339/1 Graves v.  Legg, 9 Exch. 709.  Cf.  Lang.  Contr. (2d ed.), Section 33, p. 1004.  Mr. Langdell says that a bought note, though part of a bilateral contract, is to be treated as unilateral, and that it may be presumed that the language of the contract relied on was that of a bought note, and thus a condition in favor of the defendant, who made it.  I do not quite understand how this can be assumed when the declaration states a bilateral contract, and the question arose on demurrer to a plea, which also states that the plaintiff “was by the agreement bound to declare” the names.  How remote the explanation is from the actual ground of decision will be seen.

341/1 Recht des Besitzes, Section 11, p. 184, n. 1 (7th ed.), Eng. tr. 124, n. t.

342/1 Inst.  II.  Section 157.

342/2 “In suis heredibus evidentius apparet continuationem dominii eo rem perdueere, ut nulla videatur hereditas fuisse, quasi olim hi domini essent, qui etiam vivo patre quodammodo domini existimantur, unde etiam filius familias appellatur sicut pater familias, sola nota hae adiecta, per quam distinguitur genitor ab eo qui genitus sit. itaque post mortem patris non hereditatem percipere videntur, sed magis liberam bonorum administrationem consequuntur hac ex causa licet non sint heredes instituti, domini sunt:  nec obstat, quod licet eos exheredare, quod et occidere licebat.”  D. 28.2. 11.  Cf.  Plato, Laws, [Greek characters]

343/1 Laveleye, Propriety, 24, 202, 205, 211, n. 1, 232; Norton, L.C.  Hindu Law of Inheritance, p. 193.

343/2 D. 50. 16. 208.

343/3 D. 41. 1. 34.  Cf.  D. 41. 3. 40; Bract., fol. 8 a, 44 a.

343/4 D. 43. 24. 13, Section 5.

344/1 Germania, c. 20.

345/1 Littleton, Section 337; Co.  Lit. 209, a, b; Y.B. 8 Ed. IV. 5, 6, pl. 1; Keilway, 44 a (17 Hen.  VII.); Lord North v.  Butts, Dyer, 139 b, 140 a, top; Overton v.  Sydall, Popham, 120, 121; Boyer v.  Rivet, 3 Bulstr. 317, 321; Bain v.  Cooper, 1 Dowl.  Pr.  Cas.  N. s. 11, 14.

345/2 Y.B. 48 Ed. III. 2, pl. 4.

346/1 Vermoegensrechtlichen Klagen, 88, 89.

346/2 Proc. de la Lex Salica, tr.  Thevenin, p. 72 and n. 1.

347/1 Ethelred, II. 9; Cnut, II. 73; Essays in Ang.  Sax.  Law, pp. 221 et seq.

347/2 1 Spence, Eq. 189, note, citing Hickes, Dissert.  Epist., p. 57.

347/3 Glanv., Lib.  VII. c. 2 (Beames, p. 150).

347/4 Ibid., c. 8 (Beames, p. 168).

347/5 Reg.  Maj., Lib.  II. c. 39.

348/1 Fol. 61 a.

348/2 Sachsensp., II. 60, Section 2, cited in Essays in Ang.  Sax.  Law, p. 221; Grand Cust. de Norm., c. 88.

348/3 Britt., fol. 64 b (Nich. ed. 163); Fleta, Lib.  II. c. 62, Section 10.  Cf.  Bract., fol. 37 b, Section 10.

348/4 Bracton, fol. 61 a, b.  “Item quaero an testator legare possit actiones suas?  Et verum est quod non, de debitis quae in vita testatoris convicta non fuerunt nec recognita, sed hujusmodi actiones competunt haeredibus.  Cum antera convicta sint et recognita, tune sunt quasi in bonis testatoris, et competunt executoribus in foro ecclesiastico.  Si autem competant haeredibus, ut praedictum est, in foro seculari debent terminari, quia antequam communicantur et in foro debito, non pertinet ad executores, ut in foro ecclesiastico convincantur.”