Page:An introduction to Roman-Dutch law.djvu/156

 Rh 116 THE LAW OF PROPERTY Things ownable. Res uni- versitatis, res singu- lorum. Things according to their nature : corporeal and in- corporeal; divini or quasi divini juris.^ (3) Things ownable, but unowned, are res nullius ^ and cede to the first occupant. With regard to the second of these classes, which alone here concerns us, it is sufficient to say that it has no place in Roman-Dutch Law, since all the things comprised in it are owned either by corporations or by individuals.^ Things ovmable. Passing over things ownable, but unowned in fact, of which we shall speak hereafter, we come to the last two classes in Justinian's division, viz. res universitatis and res singulorum. The first class com- prises things owned by towns, villages, and similar societies or by corporations.* The second class comprises things owned by individuals. This distinction seems to be a distinction not of things, but of persons, i.e. according as they are : (a) artificial or juristic persons ; or (6) natural persons. We may conclude, therefore, that in the modern law all things which are not imownable as common, or imownable as public, are (except such things as are unowned in fact, thoiigh ownable in law) owned either by corpora- tions or by individuals.^ Things according to their nature. Things are further classified according to their nature as corporeal and incorporeal.* Corporeal things can be touched, e.g. land, houses, cattle, clothes.' Incorporeal things consist in a right, as servitude, inheritance, obligations, debts, actions, rents.* I Voet, 1. 8. 1. ^ Inst. 1. 1. 12 ; Gr. 2. I. 50-1. ^ Gr. 2. 1. 15 ; Van Leeuwen, 2. 1. 9 ; Green, de leg. abr. ad Inst. 2. 1. 8 and 9. For South African Law see Cape Tovm and District Waterworks Go. v. Elder's Exors. (1890) 8 S. C. 9, where it; was held that the fact of burials having taken place in land with the consent of the owner did not make that land so sacred or religious as to be inalien- able. On the other hand, in the Ceylon case, Pullenayagam v. Fernando (1900) 4 N. L. R. 88, Bonser C.J., citing Cens. For. 1. 2. 1. 10, said: ' By the law of this island a res religiosa is res nullius — ^no one's property.' No reference was made to conflicting authorities. ^ The State (or what comes to the same thing, the fiscus) may, of course, own property qua individual. Property so owned is not pro- perly speaking res publica. It is in patrimonio populi, not publico usui deslinata. " Gr. 2. 1. 9 ; Voet, 1. 8. 11. ' Gr. 2. 1, 10. 8 (Jr. 2. 1. 14 ; Voet, 1. 8. 18.
 * Gr. 2. 1. 31 if. ; Voet, 1. 8. 10.