Roman Law and Common Law

Abstract

Roman Law and Common Law was first published in 1936. The second edition, entirely reset, revised throughout and supplemented by Professor F. H. Lawson, Fellow of Brasenose College and Professor of Comparative Law in the University of Oxford, appeared in 1952. This was done at the suggestion of Lord McNair, who read the revised copy. Professor Lawson's work of revision was extensive and touches every part of the book. In 1965 many small corrections were made. The book remains in this edition a 'comparison in outline'. It does not set out to be a comprehensive statement of Roman Law and Common Law comparatively treated, or a comparative study of legal methods. It is concerned rather with the fundamental rules and institutions of the two systems, and examines the independent approaches of the two peoples and their lawyers to the same facts of human life.

Razvoj Koncepta Neopravdanog Obogaćenja U Recepciji Rimskog Prava

“…): Nam hoc natura aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento fieri locupletiorem. 10 teologije i kanonskog prava. 13 U tom smislu navedeno pravilo proizlazilo bi iz zabrane krađe, koja je biblijski izražena kao pravilo non furtum facies.…”

Appoiting the heir’s heir and family trust (fideicommissum) in Byzantine legal sources

“…42 Коначно, неки аутори су мишљења да donatio sub modo, који се учестало појављује у византијским документима, представља inter vivos аналог римским фидеикомисима. 43 То се може пратити и кроз српске средњовековне документе. 44 Међутим, након Јустинијановог обраћања тој теми директно, одредбе о фидеикомисарној супституцији чине извор права тек посредног значаја и особеног карактера (ius), а не предмет живе законске регулативе (leges).…”

The Consequences of Possession

“…those who "sit upon" the thing as owners and also as mere holders. 46 Not only will the protection be the same;…”

“…But, as in Roman law, a degree of artificiality is brought about by the recognition that one can be deemed a possessor at law while not, or no longer, having actual control of the thing he is supposed to "sit" upon. 47 As Though, there too, there were discrepancies, the Roman possessor was typically the person who could be the owner and would likely become owner if he was not already. 49…”