12 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. said that " if the defendant took the chattels claiming property in himself for a heriot, although the lord afterward agreed to that tak- ing for services due him, still he [the defendant] cannot be called his bailiff for that time. But had he taken them without com- mand, for services due the lord, and had the lord afterwards agreed to his taking, he shall be adjudged as bailiff, although he was no- where his bailiff before that taking." A ratification, according to this, may render lawful ab initio an act which without the necessary authority is a good cause of action, and for which the authority was wanting at the time that it was done. Such is still the law of England. 1 The same principle is applied in a less startling manner to contract, with the effect of giving rights under them to persons who had none at the moment when the contract purported to be complete. 2 In the case of a tort it follows, of course, from what has been said, that if it is not justified by the ratification, the prin- cipal in whose name and for whose benefit it was done is answer- able for it. 3 Now it may be argued very plausibly that the modern decisions have only enlarged the comparison of the Sabinians into a rule of law, and carried it to its logical consequences. The cotnparatur of Ulpian has become the aquiparatur of Lord Coke, 4 it might be said ; ratification has been made equivalent to command, and that is all. But it will be seen that this is a very great step. It is a long way from holding a man liable as a wrongful disseisor when he has accepted the wrongfully-obtained possession, to allowing 1 Godbolt, 109, no, pi. 129; s. c. 2 Leon. 196, pi. 246 (M. 28 & 29 Eliz.) ; Hull v. Pickersgill, 1 Brod. & B. 282; Muskett v. Drummond, 10 B. & C. 153, 157 ; Buron v. Denman, 2 Exch. 167 (1848) ; Secretary of State in Council of India v. Kamachee Boye Sahaba, 13 Moore, P. C. 22 (1859), 86; Cheetham v. Mayor of Manchester, L. R. 10 C. P. 249; Wiggins v. United States, 3 Ct. of CI. 412. But see Bro. Abr., Trespass, pi. 86 ; Fitz. Abr., Bayllie, pi. 4. 3 Wolff v. Horncastle, 1 Bos. & P. 316 (1798). See further, Spittle v. Lavender, 2 Brod. & B. 452 (1821). 8 Bract. 159 a, 171 b ; Bro., Trespass, pi. 113; Bishop v. Montague, Cro. Eliz. 824; Gibson's Case, Lane, 90; Com. Dig., Trespass, c. T; Sanderson v. Baker, 2 Bl. 832 ; s. c. 3 Wils. 309; Barker v. Braham, 2 Bl. 866, 868 ; s. c. 3 Wils. 368 ; Badkin v. Powell, Cowper, 476, 479 ; Wilson v. Tumman, 6 Man. & Gr. 236, 242 ; Lewis v. Read, 13 M. & W. 834; Buron v. Denman, 2 Exch. 167, 188; Bird v. Brown, 4 Exch. 786, 799; Eastern Counties Ry. v. Broom, 6 Exch. 314, 326, 327 ; Roe v. Birkenhead, Lancashire, & Cheshire Junction Ry., 7 Exch. 36, 44; Ancona v. Marks, 7 H. & N. 686, 695; Per- ley v. Georgetown, 7 Gray, 464; Condit v. Baldwin, 21 N. Y. 219, 225 ; Exum v. Bris- ter, 35 Miss. 391 ; G. H. & S. A. Ry. v. Donahoe, 56 Tex. 162 ; Murray v. Lovejoy, 2 Cliff. 191, 195. (See 3 Wall. 1, 9.) 4 Co. Lit. 207 a; 4 Inst. 317. It is cotnparatur in 30 Ed. I. 128; Bract. 171 b.
