U S U R P A T I O N ,
quantity.— With refpeft: to the {kin, the reafons of refponfibility for
it (as maintained by the two difciples) are twofold.— F r R S T , it M l
continues the property of the proprietor, inafmuch as he is entit e to
take it back from the ufurper; and as it is an article of value, it follows
that, in corifequence of the deftruaion of it by the ufurper, he
[the proprietor] is entitled to take from him [the ufurper] a compenfa-
tion adequate to the value of the drefled lkin; paying him afterwards
the increafe of value it has received from the dreffing; in the fame
manner as where a perfon ufurps the cloth of another, and dyes it,
and then deftroys it,— in which cafe he is refponfible for it to the proprietor,
receiving from him, at the fame time, the difference occa-
fioned in the value of the cloth by the dying.— S e c o n d l y , the reiteration
of the lkin drefled was incumbent on the ufurper; whence,
upon his deftroying'it, he is bound to give a confideration for it,
namely, the value;— in the fame manner as. where a borrower deftroys
the article borrowed; in which cafe he is refponfible for the
value.— It is to be obferved, however, that if the deftruaion of the
{kin take place whilft in the pofleffion of the ufurper, without his
bein'* the occafion of it, in that cafe, according to all our doftors, he
is not refponfible for it, whether he have dreffed it by the application
of fomething valuable, or otherwife. (With refpeft to what
is advanced by the two difciples, “ that the proprietor muft take
“ the value of the dreffed {kin from the ufurper, paying him after-
“ wards the increafe of value it has received from the dreffing,”— it
proceeds on the fuppofition that the value of the {kin and of the operation
o f dreffing is of different kinds,— as if the .{kin fhould be valued
in demurs, and the workmanfoip in dirms; for if both be eftimated in
the fame fpecies, the proprietor muft at once deduft from the value of
the lkin the value of the workmanfoip, and take the difference from
the ufurper; as it would be needlefs firft to receive the whole from
him, and then to pay back a part 0f i t . ) - T h e reafonmg oiHcmeefa
is, that the {kin in queftion has been rendered valuable by the workmanfoip
of the ufurper, namely, the dreffing, which is of a valuable
r nature,
nature, as he mixed with it valuable property;— (whence his right to
detain it until he receive the increafe of value from the dreffing.)—
T h e workmanfoip, therefore, is his right; and the lkin is, with re-
fpedf to its being valuable, a dependant of the workmanfoip, that
being the original;— and as the ufurper is not refponfible for the original,
namely, the workmanfoip, fo neither is he refponfible for the
dependant, namely, the {kin; in the fame manner as he is not refponfible
where the lkin is deftroyed in his poffeflion without his aft.
It is otherwife where the lkin is extant; for in fuch cafe it is incumbent
upon the ufurper to reftoreit to the proprietor, becaufe the reiteration
o f it is a confequent of the proprietor’ s right of property, and the {kin
is not a dependant of the operation of dreffing it, with refpeft: to right
of property, fince the property of the proprietor is eftablifoed in it prior
to the dreffing, although, whilft in that condition, it was not an article
of value;— in oppofition to the cafe of cloth, or the lkin of an animal
killed according to the prefcribed forms ; for the proprietor of
thefe is entitled to a compenfation from the ufurper, as both are articles
of value prior to the dreffing or dying, and confequently not dependant
upon the workmanfoip with refpeft; to their being valuable.
It is to be obferved that, in the cafe in queftion, (that is, where the
ufurper has dreffed the {kin with fomething of value, and it remains
extant in his pofleffion,) if the proprietor be inclined to leave it in the
pofleffion of the ufurper, and take from him a compenfation for the
value, fome have faid that it is not permitted to him fo to do, becaufe
o f the {kin being o f no value.— (It is otherwife in the cafe of dying
cloth, the dye being an article of value.)— Some, again, have faid
that this is not permitted to him according to Raneefa ;— but that according
to the two difciples it is permitted to him; becaufe when the
proprietor refufes to take back the drefled lkin, and, leaving it in the
pofleffion of the ufurper, demands from him a compenfation, the
ufurper has it not then in his power to reftore i t ; and the cafe is,
therefore, the ,fame as if it had been deftroyed, concerning which the
two difciples and Raneefa have difagreed.— Some have faid that, ac-
4 B 2 cording