135/1 Williamson v.  Allison, 2 East, 446.

136/1 Leather v.  Simpson, L.R. 11 Eq. 398, 406.  On the other hand, the extreme moral view is stated in Weir v.  Bell, 3 Ex.  D. 238, 243.

138/1 As to actual knowledge and intent, see Lecture II. p. 57.

141/1 Cf.  Knight v.  German, Cro.  Eliz. 70; S.C., ib. 134.

141/2 Mitchell v.  Jenkins, 5 B.&Ad. 588, 594; Turner v.  Ambler, 10 Q.B. 252, 257, 261.

142/1 Redfield, C. J. in Barron v.  Mason, 31 Vt. 189, 197.

142/2 Mitchell v.  Jenkins, 5 B.&Ad. 588, 595.

143/1 See Burton v.  Fulton, 49 Penn.  St. 151.

144/1 Rolfe, B. in Fouldes v.  Willoughby, 8 Meeson & Welsby, 540.

145/1 Supra, pp. 115 et seq.

147/1 See, e.g., Cooley, Torts, 164.

147/2 Rex v.  Dixon, 3 Maule & Selwyn, 11, 15; Reg. v.  Hicklin, L.R. 3 Q.B. 360; 5 C.&P. 266, n.

148/1 Aleyn, 35; Style, 72; A.D. 1648.

149/1 1 Kent (12th ed.), 467, n. 1; 6 Am.  Law Rev. 723-725; 7 id. 652.

149/2 2 Wm. Bl. 892, A.D. 1773; supra, p. 92; Addison on Torts (4th ed.), 264, citing Y.B. 37 Hen.  VI. 37, pl. 26, which hardly sustains the broad language of the text.

151/1 Compare Crouch v.  London & N. W. R. Co., 14 C.B. 255, 283; Calye’s Case, 8 Co.  Rep. 32; Co.  Lit. 89 a, n. 7; 1 Ch.  Pl. (lst ed,), 219, (6th ed.), 216, 217; 7 Am.  Law Rev. 656 et seq.

151/2 But cf.  The Pawashick, 2 Lowell, 142.

151/3 Gibson v.  Stevens, 8 How. 384, 398, 399; Barnett v.  Brandao, 6 Man. & Gr. 630, 665; Hawkins v.  Cardy, 1 Ld.  Raym. 360.

151/4 Pickering v.  Barkley, Style, 132; Wegerstoffe v.  Keene, 1 Strange, 214, 216, 223; Smith v.  Kendall, 6 T. R. 123, 124.

155/1 Card v.  Case, 5 C.B. 622, 634.  Cf.  Austin (3d ed.), 513.

156/1 Rylands v.  Fletcher, L.R. 3 H.L. 330; supra, p. 116.

156/2 See Marshall v.  Welwood, 38 N.J. (9 Vroom), 339; 2 Thompson, Negligence, 1234, n. 3.

157/1 Gorham v.  Gross, 125 Mass. 232; supra, p. 117.

158/1 Mitchil v.  Alestree, 1 Vent. 295; S.C., 3 Keb. 650; 2 Lev. 172; supra, p. 94.

158/2 Hammack v.  White, 11 C.B.  N.S. 588.

166/1 Laband, Vermogensrechtlichen Klagen, Section 16, pp. 108 et seq.; Heusler, Gewere, 487, 492.  These authors correct the earlier opinion of Bruns, R. d.  Besitzes, Section 37, pp. 313 et seq., adopted by Sohm in his Proc. d.  Lex Salica, Section 9.  Cf. the discussion of sua in writs of trespass, &c. in the English law, at the end of Lecture VI.  Those who wish short accounts in English may consult North Amer.  Rev., CX. 210, and see Id., CXVIII. 416; Essays in Anglo-Saxon Law, pp. 212 et seq.  Our knowledge as to the primitive form of action is somewhat meagre and dependent on inference.  Some of the earliest texts are Ed. Liutpr. 131; Lex Baiw., XV. 4; L. Frision.  Add.  X.; L. Visig., V.5.  I; L. Burg., XLIX.  I, 2.  The edict of Liutprand,