THECOMMONLAWOLIVERWENDELLHOLMES,JRScannedandproofreadbyStuartE.Thiel,Chicago,January2000

ContentsConventions:LECTUREI.-EARLYFORMSOFLIABILITY.LECTUREII.-THECRIMINALLAW.LECTUREIII.-TORTS.--TRESPASSANDNEGLIGENCE.LECTUREIV.-FRAUD,MALICE,ANDINTENT.-THETHEORYOFTORTS.LECTUREV.-THEBAILEEATCOMMONLAW.LECTUREVI.-POSSESSIONLECTUREVII.-CONTRACT.--I.HISTORY.LECTUREVIII.-CONTRACT.II.ELEMENTSLECTUREIX.-CONTRACT.-III.VOIDANDVOIDABLE.LECTUREX.-SUCCESSIONSINTERVIVOSLECTUREXI.-SUCCESSIONS.--II.INTERVIVOS.Conventions:Numbersinsquarebrackets(e.g.[245])refertooriginalpagenumbers.Originalfootnoteswerenumberedby,andarecollectedattheendofthetext.Inthetext,numbersinslashes(e.g./1/)refertooriginalfootnotenumbers.Inthefootnotesection,anumbersuchas245/1refersto(original)page245,footnote1.ThefootnotesaremostlycitationstooldEnglishlawreportersandtocommentariesbywriterssuchasIhering,BractonandBlackstone.Icannotgiveasourcefordecryptingthenotation.ThereisquitealittleLatinandsomeGreekintheoriginaltext.IhavereproducedtheLatin.TheGreektextisomitted;itsplaceismarkedbytheexpression[Greekcharacters].Italicsanddiacriticalmarkssuchasaccentsandcedillasareomittedandunmarked.LectureXhastwosubheads-SuccessionsAfterDeathandSuccessionsInterVivos.LectureXIisalsotitledSuccessionsInterVivos.Thisconformstotheoriginal.LECTUREI.-EARLYFORMSOFLIABILITY.[1]TheobjectofthisbookistopresentageneralviewoftheCommonLaw.Toaccomplishthetask,othertoolsareneededbesideslogic.Itissomethingtoshowthattheconsistencyofasystemrequiresaparticularresult,butitisnotall.Thelifeofthelawhasnotbeenlogic:ithasbeenexperience.Thefeltnecessitiesofthetime,theprevalentmoralandpoliticaltheories,intuitionsofpublicpolicy,avowedorunconscious,eventheprejudiceswhichjudgessharewiththeirfellow-men,havehadagooddealmoretodothanthesyllogismindeterminingtherulesbywhichmenshouldbegoverned.Thelawembodiesthestoryofanation'sdevelopmentthroughmanycenturies,anditcannotbedealtwithasifitcontainedonlytheaxiomsandcorollariesofabookofmathematics.Inordertoknowwhatitis,wemustknowwhatithasbeen,andwhatittendstobecome.Wemustalternatelyconsulthistoryandexistingtheoriesoflegislation.Butthemostdifficultlaborwillbetounderstandthecombinationofthetwointonewproductsateverystage.Thesubstanceofthelawatanygiventimeprettynearly[2]corresponds,sofarasitgoes,withwhatisthenunderstoodtobeconvenient;butitsformandmachinery,andthedegreetowhichitisabletoworkoutdesiredresults,dependverymuchuponitspast.InMassachusettstoday,while,ontheonehand,thereareagreatmanyruleswhicharequitesufficientlyaccountedforbytheirmanifestgoodsense,ontheother,therearesomewhichcanonlybeunderstoodbyreferencetotheinfancyofprocedureamongtheGermantribes,ortothesocialconditionofRomeundertheDecemvirs.Ishallusethehistoryofourlawsofarasitisnecessarytoexplainaconceptionortointerpretarule,butnofurther.Indoingsotherearetwoerrorsequallytobeavoidedbothbywriterandreader.Oneisthatofsupposing,becauseanideaseemsveryfamiliarandnaturaltous,thatithasalwaysbeenso.Manythingswhichwetakeforgrantedhavehadtobelaboriouslyfoughtoutorthoughtoutinpasttimes.Theothermistakeistheoppositeoneofaskingtoomuchofhistory.Westartwithmanfullgrown.Itmaybeassumedthattheearliestbarbarianwhosepracticesaretobeconsidered,hadagoodmanyofthesamefeelingsandpassionsasourselves.Thefirstsubjecttobediscussedisthegeneraltheoryofliabilitycivilandcriminal.TheCommonLawhaschangedagooddealsincethebeginningofourseriesofreports,andthesearchafteratheorywhichmaynowbesaidtoprevailisverymuchastudyoftendencies.Ibelievethatitwillbeinstructivetogobacktotheearlyformsofliability,andtostartfromthem.Itiscommonlyknownthattheearlyformsoflegalprocedureweregroundedinvengeance.Modernwriters[3]havethoughtthattheRomanlawstartedfromthebloodfeud,andalltheauthoritiesagreethattheGermanlawbeguninthatway.Thefeudledtothecomposition,atfirstoptional,thencompulsory,bywhichthefeudwasboughtoff.ThegradualencroachmentofthecompositionmaybetracedintheAnglo-Saxonlaws,/1/andthefeudwasprettywellbrokenup,thoughnotextinguished,bythetimeofWilliamtheConqueror.Thekillingsandhouse-burningsofanearlierdaybecametheappealsofmayhemandarson.Theappealsdepaceetplagisandofmayhembecame,orratherwereinsubstance,theactionoftrespasswhichisstillfamiliartolawyers./2/Butasthecompensationrecoveredintheappealwasthealternativeofvengeance,wemightexpecttofinditsscopelimitedtothescopeofvengeance.Vengeanceimportsafeelingofblame,andanopinion,howeverdistortedbypassion,thatawronghasbeendone.Itcanhardlygoveryfarbeyondthecaseofaharmintentionallyinflicted:evenadogdistinguishesbetweenbeingstumbledoverandbeingkicked.Whetherforthiscauseoranother,theearlyEnglishappealsforpersonalviolenceseemtohavebeenconfinedtointentionalwrongs.Glanvill/3/mentionsmelees,blows,andwounds,--allformsofintentionalviolence.InthefullerdescriptionofsuchappealsgivenbyBracton/4/itismadequiteclearthattheywerebasedonintentionalassaults.Theappealdepaceetplagislaidanintentionalassault,describedthenatureofthearmsused,andthelengthanddepthofthewound.Theappelloralsohad[4]toshowthatheimmediatelyraisedthehueandcry.SowhenBractonspeaksofthelesseroffences,whichwerenotsuedbywayofappeal,heinstancesonlyintentionalwrongs,suchasblowswiththefist,flogging,wounding,insults,andsoforth./1/ThecauseofactioninthecasesoftrespassreportedintheearlierYearBooksandintheAbbreviatioPlaeitorumisalwaysanintentionalwrong.Itwasonlyatalaterday,andafterargument,thattrespasswasextendedsoastoembraceharmswhichwereforeseen,butwhichwerenottheintendedconsequenceofthedefendant'sact./2/Thenceagainitextendedtounforeseeninjuries./3/Itwillbeseenthatthisorderofdevelopmentisnotquiteconsistentwithanopinionwhichhasbeenheld,thatitwasacharacteristicofearlylawnottopenetratebeyondtheexternalvisiblefact,thedamnumcorporecorporidatum.Ithasbeenthoughtthataninquiryintotheinternalconditionofthedefendant,hisculpabilityorinnocence,impliesarefinementofjuridicalconceptionequallyforeigntoRomebeforetheLexAquilia,andtoEnglandwhentrespasstookitsshape.IdonotknowanyverysatisfactoryevidencethatamanwasgenerallyheldliableeitherinRome/4/orEnglandfortheaccidentalconsequencesevenofhisownact.Butwhatevermayhavebeentheearlylaw,theforegoingaccountshowsthestarting-pointofthesystemwithwhichwehavetodeal.Oursystemofprivateliabilityfortheconsequencesofaman'sownacts,thatis,forhistrespasses,startedfromthenotionofactualintentandactualpersonalculpability.Theoriginalprinciplesofliabilityforharminflictedby[5]anotherpersonorthinghavebeenlesscarefullyconsideredhithertothanthosewhichgovernedtrespass,andIshallthereforedevotetherestofthisLecturetodiscussingthem.Ishalltrytoshowthatthisliabilityalsohaditsrootinthepassionofrevenge,andtopointoutthechangesbywhichitreacheditspresentform.ButIshallnotconfinemyselfstrictlytowhatisneedfulforthatpurpose,becauseitisnotonlymostinterestingtotracethetransformationthroughoutitswholeextent,butthestorywillalsoaffordaninstructiveexampleofthemodeinwhichthelawhasgrown,withoutabreak,frombarbarismtocivilization.Furthermore,itwillthrowmuchlightuponsomeimportantandpeculiardoctrineswhichcannotbereturnedtolater.Averycommonphenomenon,andoneveryfamiliartothestudentofhistory,isthis.Thecustoms,beliefs,orneedsofaprimitivetimeestablisharuleoraformula.Inthecourseofcenturiesthecustom,belief,ornecessitydisappears,buttheruleremains.Thereasonwhichgaverisetotherulehasbeenforgotten,andingeniousmindssetthemselvestoinquirehowitistobeaccountedfor.Somegroundofpolicyisthoughtof,whichseemstoexplainitandtoreconcileitwiththepresentstateofthings;andthentheruleadaptsitselftothenewreasonswhichhavebeenfoundforit,andentersonanewcareer.Theoldformreceivesanewcontent,andintimeeventheformmodifiesitselftofitthemeaningwhichithasreceived.Thesubjectunderconsiderationillustratesthiscourseofeventsveryclearly.Iwillbeginbytakingamedleyofexamplesembodyingasmanydistinctrules,eachwithitsplausibleandseeminglysufficientgroundofpolicytoexplainit.[6]Amanhasananimalofknownferocioushabits,whichescapesanddoeshisneighbordamage.Hecanprovethattheanimalescapedthroughnonegligenceofhis,butstillheisheldliable.Why?Itis,saystheanalyticaljurist,because,althoughhewasnotnegligentatthemomentofescape,hewasguiltyofremoteheedlessness,ornegligence,orfault,inhavingsuchacreatureatall.Andonebywhosefaultdamageisdoneoughttopayforit.Abaker'sman,whiledrivinghismaster'scarttodeliverhotrollsofamorning,runsanothermandown.Themasterhastopayforit.Andwhenhehasaskedwhyheshouldhavetopayforthewrongfulactofanindependentandresponsiblebeing,hehasbeenansweredfromthetimeofUlpiantothatofAustin,thatitisbecausehewastoblameforemployinganimproperperson.Ifheanswers,thatheusedthegreatestpossiblecareinchoosinghisdriver,heistoldthatthatisnoexcuse;andthenperhapsthereasonisshifted,anditissaidthatthereoughttobearemedyagainstsomeonewhocanpaythedamages,orthatsuchwrongfulactsasbyordinaryhumanlawsarelikelytohappeninthecourseoftheserviceareimputabletotheservice.Next,takeacasewherealimithasbeensettoliabilitywhichhadpreviouslybeenunlimited.In1851,Congresspassedalaw,whichisstillinforce,andbywhichtheownersofshipsinallthemorecommoncasesofmaritimelosscansurrenderthevesselandherfreightthenpendingtothelosers;anditisprovidedthat,thereupon,furtherproceedingsagainsttheownersshallcease.Thelegislatorstowhomweowethisactarguedthat,ifamerchantembarkaportionofhispropertyuponahazardousventure,itisreasonablethathisstakeshouldbeconfinedtowhat[7]heputsatrisk,--aprinciplesimilartothatonwhichcorporationshavebeensolargelycreatedinAmericaduringthelastfiftyyears.IthasbeenaruleofcriminalpleadinginEnglanddownintothepresentcentury,thatanindictmentforhomicidemustsetforththevalueoftheinstrumentcausingthedeath,inorderthatthekingorhisgranteemightclaimforfeitureofthedeodand,"asanaccursedthing,"inthelanguageofBlackstone.Imightgoonmultiplyingexamples;buttheseareenoughtoshowtheremotenessofthepointstobebroughttogether.--Asafirststeptowardsageneralization,itwillbenecessarytoconsiderwhatistobefoundinancientandindependentsystemsoflaw.Thereisawell-knownpassageinExodus,/1/whichweshallhavetorememberlater:"Ifanoxgoreamanorawoman,thattheydie:thentheoxshallbesurelystoned,andhisfleshshahnotbeeaten;buttheowneroftheoxshallbequit."WhenweturnfromtheJewstotheGreeks,wefindtheprincipleofthepassagejustquotederectedintoasystem.Plutarch,inhisSolon,tellsusthatadogthathadbittenamanwastobedeliveredupboundtoalogfourcubitslong.PlatomadeelaborateprovisionsinhisLawsformanysuchcases.Ifaslavekilledaman,hewastobegivenuptotherelativesofthedeceased./2/Ifhewoundedaman,hewastobegivenuptotheinjuredpartytousehimashepleased./3/Soifhediddamagetowhichtheinjuredpartydidnotcontributeasajointcause.Ineithercase,iftheowner[8]failedtosurrendertheslave,hewasboundtomakegoodtheloss./1/Ifabeastkilledaman,itwastobeslainandcastbeyondtheborders.Ifaninanimatethingcauseddeath,itwastobecastbeyondthebordersinlikemanner,andexpiationwastobemade./2/Norwasallthisanidealcreationofmerelyimaginedlaw,foritwassaidinoneofthespeechesofAeschines,that"webanishbeyondourbordersstocksandstonesandsteel,voicelessandmindlessthings,iftheychancetokillaman;andifamancommitssuicide,burythehandthatstrucktheblowafarfromitsbody."Thisismentionedquiteasanevery-daymatter,evidentlywithoutthinkingitatallextraordinary,onlytopointanantithesistothehonorsheapeduponDemosthenes./3/AslateasthesecondcenturyafterChristthetravellerPausaniasobservedwithsomesurprisethattheystillsatinjudgmentoninanimatethingsinthePrytaneum./4/PlutarchattributestheinstitutiontoDraco./5/IntheRomanlawwefindthesimilarprinciplesofthenoxoededitiograduallyleadingtofurtherresults.TheTwelveTables(451B.C.)providedthat,ifananimalhaddonedamage,eithertheanimalwastobesurrenderedorthedamagepaidfor./6/WelearnfromGainsthatthesamerulewasappliedtothetortsofchildrenorslaves,/7/andthereissometraceofitwithregardtoinanimatethings.TheRomanlawyers,notlookingbeyondtheirown[9]systemortheirowntime,drewontheirwitsforanexplanationwhichwouldshowthatthelawastheyfounditwasreasonable.Gaiussaidthatitwasunjustthatthefaultofchildrenorslavesshouldbeasourceoflosstotheirparentsorownersbeyondtheirownbodies,andUlpianreasonedthatafortiorithiswastrueofthingsdevoidoflife,andthereforeincapableoffault./1/Thiswayofapproachingthequestionseemstodealwiththerightofsurrenderasifitwerealimitationofaliabilityincurredbyaparentorowner,whichwouldnaturallyandinthefirstinstancebeunlimited.Butifthatiswhatwasmeant,itputsthecartbeforethehorse.Therightofsurrenderwasnotintroducedasalimitationofliability,but,inRomeandGreecealike,paymentwasintroducedasthealternativeofafailuretosurrender.Theactionwasnotbased,asitwouldbenowadays,onthefaultoftheparentorowner.Ifithadbeen,itwouldalwayshavebeenbroughtagainstthepersonwhohadcontroloftheslaveoranimalatthetimeitdidtheharmcomplainedof,andwho,ifanyone,wastoblamefornotpreventingtheinjury.Sofarfromthisbeingthecourse,thepersontobesuedwastheowneratthetimeofsuing.Theactionfollowedtheguiltythingintowhosesoeverhandsitcame./2/Andincuriouscontrastwiththeprincipleasinvertedtomeetstillmoremodernviewsofpublicpolicy,iftheanimalwasofawildnature,thatis,intheverycaseofthemostferociousanimals,theownerceasedtobeliablethemomentitescaped,becauseatthatmomentheceasedtobeowner./3/There[10]seemstohavebeennootherormoreextensiveliabilitybytheoldlaw,evenwhereaslavewasguiltywithhismaster'sknowledge,unlessperhapshewasameretoolinhismaster'shands./1/GainsandUlpianshowedaninclinationtocutthenoxoededitiodowntoaprivilegeoftheownerincaseofmisdeedscommittedwithouthisknowledge;butUlpianisobligedtoadmit,thatbytheancientlaw,accordingtoCelsus,theactionwasnoxalwhereaslavewasguiltyevenwiththeprivityofhismaster./2/Allthisshowsveryclearlythattheliabilityoftheownerwasmerelyawayofgettingattheslaveoranimalwhichwastheimmediatecauseofoffence.Inotherwords,vengeanceontheimmediateoffenderwastheobjectoftheGreekandearlyRomanprocess,notindemnityfromthemasterorowner.Theliabilityoftheownerwassimplyaliabilityoftheoffendingthing.IntheprimitivecustomsofGreeceitwasenforcedbyajudicialprocessexpresslydirectedagainsttheobject,animateorinanimate.TheRomanTwelveTablesmadetheowner,insteadofthethingitself,thedefendant,butdidnotinanywaychangethegroundofliability,oraffectitslimit.Thechangewassimplyadevicetoallowtheownertoprotecthisinterest./3/Butitmaybeaskedhowinanimateobjectscametobe[11]pursuedinthisway,iftheobjectoftheprocedurewastogratifythepassionofrevenge.Learnedmenhavebeenreadytofindareasoninthepersonificationofinanimatenaturecommontosavagesandchildren,andthereismuchtoconfirmthisview.Withoutsuchapersonification,angertowardslifelessthingswouldhavebeentransitory,atmost.Itisnoticeablethatthecommonestexampleinthemostprimitivecustomsandlawsisthatofatreewhichfallsuponaman,orfromwhichhefallsandiskilled.Wecanconceivewithcomparativeeasehowatreemighthavebeenputonthesamefootingwithanimals.Itcertainlywastreatedlikethem,andwasdeliveredtotherelatives,orchoppedtopiecesforthegratificationofarealorsimulatedpassion./1/IntheAthenianprocessthereisalso,nodoubt,tobetracedadifferentthought.ExpiationisoneoftheendsmostinsistedonbyPlato,andappearstohavebeenthepurposeoftheprocedurementionedbyAeschines.SomepassagesintheRomanhistorianswhichwillbementionedagainseemtopointinthesamedirection./2/Anotherpeculiaritytobenoticedis,thattheliabilityseemstohavebeenregardedasattachedtothebodydoingthedamage,inanalmostphysicalsense.Anuntrainedintelligenceonlyimperfectlyperformstheanalysisbywhichjuristscarryresponsibilitybacktothebeginningofachainofcausation.Thehatredforanythinggivinguspain,whichwreaksitselfonthemanifestcause,andwhichleadsevencivilizedmantokickadoorwhenitpincheshisfinger,isembodiedinthenoxoededitioand[12]otherkindreddoctrinesofearlyRomanlaw.ThereisadefectivepassageinGaius,whichseemstosaythatliabilitymaysometimesbeescapedbygivingupeventhedeadbodyoftheoffender./1/SoLivyrelatesthat,BrutulusPapinshavingcausedabreachoftrucewiththeRomans,theSamnitesdeterminedtosurrenderhim,andthat,uponhisavoidingdisgraceandpunishmentbysuicide,theysenthislifelessbody.Itisnoticeablethatthesurrenderseemstoberegardedasthenaturalexpiationforthebreachoftreaty,/2/andthatitisequallyamatterofcoursetosendthebodywhenthewrong-doerhasperished./3/Themostcuriousexamplesofthissortoccurintheregionofwhatweshouldnowcallcontract.Livyagainfurnishesanexample,if,indeed,thelastisnotone.TheRomanConsulPostumiusconcludedthedisgracefulpeaceoftheCaudineForks(persponsionem,asLivysays,denyingthecommonstorythatitwasperfeedus),andhewassenttoRometoobtainthesanctionofthepeople.Whentherehowever,heproposedthatthepersonswhohadmadethe[13]contract,includinghimself,shouldbegivenupinsatisfactionofit.For,hesaid,theRomanpeoplenothavingsanctionedtheagreement,whoissoignorantofthejusfetialiumasnottoknowthattheyarereleasedfromobligationbysurrenderingus?Theformulaofsurrenderseemstobringthecasewithinthenoxoededitio./1/CiceronarratesasimilarsurrenderofMancinusbythepater-patratustotheNumantines,who,however,liketheSamnitesintheformercase,refusedtoreceivehim./2/Itmightbeaskedwhatanalogycouldhavebeenfoundbetweenabreachofcontractandthosewrongswhichexcitethedesireforvengeance.Butitmustberememberedthatthedistinctionbetweentortandbreachesofcontract,andespeciallybetweentheremediesforthetwo,isnotfoundreadymade.Itisconceivablethataprocedureadaptedtoredressforviolencewasextendedtoothercasesastheyarose.Slavesweresurrenderedfortheftaswellas[14]forassault;/1/anditissaidthatadebtorwhodidnotpayhisdebts,orasellerwhofailedtodeliveranarticleforwhichhehadbeenpaid,wasdealtwithonthesamefootingasathief./2/Thislineofthought,togetherwiththequasimaterialconceptionoflegalobligationsasbindingtheoffendingbody,whichhasbeennoticed,wouldperhapsexplainthewell-knownlawoftheTwelveTablesastoinsolventdebtors.Accordingtothatlaw,ifamanwasindebtedtoseveralcreditorsandinsolvent,aftercertainformalitiestheymightcutuphisbodyanddivideitamongthem.Iftherewasasinglecreditor,hemightputhisdebtortodeathorsellhimasaslave./3/Ifnootherrightweregivenbuttoreduceadebtortoslavery,thelawmightbetakentolookonlytocompensation,andtobemodelledonthenaturalworkingofself-redress./4/Theprincipleofourownlaw,thattakingaman'sbodyonexecutionsatisfiesthedebt,althoughheisnotdetainedanhour,seemstobeexplainedinthatway.Buttherighttoputtodeathlookslikevengeance,andthedivisionofthebodyshowsthatthedebtwasconceivedveryliterallytoinhereinorbindthebodywithavinculumjuris.Whatevermaybethetrueexplanationofsurrenderinconnectionwithcontracts,forthepresentpurposeweneednotgofurtherthanthecommoncaseofnoxoededitioforwrongs.Neitheristheseemingadhesionofliabilitytotheverybodywhichdidtheharmofthefirstimportance.[15]TheRomanlawdealtmainlywithlivingcreatures,--withanimalsandslaves.Ifamanwasrunover,itdidnotsurrenderthewagonwhichcrushedhim,buttheoxwhichdrewthewagon./1/Atthisstagethenotioniseasytounderstand.Thedesireforvengeancemaybefeltasstronglyagainstaslaveasagainstafreeman,anditisnotwithoutexamplenowadaysthatalikepassionshouldbefeltagainstananimal.Thesurrenderoftheslaveorbeastempoweredtheinjuredpartytodohiswilluponthem.Paymentbytheownerwasmerelyaprivilegeincasehewantedtobuythevengeanceoff.Itwillreadilybeimaginedthatsuchasystemashasbeendescribedcouldnotlastwhencivilizationhadadvancedtoanyconsiderableheight.Whathadbeentheprivilegeofbuyingoffvengeancebyagreement,ofpayingthedamageinsteadofsurrenderingthebodyoftheoffender,nodoubtbecameageneralcustom.TheAquilianlaw,passedaboutacoupleofcenturieslaterthanthedateoftheTwelveTables,enlargedthesphereofcompensationforbodilyinjuries.InterpretationenlargedtheAquilianlaw.Mastersbecamepersonallyliableforcertainwrongscommittedbytheirslaveswiththeirknowledge,wherepreviouslytheywereonlyboundtosurrendertheslave./2/Ifapack-mulethrewoffhisburdenuponapasser-bybecausehehadbeenimproperlyoverloaded,oradogwhichmighthavebeenrestrainedescapedfromhismasterandbitanyone,theoldnoxalaction,asitwascalled,gavewaytoanactionunderthenewlawtoenforceageneralpersonalliability./3/Stilllater,ship-ownersandinnkeepersweremadeliable[16]asiftheywerewrong-doersforwrongscommittedbythoseintheiremployonboardshiporinthetavern,althoughofcoursecommittedwithouttheirknowledge.Thetruereasonforthisexceptionalresponsibilitywastheexceptionalconfidencewhichwasnecessarilyreposedincarriersandinnkeepers./1/Butsomeofthejurists,whoregardedthesurrenderofchildrenandslavesasaprivilegeintendedtolimitliability,explainedthisnewliabilityonthegroundthattheinnkeeperorship-ownerwastoacertaindegreeguiltyofnegligenceinhavingemployedtheservicesofbadmen?Thiswasthefirstinstanceofamasterbeingmadeunconditionallyliableforthewrongsofhisservant.Thereasongivenforitwasofgeneralapplication,andtheprincipleexpandedtothescopeofthereason.Thelawastoship-ownersandinnkeepersintroducedanotherandmorestartlinginnovation.Itmadethemresponsiblewhenthosewhomtheyemployedwerefree,aswellaswhentheywereslaves./3/Forthefirsttimeonemanwasmadeanswerableforthewrongsofanotherwhowasalsoanswerablehimself,andwhohadastandingbeforethelaw.Thiswasagreatchangefromthebarepermissiontoransomone'sslaveasaprivilege.Butherewehavethehistoryofthewholemoderndoctrineofmasterandservant,andprincipalandagent.Allservantsarenowasfreeandasliabletoasuitastheirmasters.Yettheprincipleintroducedonspecialgroundsinaspecialcase,whenservantswereslaves,isnowthegenerallawofthiscountryandEngland,andunderitmendailyhavetopaylargesumsforotherpeople'sacts,inwhichtheyhadnopartand[17]forwhichtheyareinnosensetoblame.AndtothisdaythereasonofferedbytheRomanjuristsforanexceptionalruleismadetojustifythisuniversalandunlimitedresponsibility./1/Somuchforoneoftheparentsofourcommonlaw.NowletusturnforamomenttotheTeutonicside.TheSalicLawembodiesusageswhichinallprobabilityareoftooearlyadatetohavebeeninfluencedeitherbyRomeortheOldTestament.Thethirty-sixthchapteroftheancienttextprovidesthat,ifamaniskilledbyadomesticanimal,theowneroftheanimalshallpayhalfthecomposition(whichhewouldhavehadtopaytobuyoffthebloodfeudhadhekilledthemanhimself),andfortheotherhalfgiveupthebeasttothecomplainant./2/So,bychapterthirty-five,ifaslavekilledafreeman,hewastobesurrenderedforonehalfofthecompositiontotherelativ