Reprint of the original, first published in 1872.

Excerpt from An Epitome and Analysis of Savigny's Treatise on Obligations in Roman LawThe epitome and analysis was primarily intended to assist some candidates for the B. C. L. Examination, Ox ford, who had intrusted to me the supervision of their studies in their preparation for that examination but con ceiving afterwards that the epitome and analysis, if more perfected, would be of service to students generally of the Roman Civil Law, and might even prove not unacceptable to the legal profession generally, I resolved to give it a more perfect character accordingly.About the PublisherForgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.comThis book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1872 edition. Excerpt: ... discretionary power of selection or of otherwise acting as an agent proper, and in that way he would shade off into the Procurator or Representative proper, while still continuing a nuncius merely: And thus the Procurator and the Nuncius may equally be the instruments or agents of a principal: The true distinction in questions of representation is, therefore, not one of words merely, that is to say, not the distinction between the Nuncius and the Procurator; but it is rather of the following nature, that is to say, --1. Does the agent (whether nuncius or procurator) treat in the name of his Principal? or, 2. Does he treat in his own name? In the former case, the actions pass to and against the principal directly and do not affect the agent at all; whereas, in the latter case, the actions pass to and against the agent directly, and only pass to and against the principal by cession (forced ou feinte): The distinction now taken is indicated in the following phrase, --"Actio ad exemplum institoriae actionis. This action was an extension and generalization of the institoria actio." The following texts also bear out the same distinction, namely, --1. Dig. 16. 3. 1. 11Si te rogavero, ut rem meam perferas ad Titium ut is eam servet, qua actione tecum experiri possum, apud Pomponium quaeritur. Et putat, tecum mandati; cum eo vero qui eas res receperit, depositi. Si vero tuo nomine receperit, tu quidem mihi mandati teneris, ille tibi depositi; quam actionem mihi praestabis, mandati judicio conventus." Here the nuncius, so far as he is such, is a mere colourless medium, and the principal has a direct action. 2. Dig. 19. 1. 13. 25: "Si procurator vendiderit et caverit emtori, quaeritur an domino vel adversus dominum...