FOOTNOTES

3/1 E.g.  Ine, c. 74; Alfred, c. 42; Ethelred, IV. 4, Section 1.

3/2 Bract., fol. 144, 145; Fleta, I. c. 40, 41; Co.  Lit. 126b; Hawkins, P.C., Bk. 2, ch. 23, Section 15.

3/3 Lib.  I. c. 2, ad fin.

3 4 Bract., fol. 144a, “assulto praemeditato.”

4/1 Fol. 155; cf. 103b.

4/2 Y.B. 6 Ed. IV. 7, pl. 18.

4/3 Ibid., and 21 H. VII. 27, pl. 5.

4/4 D. 47. 9. 9.

7/1 xxi. 28.

7/2 [theta], ix.  Jowett’s Tr., Bk.  IX. p. 437; Bohn’s Tr., pp. 378, 379.

7/3 [theta], xv., Jowett, 449; Bohn, 397.

8/1 [iota alpha], xiv., Jowett, 509; Bohn, 495.

8/2 [theta], xii., Jowett, 443, 444; Bohn, 388.

8/3 [Greek words]. 244, 245.

8/4 l. 28 (11).

8/5 Solon.

8/6 “Si quadrupes pauperiem fecisse dicetur actio ex lege duodecim tabularum descendit; quae lex voluit, aut dari [id] quod nocuit, id ist, id animal, quod noxiam commisit; aut estimationem noxiae offerre.”  D. 9. 1. 1, pr.; Just.  Inst. 4. 9; XII Tab., VIII. 6.

8/7 Gaii Inst.  IV.  Sections 75, 76; D. 9. 4. 2, Section 1.  “Si servus furtum faxit noxiam ve noxit.”  XII Tab., XII.2.  Cf.  Just.  Inst. 4.8, Section 7.

9/1 D. 39. 2. 7, Sections 1, 2; Gaii Inst.  IV.  Section 75.

9/2 “Noxa caput sequitur.”  D. 9. 1. 1, Section 12; Inst. 4.8, Section 5.

9/3 “Quia desinit dominus esse ubi fera evasit.”  D. 9. 1. 1, Section 10; Inst. 4. 9, pr.  Compare May v.  Burdett, 9 Q.B.101, 113.

10/1 D. 19. 5. 14, Section 3; Plin.  Nat.  Hist., XVIII. 3.

10/2 “In lege antiqua si servus sciente domino furtum fecit, vel aliam noxiam commisit, servi nomine actio est noxalis, nec dominus suo nomine tenetur.”  D. 9. 4. 2.

10/3 Gaius, Inst.  IV.  Section 77, says that a noxal action may change to a direct, and conversely, a direct action to a noxal.  If a paterfamilias commits a tort, and then is adopted or becomes a slave, a noxal action now lies against his master in place of the direct one against himself as the wrong-doer.  Just.  Inst. 4. 8, Section 5.

11/1 LL.  Alfred, c. 13; 1 Tylor, Primitive Culture, Am. ed., p. 285 et seq.; Bain, Mental and Moral Science, Bk.  III. ch. 8, p. 261.

11/2 Florus, Epitome, II. 18.  Cf.  Livy, IX 1, 8, VIII. 39; Zonaras, VII. 26, ed.  Niebuhr, vol. 43, pp. 98, 99.

12/1 Gaii Inst.  IV.  Section 81.  I give the reading of Huschke:  “Licere enim etiam, si fato is fuerit mortuus, mortuum dare; nam quamquam diximus, non etiam permissum reis esse, et mortuos homines dedere, tamen et si quis eum dederit, qui fato suo vita excesserit, aeque liberatur.”  Ulpian’s statement, in D. 9. 1. 1, Section 13, that the action is gone if the animal dies ante litem contestatam, is directed only to the point that liability is founded on possession of the thing.