with rcfpea partner for his fhare, whether he (the partner) may have been aware
taoiety. ' ” of the circumftance of the Have being the other’s foil or not. In the
fame manner, if thefe two men fhould obtain joint pdffeflion of the
Have by inheritance, (as where a woman purehafes the foil of her huf-
band, and afterwards dies, leaving heirs her hujband and brother,) thz
Have becomes emancipated with refpedt to his father’ s portion in him,
and the wife’ s brother has no claim upon the father for indemnification,
but it remains at his'option either freely -to releafe his portion,
or to require labour of the Have for the fame.— This is according to
Haneefa.— The two difciples allege that in the former cafe the father
mull indemnify his partner for half the value of the Have, i f he be
rich, or, if not, that the Have mud perform labour in fuch proportion
to his father’s partner.— The fame difference of opinion fubfifts where
■ thefe two perfbns become poflefied o f fuch Have, either by deed of
gift, by alms-gift, or by bequeft,— and alfo where two men purchafe
a joint Have, one of them having previoufly made a vow, faying “ if
I buy the half of .fuch a Have he is free.”— T h e argument of the two
difciples is that the fa ther, or the vower, has rendered void his partner’s
right to his portion in the Have, b y his emancipation, as the ad
of purchafe eventually leads to that iffue; and alfo ppffeflion obtained
through bequeji, g ift, or alms;— thus it is the fame as where one of
two partners emancipates his portion in a copartnerfhip Have, in which
cafe, i f he be rich, he indemnifies his partner for his fhare, or, if
‘poor, the Have works out his freedom by labour:— and fo likewife in
the prefent cafe.— The argument of Haneefa is that the father’s partner
appears to be aflenting to the father’ s deftroying his fhare, from
the circumftances of the cafe, as having become his partner under a
caufe of manumiffion, (namely, the purchafe of the Have,) which is
connected therewith; and as this evinces that he is affenting to the de-
ftrudlion of his own fhare, he cannot require any indemnification from
the father of the Have, fince that is Zimdn-al-fisdd, or indemnification
fo r damage, the right to which is overthrown by the circumftance of
the claimant affenting to the damage, in the .fame manner as where a
perfon
perfon exprefsly defires his partner in a Have to emancipate his fhare,—
in which cafe he has no claim to indemnification.— It is to be obferved
that what has been recited, in regard to the fa ther of the Have not
being refponfible to his partner in either cafe, (that is to fay, in the
cafe where the partner is acquainted with the circumftance of the
Have being the foil of his partner,— and alfo, in the cafe where he is
not acquainted with that circumftance,) is recorded as an opinion of
Haneefa, and refis upon the eflablifhment of an argument o f confent,
and not upon the eflablifhment of the confent itfe fi; on the fame principle
as if a ‘perfon fhould fay to another “ eat this food,” without
knowing that the food is his own property, and thé perfon accordingly
eats the food, and this food afterwards proves to have been the adlual
property of the fpeaker, in which cafe this perfon is not refponfible
to the other for having eaten his victuals, becaufe the defire exprefled
by the proprietor is an argument -of his confent, although it be probable
that if he had known the vidluals to be his own property he
would not have confented— It is further to be obferved that what is
now advanced proceeds upon a fuppofition of the father being the firft
purchafer, or of the purchafe being made by the father and the
{hunger jointly: but where the franger has firfl purchafed an half,
and the father afterwards purchafes the other half, then, provided the
father be rich, the ftrangerhas it in his option to demand indemnification,
as,.|ie does not in this cafe appear to be confenting to the father’s
deftroying his fhare,— or to require labour of the Have for half his
value, as his property therein is involved in the Have— This is the
dorfrine o f Haneefa, deduced from his teiiet, that the wealth o f the
emancipator does not forbid the exattion o f labour-, in this again he differs
from the two difciples, who (proceeding upon the contrary tenet)
contend that the other partner, has no liberty of option in this cafe,
and can only require indemnification o f the. father for the value o f his'
half.