[445]. Stat. 8 & 9 Vict. c. 106, s. 2.
[446]. Cochrane v. Moore, 25 Q. B. D. 57.
[447]. D. 50. 17. 54.
[448]. The Factors Act, 1889.
[449]. Continental systems carry much further than our own the doctrine that the possessor of a chattel may confer a good title to it. Article 2279 of the French Civil Code lays down the general principle that En fait de meubles la possession vaut titre. In other words the ownership of a chattel involves no droit de suite or jus sequelae, no right of following the thing into the hands of third persons who have obtained it in good faith. The rule, however, is subject to important exceptions, for it does not apply either to chattels stolen or to chattels lost. Speaking generally, therefore, it is applicable only where an owner has voluntarily entrusted the possession of the thing to some one else, as a pledgee, borrower, depositee, or agent, who has wrongfully disposed of it to some third person. Baudry-Lacantinerie, De la Prescription, ch. 20. See also, for very similar law, the German Civil Code, sects. 932–935, and the Italian Civil Code, sects. 707–708.
[450]. Hereditas ... personam ... defuncti sustinet. D. 41. 1. 34. See Holmes, Common Law, pp. 341–353. Maine, Ancient Law, pp. 181–182.
[451]. Brown v. Burdett, 21 Ch. D. 667.
[452]. Obligatio est juris vinculum, quo necessitate adstringimur alicuius solvendae rei, secundum nostrae civitatis jura. Inst. 3. 13. pr.
[453]. Jacob’s Law Dictionary, cited by Mr. Sweet in L.Q.R. X. at p. 308 n.
[454]. As to the nature of choses in action, see Blackstone, II. 396; Colonial Bank v. Whinney, 30 Ch. D. 261 and 11 A. C. 426; and a series of articles by different writers in the L.Q.R.: IX. 311, by Sir Howard Elphinstone; X. 143. by T. C. Williams; X. 303. by C. Sweet; XI. 64. by S. Brodhurst; XI. 223, by T. C. Williams; XI. 238. by C. Sweet.