![]() |
RDG
online Restitution Discussion Group Archives |
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
||||||||||||
|
Eachan (Hector), and everyone.
For the record Scotland and South Africa still preserve
the action (originally developed by canonists), the actio spolii, which
enables a possessor (not just an owner, and not just a bona fide possessor
either) to get the thing back. It is designed as a speedy remedy applying
the maxim "spoliatus ante omnia restituendus". In South Africa
it is solely for that as the Mandament van Spolie. In Scotland, where
it is called spuilzie (pronounced spooly!) it also includes an enrichment
remedy in that the deprived possessor is entitled to a sum which is the
maximum that could have been earned from the asset in the period during
which the other party had possession (known as "violent profits").
(There is some doubt as to exactly on what basis this is calculated.)
Earlier spulzie cases in Scotland are typically ones where there was some
forcible taking, but a more modern view (See Reid, Property)
is that deprivation without consent of the former possessor is enough.
In Scotland, furthermore, it applies not only to situations of deprivation
of possession of moveables, but also is applicable to land. (There is
an artificial rule with certain urban property that the party is entitled
to twice the normal rent.) The availability of this attractive action
may be the reason why "vindication" was not often discussed
in earlier cases, or writing, since there were until the early nineteenth
century, loads of spuilzie actions. There are relatively few modern cases,
but it is, I understand, sometimes used by lawyers in terrorem.
John
Professor John W G Blackie
-----Original Message----- And even the insular Scotch ...
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==> |
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
» » » » » |
|
![]() |
|||||||||
![]() |