200/1 2 Kent, 597; Forward v. Pittard, 1 T. R. 27.

200/2 Cf.  Y.B. 7 Hen.  IV. 14; 2 Hen.  VII. 11; Keilway, 77 b, 160, pl. 2, and other cases already cited.

200/3 Y.B. 41 Ed. III. 3, pl. 8.

200/4 Y.B. 33 Hen.  YI. 1, pl. 3.

200/5 Reg.  Brev. 107 a, 108 a, 110 a, b; entries cited 1 T. R. 29.

200/6 See above, pp. 167, 175 et seq.; 12 Am.  Law Rev. 692, 693; Y.B. 42 Ed. III. 11, pl. 13; 42 Ass., pl. 17.

201/1 1 Wilson, 282; cf. 2 Kent (12th ed.), 596, n. 1, b.

201/2 Y.B. 33 Hen.  VI. 1, pl. 3.

202/1 Mouse’s Case, 12 Co.  Rep. 63.

202/2 Bird v.  Astcock, 2 Bulstr. 280; cf.  Dyer, 33 a, pl. 10; Keighley’s Case, 10 Co.  Rep. 139 b, 140.

202/3 Y.B. 40 Ed. III. 5, 6, pl. 11; see also Willams v.  Hide, Palmer, 548; Shep.  Touchst. 173.

203/1 See Safe Delcosit Company of Pittsburgh v.  Pollock, 85 Penn. 391.

203/2 Paston, J., in Y.B. 21 Hen.  VI. 55; Keilway, 50 a, pl. 4; Hardres, 163.

203/3 Lane v.  Cotton, 1 Ld.  Raym. 646, 654; 1 Salk. 18; 12 Mod. 484.

204/1 Forward v.  Pittard, 1 T. R. 27, 83.

205/1 Printing and Numerical Registering Co. v.  Sampson, L.R. 19 Eq. 462, 465.

207/1 Possession, Section 6, Eng. tr., pp. 27, 28.

207/2 R. d.  Besitzes, 487.

208/1 R. d.  Besitzes, 490, 491.

208/2 Bruns, R. d.  Besitzes, 415; Windscheid, Pand.  Section 148, n. 6.  Further Hegelian discourse may be found in Dr. J. Hutchison Sterling’s Lectures on the Philosophy of Law.

208/3 Institutionen, Sections 224, 226; Windscheid, Pand.  Section 148, n. 6.

208/4 Windscheid, Pand.  Section 148, n. 6.

208/5 Besitzklagen, 276, 279.

209/1 Bruns, R. d.  Besitzes, 499.

209/2 Bruns, R. d.  Besitzes, Section 2, pp. 5 et seq.; Puchta, Besitz, in Weiske, Rechtslex.; Windscheid, Pand.  Section 154, pp. 461 et seq. (4th ed.).

209/3 D. 41.2.3, Section 20; 13.6.8 & 9.  Cf.  D. 41.1.9, Section 5.

210/1 But see Ihering, Geist d.  Rom.  R., Section 62, French tr., IV. p. 51.

210/2 Heusler thinks this merely a result of the English formalism and narrowness in their interpretation of the word suo in the writ (disseisivit de teuemento suo).  Gewere, 429-432.  But there was no such narrowness in dealing with catalla sua in trespass.  See below, p. 242.

210/3 See, further, Bracton, fol. 413; Y.B. 6 Hen.  VII. 9, pl. 4.

211/1 Infra, p. 243.

211/2 R. d.  Besitzes, 494.

212/1 Rogers v.  Spence, 13 M. & W. 579, 581.

212/2 Webb v.  Fox, 7 T. R. 391, 397.

212/3 Fennings v.  Lord Grenville, 1 Taunt. 241; Littledale v.  Scaith, ib. 243, n. (a); cf.  Hogarth v.  Jackson, M. & M. 58; Skinner v.  Chapman, ib. 59, n.

212/4 Swift v.  Gifford, 2 Lowell, 110.

212/5 1 Taunt. 248.