The　owner　of　the　cattle　has　become






personally；　bound。　And　thus　both　are　placed　under　a　compulsion






which　drives　them　in　the　end　to　a　judicial　arbitration。






　　　　Nearly　six　hundred　years　ago；　the　contrast　between　the






ancient　proceedings　in　Replevin　and　suits　conducted　on　what　were






then　modern　principles　was　already　striking。　The　second　chapter






of　the　Statute　of　Westminster　the　Second　is　aimed　at　certain






contrivances　by　which　tenants　contrived　to　defeat　the　lord's






remedy　by　distress；　and；　in　giving　the　King's　Justices






jurisdiction　in　such　cases；　it　goes　on　to　say　that　such　a






provision　does　not　militate　against　the　principle　of　the　Common






Law　which　forbids　the　removal　of　suits　to　the　Justices　on　the






petition　of　a　defendant。　'For；'　it　adds；　'although　at　first　sight






the　tenant　may　seem　to　be　plaintiff　and　the　lord　defendant；　yet






in　reality；　regard　being　had　to　the　fact　that　the　lord　distrains






and　sues　for　services　and　dues　behind；　he　is　rather　plaintiff　or






complainant　than　defendant。'　The　action　of　Replevin　is　in　fact　an






excellent　illustration　of　the　difference　between　ancient　and






modern　juridical　principles。　According　to　ideas　now　confirmed　in






us；　the　person　who　sets　a　Court　of　Justice　in　motion　is　the






person　who　complains　of　a　wrong。　In　the　case　supposed；　this　is






not　the　man　distrained　upon　but　the　man　who　distrains。　He　it　is






who　has　suffered　an　injury　for　which　he　made　reprisals　on　his






adversary's　property。　Yet　it　is　his　adversary　who　has　to　start






the　legal　procedure　and　to　constitute　himself　plaintiff　in　the






Action　of　Replevin。　The　reason　why　a　modern　Court　of　Justice






would　insist　on　taking　the　whole　dispute　into　its　own　hands；　and






dealing　with　it　in　its　own　way　from　the　very　beginning；　is　that；






having　always　the　full　command　of　the　public　force；　it　is　sure　of






being　able　to　compel　the　submission　of　the　defendant　to　its






jurisdiction　and　of　coercing　him　in　the　end　till　he　does　justice；






however　long　the　coercion　may　be　delayed。　But　at　the　era　to　which






the　procedure　in　distress　originally　belonged；　the　Court　had　no






such　assurance　of　power；　and　hence　the　person　assumed　to　have　a






grievance　is　allowed　to　proceed　according　to　the　primitive






method；　which　has　the　advantage　of　giving　the　other　side　the






strongest　inducements　to　call　in　the　judicial　authority　of　the






State　and　submit　to　its　decision。






　　　　The　information　furnished　to　us　respecting　this　primitive






procedure　by　the　various　bodies　of　Continental　Teutonic　law　known






collectively　as　the　Leges　Barbarorum　is　of　a　very　interesting






kind。　Almost　all　of　them　contain　references　to　Pignoratio　or






distraint　of　goods。　The　Visigothic　law　expressly　prohibits　it；






and；　at　the　other　end　of　the　scale；　the　Lombardic　law　has　a　trace






of　that　licence　of　distress　which　has　survived　in　the　English






Common…law　and　permits　it　after　simple　demand　of　payment。　But　the






Salic　law；　which　the　most　learned　Germans　now　believe　to　have






been　drawn　up　at　some　period　between　the　time　at　which　Tacitus






wrote　and　the　time　at　which　the　Franks　broke　into　the　Empire；






contains　a　series　of　very　peculiar　and　instructive　provisions　on






the　subject；　which　have　been　for　the　first　time　fully　interpreted






by　Sohm。　Under　this　system；　Distress　is　not　yet　a　judicial






remedy；　it　is　still　an　extrajudicial　mode　of　redress；　but　it　has






been　in