238/1 Bruns, R. d.  Besitzes, Section 57, p. 486.  A learned writer of more ancient date asks why a doctor has not a possessory action if you cease to employ him, and answers:  “Sentio actionem non tenere, sed sentio tantum, nec si vel morte mineris, possum dicere quare.  Tu lector, si sapis, rationes decidendi suggere.”  Hommel, Rhaps., qu. 489, cited, Bruns, 407.

239/1 Gardiner v.  Thibodeau, 14 La.  An. 732.

239/2 Bruns, 483.

240/1 2 Kent (12th ed.), 205, n. 1.  Cf.  Y.B. 21 Hen.  VI. 8, 9, pl. 19; American note to Scott v.  Shepherd, in 1 Sm.  L. C. (Am. ed.).

240/2 Britton (Nich. ed.), I. 277 (cf.  Bract., fol. 164 b; Fleta, fol. 214; Glanv., Lib.  XIII. c. 37); Littleton, Sections 237-240, 588, 589; 3 Bl.  Comm. 170; 3 Cruise, Dig., tit. xxviii., Rents, ch. 2, Section 34.

241/1 See Lecture XI.

241/2 Cf.  Stockport Water Works v.  Potter, 3 H. & C. 300, 318.  The language in the seventh English edition of 1 Sm.  L. C., 300, is rather too broad.  If the law should protect a possessor of land in the enjoyment of water coming to it, it would do so because the use of the water was regarded as a part of the enjoyment of that land, and would by no means imply that it would do the same in the case just put of a way over land of another.

242/1 Jefferies v.  Great Western Railway Co., 5 El. & B1. 802.  Cf.  Armory v.  Delamirie, 1 Strange, 505, 1 Sm.  L. C.

242/2 Co.  Lit. 145 b.

242/3 2 Wms.  Saund. 47 b, note 1, to Wilbraham v.  Snow.

242/4 Bract., fol. 150 b, 151; supra, p. 168; Y.B. 22 Ed. I. 466-468.

242/5 Y.B. 48 Ed. III. 20; 11 Hen.  IV. 17; 11 Hen.  IV. 23, 24; 21 Hen.  VII. 14.  The meaning of sua is discussed in Y.B. 10 Ed. IV. 1, B, by Catesby.  Compare Laband, Vermogensrechtlichen Klagen, 111; Heusler, Gewere, 492 et seq., correcting Bruns, R. d.  Besitzes, 300 et seq.; Sohm, Proc. d.  L. Sal., Section 6.

243/1 Y.B. 11 Hen.  IV. 17, pl. 39.

243/2 Y.B. 21 Hen.  VII. 14 b, pl. 23.

243/3 Godbolt, 173, pl. 239.  Cf. 11 Hen.  IV. 17, pl. 39.

243/4 Bro.  Abr.  Trespass, pl. 433, cit.  Y.B. 13 Hen.  VII. 10.

243/5 Kelyng, 89.  See, further, Buller, N. P. 33.

243/6 Lecture V.; Y.B. 20 Hen.  VII. 1, pl. 11.

243/7 Y.B. 21 lien.  VII. 14 b, pl. 23.

243/8 1 Roll.  Abr. 4, 5 (I), pl. 1.  Cf.  Arnold v.  Jefferson, 1 Ld.  Raym. 275.

244/1 29 Ass., fol. 163, pl. 28.

244/2 Southcote’s Case, 4 Co.  Rep. 83 b.

244/3 Mores v.  Conham, Owen, 123.  Cf.  Ratcliff v.  Davis, I Bulstr. 29.

244/4 Doe v.  Dyball, Mood. & M. 346 and note; 2 Wms.  Saund. 111, and later notes; I Ad. & El. 119; Asher v.  Whitlock, L.R. 1 Q.B.1.

244/5 Graham v.  Peat, 1 East, 244.

245/1 As to this period see Heusler, Gewere.  Cf.  Laveleye, Propriete, 166.

248/1 2 Hist. du Droit Franc., pp. 146 et seq, 152.