the purchafer, fince, in confequence of paying the compenfation for
the article, he Hands as fubftitute to the feller.— It is to be ob-
ferved that, in a cafe of ufurpation, if the ufurper fell the article
to Amroo, and he (again) fell it to Khalid, and he (again) lell it to
Bikrao, and fo on, from hand to hand, and the proprietor take his
compenfation from Khalid (for inftance,) in this cafe every pur-
chafe fubfequent to that of Khdlid is legal and valid; becaufe as
Khdlid, in confequence o f paying the compenfation, becomes proprietor
of the ufurped article, he then appears to have fold his own
property; whereas every purchafe made before, and even the pur-
chafe of Khdlid himfelf, is invalid ; becaufe the article ufurped
becomes the property of Khdlid, by retrofpect, from the time only
that he took poffeffion of it. It is otherwife where fimilar cir-
cumftances follow a compulfive fale; for if, in fuch cafe, the party
compelled (namely, the firft feller) fignify his affent to any one
of the fubfequent contracts, every other contract antecedent to
that one is valid, and fo likewife every fubfequent contraft; becaufe
the invalidity of thefe contradts was on ’account of the right
o f the proprietor, as he had fold his property upon compulfion;
and he therefore poffeffes a right to refume the property, until he
fignify his affent: but upon his affenting to any of thofe contrafts,
he relinquifhes this right; and all the contrafts become valid of
courfe.
S E C T I O N .
If one perfon ufe compullion towards another, by imprifonment
or blows, with a view to make him eat carrion or drink wine, ftill it
is not lawful for the perfon thus compelled to eat or drink of thofe articles,—
unlefs he be threatened with fomething dangerous to life or
limb, in which cafe he may lawfully do fo; (and the fame rule obtains
if compullion be ufed to make a perfon eat blood ox pork ;)— becaufe
the eating of füch prohibited articles is not permitted except in
cafes of extremity, fuch as famine, lince in any other cafe the argument
of illegality ftill endures. Now extremity, or unavoidable necef-
Jity,' do not exift, to require the eating or drinking o f thé article,
except the not eating it be attended with danger to life or limb; but as
the eating or drinking is in fuch cafe permitted, it follows that it is fo
permitted where this danger is to be apprehended from imprifonment
or blows. Neither is the perfon, who is thus put in fear, under any
obligation to fuffer the thing menaced; but rather, if he do fuffer it,
and refrain from eating or drinking the prohibited article until he die,
or lofe any of his limbs, he is an offender; becaufe as, under fuch
circumftances, the eating or drinking rs permitted to him, it follows
that, if he refufe, he is an acceflary with another to his own deftruc-
tion, and is confequently an offender, in the fame manner as if he
were to refrain from eating carrion when perifhing for hunger. Aboo
Toofaf maintains that he would not be an offender from perfifting, unto
death or difmemberment, in his refufal; becaufe the eating or drinking,
in the cafe in queftion, is merely licenfed, (lince the articles
ftill continue prohibited,)— whereas the refraining from them is an ob-
fervance of the l a w ; and confequently, in.perfifting to refute, he
ads in obedience to the l aw .— T o this, however, it may be replied,
N n n 2 that
A perfon may
lawfully eat
or drink a
prohibited article,
upon a
compullion
which threatens
life or
limb.