Page:Civil code of Japan compared with French (1902-05-01).pdf/3

356 tion of death even in the third period. It will be observed that in the French Code, as soon as a person leaves his domicile or residence and his whereabouts becomes unknown, he comes under the operation of the law relating to absentees. In this we have not followed the French law. The Japanese Code provides for the protection of property of persons who have disappeared, but after the lapse of a certain period, on the application of an interested party, the Court makes what is called an, which is equivalent to a declaration of the death of the missing person, and has all the legal consequences of actual death, not only in regard to his property, but also his personal relations.

— There is no mention of juridical persons or corporations in the French Civil Code, although there are provisions in the Commercial Code for the incorporation of commercial bodies. Nevertheless modern society has recognized the necessity of corporate organizations for purposes other than those that are purely commercial. The Japanese Civil Code devotes Arts. 33, 34 to this subject. Two kinds of juridical persons are recognized, viz., association (Shadan), and trusts (Zaidan). The objects for which these corporations may be formed are denned in Arts. 34 and 35. If formed for religious worship or teaching, for charity, for education, for art or for any purposes beneficial to the public, and the object of which is not to make a profit out of the conduct of their business, they come into existence in virtue of permission of the competent authorities. But if formed for the purposes of profit, they are obliged to comply with the conditions prescribed for the creation of commercial companies.

— The Roman jurisconsults divided things into corporeal and incorporeal. By corporeal things they meant: 1st, Things strictly so called, that is external tangible objects, not persons. 2nd, Persons considered as subjects of rights and duties. 3rd, Acts and forbearances considered as objects of rights and duties. Incorporeal things consisted of rights and duties themselves, e.g. . This classification is followed in the French Code and to a certain extent finds recognition in the English common law. But no practical advantages flow from this division. On the contrary, by thus bracketing together the subjects of rights and rights themselves, by thus bringing under the same head things which belong wholly to different species, a confusion of ideas becomes unavoidable and the logical distinction of rights and rights  is obscured. The Japanese Civil Code adopts the simple and original meaning of the