213/1 Cf.  Wake, Evolution of Morality, Part I. ch. 4, pp. 296 et seq.

215/1 Asher v.  Whitlock, L.R. 1 Q.B.1.

215/2 People v.  Shearer, 30 Cal. 645.

217/1 2 Kent’s Comm. 349, citing Pierson v.  Post, 3 Caines, (N.  Y.) 175; Buster v.  Newkirk, 20 Johnson, (N.  Y.) 75.

217/2 Young v.  Hichens, 6 Q.B.606.

217/3 2 Kent’s Comm. 349, n. (d).

218/1 Inst. 2. 1, Section 13.

218/2 Swift v.  Gifford, 2 Lowell, 110.

218/3 Savigny, R. d.  Besitzes, Section 21.

218/4 II. 9, Section 4; III. 29, Section 2.  Animus domini will be used here as shortly indicating the general nature of the intent required even by those who deny the fitness of the expression, and especially because Savigny’s opinion is that which has been adopted by English writers.

219/1 Cf.  Bruns, R. d.  Besitzes, 413, and ib. 469, 474, 493, 494, 505; Windscheid, Pand.  Section 149, n. 5 (p. 447, 4th ed.); Puchta, Inst.  Section 226.

219/2 Supra, p. 207; 2 Puchta, Inst.  Section 226 (5th ed.), pp. 545, 546.

221/1 15 Jur. 1079; 21 L. J. Q.B.75; 7 Eng.  L. & Eq. 424.

222/1 11 Allen, 548.

223/1 Kincaid v.  Eaton, 98 Mass. 139.

223/2 Barker v.  Bates, 13 Pick. 255, 257, 261; Proctor v.  Adams, 113 Mass. 376, 377; 1 Bl.  Comm. 297, Sharsw. ed., n. 14.  Cf.  Blades v.  Hiqgs, 13 C.B.  N.S. 844, 847, 848, 850, 851; 11 H. L. C. 621; Smith v.  Smith, Strange, 955.

223/3 Reg. v.  Rowe, Bell, C.C. 93.

224/1 See, as to treasure hidden in another’s land, D. 41. 2. 44, pr.; D. 10. 4. 15.  Note the different opinions in D. 41.2. 3, Section 3.

224/2 3 Inst. 107; 1 Hale, P.C. 504, 505; 2 Bishop, Crim.  Law, Sections 834, 860 (6th ed.).

224/3 Reg. v.  Middleton, L.R. 2 C.C. 38, 55.  Cf.  Halliday v.  Holgate, L.R. 3 Ex. 299, 302.

224/4 Cf.  Y.B. 8 Ed. II. 275; Fitzh.  Abr.  Detinue, ph 59; Y.B. 13 Ed. IV. 9, pl. 5; Keilway, 160, pl. 2; Merry v.  Green, 7 M. & W. 623, 630.  It may not be necessary to go quite so far, however, and these cases are not relied on as establishing the theory.  For wrong explanations, see 2 East, P.C. 696.

225/1 Durfee v.  Jones, 11 R. I. 588.

225/2 Reg. v.  Rowe, Bell, C.C. 93, stated above.

225/3 8 Ves. 405; 7 M. & W. 623; Stephen, Crim.  Law, Art. 281, Ill. (4), p. 197.  He says, “because [the owner of the safe] cannot be presumed to intend to act as the owner of it when he discovers it,”—­a reason drawn from Savigny, but not fitted to the English law, as has been shown.

226/1 Y.B. 13 Ed. IV. 9, 10, pl. 5; 21 Hen.  VII. 14, pl. 21.  Cf. 3 Hen.  VII. 12, pl. 9; Steph.  Crim.  Law, Art. 297, and App., note xvii.

226/2 Steph.  Crtre.  Law, Art. 297, and App., note xvii. p. 882.  It may be doubted whether the old law would have sanctioned the rule in this form.  F. N. B. 91 E; Y.B. 2 Ed. IV. 15, pl. 7.