« ForrigeFortsett »
Yea v. Field, 2 T. R. 708, § 247, 288.
v. Bilderback, 2 Green's Ch. 206,
v. Cooper, 3 Johns. Ch. 295. § 527. v. De Bruhl, 11 Rich. 641, § 103.
Young v. Frost, 1 Md. 403, § 527. v. Robinson, 11 G. & J. 328, § 110.
Zabriskie v. Smith, 13 N. Y. 337, § 357, 361.
Zebach v. Smith, 3 Binn. 69, § 44, 45.
General Classification of Property, § 1.
The Plan, § 4.
English Tenures, § 5.
American Tenures, § 6.
Classification of Tenancies, § 7.
Mixed, Imperfect, and Redundant Tenancies, § 8.
1. General Classification of Property.-Classified with reference to the number of its owners, property is said to be either general or particular. It is general when held by a body of men to the exclusion of all other men or bodies of men; and particular when held by one individual to the exclusion of all other individuals. Those who suppose that property had its inception in a common recognition of rights based upon the fact of occupancy, assert that general property originated in the settlement and occupation of some large area of land by a number of men united into one collective body. By such common act of occupancy, the whole tract became the joint property of its occupants. As such, it was subject to the common dominion of every individual of the whole collective body-a dominion which could not, as to any single parcel, be rightfully exercised by any member of the community to the exclusion of any other member; but which could, nevertheless, as to every part of the whole tract, be rightfully asserted by every member to the total exclusion of all persons not belonging to the community.' The body thus appropriating to itself some previously uninhabited territory was no doubt more numerous than the cotenants
' Rutherford's Institutes, 32.