Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-09T00:18:09.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Inner Relationship Between English and Roman Law1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

Fritz Pringsheim
Get access

Extract

If a German professor announces his intention of speaking on the inner relationship between English and Roman law, he must first state why he intends to do so. When I reviewed Roman law, and later on English law, from the German point of view, it struck me again and again that the two systems touch each other at many points. It is obvious that this relationship must be clearer to a person acquainted with German law (and therefore speaking as an outsider) than it is to an English student who understands his law by working within the system and appreciates it accordingly. This, then, is one justification. Since I have not been brought up in English law, I shall always remain a layman, despite all my efforts to penetrate its nature.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , November 1935 , pp. 347 - 365
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1935

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Oliver, D. T., Roman Law in Modern Cases in English Courts (Cambridge Legal Essays, 1926, pp. 243–257).Google Scholar

3 SirPollock, Frederick, The Genius of the Common Law (Columbia Univ. Lectures, 1912)Google Scholar; Pound, Roscoe, The Spirit of the Common Law (1921)Google Scholar; Ihering, Geist des röm. Rechts; Schulz, Fr., Prinzipien des röm. Rechts (1934).Google Scholar

4 Partsch, Vom Beruf des röm. Rechts i. d. heutigen Universität (1920) 21 ff.Google Scholar; Babel, , Aufgabe und Notwend. d. Rechtswergl. (1925) 8, 18.Google Scholar

5 Bryce, James, Studies in History and Jurisprudence (1901), Essays XIV and XV.Google Scholar

6 Similar observations are made by ProfessorJolowicz, H. F.: Academical Elements in Roman Law, 48 L. Q. R. (1932), pp. 171, 199.Google Scholar

7 Schwarz, A. B., Das englische Recht und seine Quellen (Die Zivilgesetze der Gegenwart, Bd. II: England, 1, Teil, 1931), 75 ff.Google Scholar

8 Bryce, , loc. cit. II 202.Google Scholar

9 Broom, , Legal Maxims (9th ed.), 1924.Google Scholar

10 ‘They are for the most part so large and general in their language that they always include something which really is not intended to be included in them’: per Lord Esher M.R. in Yarmouth v. France (1887) 19 Q. B. D. 647, at 653.Google Scholar

11 Dig. 50, 17, 1.

12 Beryt, und Bologna, (Festschrift für Otto Lenel, 1921), 244–251Google Scholar; Schulz, F., Prinzipien, 33 ff.Google Scholar

13 P. 93.

14 On Roman freedom see now Schulz, F., Prinzipien, Chapter ‘Freiheit’ (95 ff.)Google Scholar

15 Pringsheim, Höhe u. Ende der röm. Jurisprudenz (Freib. Wiss. Ges. Fasc. 22, 1933Google Scholar; now reprinted in ‘Capitolium,’ Romanorum iuris et historiae commentaria (Istanbul, 1934) I, 2, 65 ff.); Pringsheim, The Legal Policy and Reforms of Hadrian (Roman Studies, 1934), 436.

16 Pringsheim, The Legal Policy and Reforms of Hadrian, 435.Google Scholar

17 [But it is only Blackstone's ghost which now haunts either the form or the substance of Stephen's work.—Ed.]

18 Comp. Buckland, W. W., Equity in Roman Law, 1911.Google Scholar

19 C. Just. 3, l, 8 (314).

20 C. Just. 1, 14, 1 (316).

21 Snell, , Principles of Equity (21st ed.), 9Google Scholar; Schwarz, A. B., loc. cit. 155.Google Scholar

22 Riccobono, , La Fusione del Ius Civile e del lus Praetorium in unicoordinamento (Arch. f. Rechts- u. Wirtschaftsphilosophie, 16 Zitelmann-Festschr.), 503 ff.Google Scholar

23 Wlassak, Anklage u. Streitbefest. (Abhandl, . Wien. Ak. 184, 1917), 146 ff.Google Scholar; Riccobono, , SZ 47 (1927), 101 ff.Google Scholar; Steinwenter, , SZ 54 (1934), 376Google Scholar; Collinet, , Procédure par libelle (1932), 429, 456 (with different treatment).Google Scholar

24 Anson, , Law of Contract (17th ed. 1929), 54.Google Scholar

25 Neuere Ansichten und Literatur bei Betti, Le fonti dell' obbigazione romana (Arch. giur. (1925), 309 ff.) and Luzzatto, G. I., Origini e natura delle obbligazioni Romane (1934), 8et seq., 102 et seq., 233 et seq.Google Scholar

26 Levy, , SZ 42 (1921), 478 ff.Google Scholar

27 Cooper v. Shepherd (1846) 3 C. B. 266, 272Google Scholar; cf. Brinsmead v. Harrison (1871) L. R. 7 C. P. 547.Google Scholar

28 Ehrhardt, , Litis aestimatio (1934), 106Google Scholaret seq.; Carelli, , L'acquisto della proprietà per ‘Litis aestimatio’ nel processo civile Romano (1934).Google Scholar

29 Rheinstein, , Die Struktur des vertragl. Schuldverh. im anglo-amerikan. Recht (Beitr. z. ausl. u. intern. Priv R., Heft 5 (1932), 55et seq., 80 et seq., 119 et seq.).Google Scholar

30 Jörs, , RPR. 170 n. 3Google Scholar; Bruck, , Die Gesinnung des Schenkers bei Joh. Chrysostomus (Mnemosyne Pappoulias, 1934), 79.Google Scholar

31 Goldschmidt, L., Universalgeschichte des Handelrechts I, 1 (ed. 3, 1891), 58et seq.Google Scholar

32 Holdsworth, , Sources and Literature of English Law (1925), 208et seq.Google Scholar

33 The ‘Commercial Court’ is only a part of the High Court of Justice.

34 Gieseke, , Fund u. Schatzfund (Rechtsvergleich. Hand Wört Buch. 3 (1931), 548et seq.Google Scholar

35 Roman law: Dig. 47, 2, 43, 9. English law: Halsbury, Laws of England (2nd ed.) I, 730–733; VIII, 500; Stephen's Comm. (19th ed.) II, 209, 228.

36 Cheshire, G. C., Real Property (3rd ed.), 158.Google Scholar

37 Dig. 43, 26, 4, 1.

38 Woess, Von, Urkundenwesen (Münch. Beitr. 6, 1924), 98 ff.Google Scholar

39 Elphinstone, Introduction to Conveyancing.

40 Law of Property Act, 1925Google Scholar; Land Registration Act, 1925.Google Scholar

41 Siber, , Röm Priv R. (1928), 297.Google Scholar

42 Halsbury, Laws of England (1st ed.) XV. 884 (s), 922 (c) (‘Guarantee’).

43 Nov. Just. 4.

44 Schwarz, A. B., Garantievertrag und Bürgschaft (Rechtsvergl. Hand Wört B. 3 (1931)), 608et seq.Google Scholar

45 Dig. 50, 17, 185.

46 Babel, , Origine de law règle: impossibilium nulla obligatio (Melanges Gérardin (1907))Google Scholar; Rabel, , Unmöglichkeit der Leistung (Aus röm. u. bürg. Recht, Festg, f. E. I. Becker), 193.Google Scholar

47 Paradine v. Jane (1647), Aleyn 26Google Scholar: ‘But when the party by his own contract creates a duty or charge upon himself, he is bound to make it good.’

48 Anson's Law of Contract (17th ed.), 368 et seq.; Rheinstein, D. Struktur des vertragl. Schuldverh. 160 et seq.

49 Roman law: Rabel, loc. cit. Mel. Gérardin 479Google Scholar, Festg. Becker 194.Google ScholarEnglish law: Anson's Law of Contract, 368Google Scholar; Rheinstein, , loc. cit. 161et seq.Google Scholar

50 3 B. & S. 826.

51 Rheinstein, . loc. cit. 173.Google Scholar

52 Taylor v. Caldwell, 3 B. & S. at p. 835Google Scholar; Rheinstein, , loc. cit. 175.Google Scholar

53 English law: E. Heymann, Ueberblick ü. d. engl. Privatrecht (Holtzen-dorff-Kohler, , Encyclop. 2 (1914) 333Google Scholar; Odgers, , Common Law (3rd ed.) II, 563.Google Scholar Roman law: Siber, , Röm Priv R. 275.Google Scholar

54 English law: see last note. Roman law: actio cum deducitene of the bonorum emptor.

55 Biondi, , Compensazione (1927), 48et seq.Google Scholar

56 BGB s. 119 Abs. II: Als Irrtum über den Inhalt der Erklarung gilt auch der Irrtum über soche Eigenschaften der Person oder der Sache, die im Verkehr als wesentlich angesehen werden.

57 Lenel, Otto, Der Irrtum über wesentliche Eigenschaften, Iherings Jahrbücher 44, 1Google Scholar; Revista de derecho privado, (1924) 123, (1925) 161Google Scholar; Beseler, , Error in materia, Byzant.-Neugriech. Jahrb. 1 (1920), 343.Google Scholar

58 Lenel, , Arch. Ziv. Prax. 123 (1925), 172.Google Scholar

59 Roman law: Siber, Röm. Priv. R. 334. English law: Pringsheim, Succession (Die Zivilgesetze der Gegenwart, Bd II; England, 1, Teil), 646.

60 Roman law: Von Woess, Das röm. Erbrecht (1910), 31et seq.Google Scholar English law: Pollock, and Maitland, , Hist. of Eng. Law (2nd ed.) II, 356et seq.Google Scholar

61 Siber, , loc. cit. 374.Google Scholar

62 Pringsheim, , loc. cit. 646.Google Scholar

63 C. Just, 3, 28, 30; Nov. Just. 18 and 115.

64 Colin-Capitant, , Cours élément, de Droit Civil Français (3rd ed.) 3 (1922), 708.Google Scholar

65 La Pirs, Successione ereditaria (1931), 509et seq.Google Scholar

66 Williams, on Executors (12th ed.) i, 21.Google Scholar

67 Dew v. Clark (1822) 1 Add. 279, 284; 3 Add. 79.Google Scholar

68 Williams, ibid.

69 Pringsheim, , loc. cit. 646 n. 2a.Google Scholar