231/1 Bush v.  Steinman, 1 B. & P. 404, 409.

231/2 6 M. & W. 358.  Cf.  Udell v.  Atherton, 7 H. & N. 172, 184, for a comment like that in the text.  Other grounds for the decision are immaterial here.

231/3 Mackay v.  Commercial Bank of New Brunswick, L.R. 5 P.C. 394; Barwick v.  English Joint Stock Bank, L.R. 2 Ex. 259; Western Bank of Scotland v.  Addie, L.R. 1 H. L. Sc. 145; 2 Kent (12th ed.), 616, n. 1; Swift v.  Jewsbury, L.R. 9 Q.B.301, overruling S.C. sub nom.  Swift v.  Winterbotham, L.R. 8 Q.B.244; Weir v.  Bell, 3 Ex.  D. 238, 244.  The objections which Baron Bramwell mentions (L.R. 9 Q.B.815) to holding one man liable for the frauds of another, are objections to the peculiar consequences attaching to the relation of master and servant in general, and have been urged in that more general form by the same learned judge. 12 Am.  Law Rev. 197, 200; 2 H. & N. 856, 361.  See 7 Am.  Law Rev. 61, 62.

231/3 7 Am.  Law Rev. 63 (Oct. 1872).

232/1 D. 44. 2. 4, note 17, Elzevir ed.

232/2 Hunter’s Roman Law, 431.

232/3 Ancient Hist. of Inst. 235.

232/4 Cf.  Gillett v.  Ball, 9 Penn.  St. 13; Craig v.  Gilbreth, 47 Me. 416; Nickolson v.  Knowles, 5 Maddock, 47; Williams v.  Port, L.R. 12 Eq. 149; Adams v.  Jones, 12 Ad. & El. 455; Bracton, fol. 28 b, 42 b, 43.  And compare with the passage cited above from Blackstone:  “Possider, cujus riomine possidetur, procurator alienae possessioni praestat ministerium.”  D. 41. 2. 18, pr.

233/1 Ward v.  Macaulay, 4 T. R. 489, 490.  Cf. as to factors supra, p. 228.

233/2 Berndtson v.  Strang, L.R. 3 Ch. 588, 590.

233/3 Blackburn, Sale, 33; Marvin v.  Wallis, 6 El. & Bl. 726.

233/4 D. 41. 2. 18, pr.  “Quod meo nomine possideo, possum alieno nomine possidere:  nec enim muto mihi causam possessionis, sed desino possidere et alium possessorem ministerio meo facio.  Nec idem est possidere et alieno nomine possidere:  nam possidet, cujus nomine possidetur, procurator alienae possessioni praestat ministerium.”  Thus showing that the vendor changed possession by holding in the name of the purchaser, as his agent to possess.  Cf.  Bracton, fol. 28 b.

233/4 Windscheid, Pand.  Section 155, n. 8 a; 2 Kent (12th ed.), 492, n. 1 (a).  It should be kept in mind also that the Roman law denied possession to bailees.

234/1 See, e. g., Farina v.  Home, 16 M. & W. 119, 123.

235/1 McGahey v.  Moore, 3 Ired. (N.  C.) 35.

235/2 Reader v.  Moody, 3 Jones, (N.  C.) 372.  Cf.  Basset v.  Maynard, Cro.  Eliz. 819, 820.

235/3 Browne v.  Dawson, 12 A. & E. 624.  Cf.  D. 43. 16. 17; ib. 3, Section 9; D. 41. 2. 18, Section 3; Clayton, 147, pl. 268.

236/1 Cf.  Bruns, R. d.  Besitzes, 503.

237/1 Clark v.  Maloney, 3 Harrington (Del.), 68.  Bruns (R. d.  Besitzes, 503, 507) comes to the same conclusion on practical grounds of convenience, although he utterly repudiates it on theory.  I must refer to what I said above touching these conflicts between theory and convenience.