[FEOFFMENT.] There was another mode of alienating things "mancipi," by the form called is jure cessio, which, according to Ulpian, was applicable also to things " nee man cipi." The in jure cessio was a fictitious action before a competent magistrate at Rome, or a praetor, or before a praeses in a province. The purchaser claimed the thing as his, and the seller either ac knowledged his claim or made no de fence, upon which the magistrate gave judgment for the purchaser. This form was in effect and was called • legis actio.' (Gaius, ii. 24.) Its great resemblance to the fictitious suit formerly in use in our own system, called a Fine, might lead to the conjecture that the notion of a Fine was taken by the early practitioners in our courts from the Roman Law ; and that this hypothesis is exceedingly pro bable will be the more apparent, the 11w ther any person examines into the connec tion between the early English and the Roman Law. The in jure cessio has ap
parently a closer resemblance to a Fine than the transactio of the Roman Law. to which some writers would refer as the origin of the Fine.
Mancipatio, as Gains observes (ii. 26), was more in use than the in jure cessio, inasmuch as it was easier to transact the business with the assistance of a few friends than to go before a praetor, or a praeses.
Easements (jury prrediorum, otherwise called servitzttes) could be transferred in the case of lands iu the city only by the cessio in jrire ; hut in the case of lands in the country, also by mancipatio. 13ut this observation applies only to Italic lands; in the provinces, rights of this kind, such as right of road, of convey ing water, &c., were matter of contract. [Essemr.wr.]