frissell@panix.com writes:
At 07:50 PM 5/7/97 -0500, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
According to americal common law, as I understand it, no one can get a valid title to the property from someone who did not have such title.
E.g., if you steal Vulis's car and then sell it to me, I will not have the title to the car and will have to return it back to Vulis (and may be able to try to recover my loss from you). The same will be true if you lend the stolen car to me -- he can get it back if he proves that it is his.
The thief's ownership of personal property is good against the whole world save the true owner.
"18. In general, possession constitutes the criterion of title of personal property, because no other means exist by which a knowledge of the fact to whom it belongs can be attained. A seller of a chattel is not, therefore, required to show the origin of his title, nor, in general, is a purchaser, without notice of the claim of the owner, compellable to make restitution; but, it seems, that a purchaser from a tenant for life of personal chattels, will not be secure against the claims of those entitled in remainder. Cowp. 432; 1 Bro. C. C. 274; 2 T. R. 376; 3 Atk. 44; 3 V. & B. 16."
My problem with Igor's model is that has a "gubmint" that can decide that although you possess something, you don't have a title to it. I don't think the cost of having a "gubmint" justifies the convenience(?) of having one's stolen property recovered. I point Igor's attention to the two categories of real estate ownership in traditional Russian legal framework (probably borrowed from Poland and Germany...) - the kind that cannot be taken away by the state for any reasn (even as punishment for treason), and the kind that can be taken away, e.g., for non-paymet of taxes. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps