Cf. Bracton, fol. 28 b.
233/4 Windscheid, Pand. Section 155, n. 8 a; 2 Kent (12th ed.),
492, n. 1 (a). It should be kept in mind also that the Roman
law denied possession to bailees.
234/1 See, e. g., Farina v. Home, 16 M. & W. 119, 123.
235/1 McGahey v. Moore, 3 Ired. (N. C.) 35.
235/2 Reader v. Moody, 3 Jones, (N. C.) 372. Cf. Basset v.
Maynard, Cro. Eliz. 819, 820.
235/3 Browne v. Dawson, 12 A. & E. 624. Cf. D. 43. 16. 17; ib. 3,
Section 9; D. 41. 2. 18, Section 3; Clayton, 147, pl. 268.
236/1 Cf. Bruns, R. d. Besitzes, 503.
237/1 Clark v. Maloney, 3 Harrington (Del.), 68. Bruns (R. d.
Besitzes, 503, 507) comes to the same conclusion on practical
grounds of convenience, although he utterly repudiates it on
theory. I must refer to what I said above touching these
conflicts between theory and convenience.
238/1 Bruns, R. d. Besitzes, Section 57, p. 486. A learned writer
of more ancient date asks why a doctor has not a possessory action
if you cease to employ him, and answers: "Sentio actionem non
tenere, sed sentio tantum, nec si vel morte mineris, possum
dicere quare. Tu lector, si sapis, rationes decidendi suggere."
Hommel, Rhaps., qu. 489, cited, Bruns, 407.
239/1 Gardiner v. Thibodeau, 14 La.
Pages:
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539