Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Foreword
- List of Contributors
- Table of Cases
- Table of Statutory Materials
- 1 The Consequences of Possession
- 2 Why Protect Possession?
- 3 Is Possession Factual or Legal?
- 4 Possession as a Source of Property at Common Law
- 5 The Evolution of Possessory Actions in France and Italy
- 6 The Protection of Possession in Scots Law
- 7 Possessio civilissima in Spanish and German Law: Protecting Possession between Fact and Fiction
- 8 Possession of Incorporeals
- 9 The Protection of Quasi-Possession in South African Law
- Index
8 - Possession of Incorporeals
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 December 2017
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Foreword
- List of Contributors
- Table of Cases
- Table of Statutory Materials
- 1 The Consequences of Possession
- 2 Why Protect Possession?
- 3 Is Possession Factual or Legal?
- 4 Possession as a Source of Property at Common Law
- 5 The Evolution of Possessory Actions in France and Italy
- 6 The Protection of Possession in Scots Law
- 7 Possessio civilissima in Spanish and German Law: Protecting Possession between Fact and Fiction
- 8 Possession of Incorporeals
- 9 The Protection of Quasi-Possession in South African Law
- Index
Summary
An unsolvable question
In his “Rhapsody of Questions which come up every day in court, but are not resolved by the laws”, the German jurist Karl Ferdinand Hommel (1722- 1781) presented his readers with hard cases – and usually solutions. However, the third edition of 1769 contained one case which Hommel considered unsolvable:
Quaestio inexplicabilis
Dicat mihi aliquis et erit mihi magnus Apollo, quare sartor meus, quem nuper abdicavi, aut dismissus famulus, non possit adversus me possessorium summarissimum instituere, ut porro retineam? Quid si medicus ita agat: Ich befinde mich seit 1. 2. 3. und mehrern Jahren in ruhigem Besitze, daß Beklagter, so oft er krank geworden, mich rufen und sich von mir heilen lassen: Nachdem er aber mich neulich in diesem Besitze dadurch gekränket, daß er einen andern Arzt angenommen, so bitte so lange, bis Beklagter in Possessorio Ordinario oder Petitorio ein anders ausgeführet, mich zu schützen und demselben bey 20. Thlr. Strafe alle fernere Beeinträchtigungen zu untersagen. Sentio actionem non tenere, sed sentio tantum, nec si vel mortem mineris, possum dicere quare? Tu, si sapis, rationem decidendi suggere …
An unsolvable question
Could someone tell me – and I would call him my great Apollo for it – why my tailor, with whom I recently parted ways, or a servant I dismissed cannot bring summary possessory proceedings against me in order that I continue to employ him? What if a physician brought a complaint as follows: “I have been in quiet possession for one, two, three and more years, of the fact that whenever Defendant fell ill, he would call me and let himself be cured by me. Since now he has recently disturbed me in this possession by retaining another physician, I pray to protect me as long as Defendant has not shown cause in ordinary possessory2 or petitory proceedings and to enjoin him under a penalty of 20 thalers from any further disturbance”. I feel that the action does not lie, but I only feel it and even if you threaten me with death, I cannot tell you why. You, if you know one, suggest a reason for this decision …
The issue presented in Hommel's case is whether the remedies of the ius commune for the protection of possession can be used to protect a service provider's “possession” of the business relationship with a client.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Consequences of Possession , pp. 171 - 184Publisher: Edinburgh University PressPrint publication year: 2014