Juristisches und Sonstiges (Wolfgang Auer diesmal) hat sich die ganze Woche mit Sprache befasst. Unter anderem ging es darum, dass es die Servitut, nicht das Servitut heißt. Der OGH führte aus (Geschäftszeichen 3Ob125/05m):

bq. Die irrige Auffassung, „Servitut” sei grammatikalisch sächlichen Geschlechts, kann wohl nur auf schwindende Lateinkenntnisse einerseits und die leider auch bei Verfassern von Wörterbüchern bestehende Unkenntnis der österreichischen Rechtssprache, andererseits zurückgeführt werden.

Siehe Filip-Fröschl und Mader, Latein in der Rechtssprache, Wien 1993, ISBN 3 7003 0991 0, eine 1999-Ausgabe gibt es auch:

bq. Servituten oder Dienstbarkeiten (servitus, -utis f.; Verbum: servio 4: dienen, belastet sein). Inhalte des Rechtes: der Eigentümer der belasteten Sache (meist Grundstück) muß eine bestimmte Einwirkung des Berechtigten dulden oder eine bestimmte eigene Einwirkung unterlassen. Die Belastung liegt auf der Sache, ein Eigentümerwechsel ändert an der Rechtstellung des Berechtigten nichts.

But why are servitudes (civil law) so often translated as servitudes and not as easements (common law)? What is the difference?

Here is a diagram of an easement from Barron’s Dictionary of Real Estate Terms:

Here we have a dominant tenement (herrschendes Grundstück) and a servient tenement (dienendes Grundstück), an easement (Grunddienstbarkeit) which is a right of way (Wegerecht) over the servient tenement – all common-law vocabulary similar to the Latin. The easement runs with the land (wirkt dinglich / folgt dem Grundstückseigentum).

(I agree with Francis Davey that the Wikipedia article, though not bad, is a bit confusing)

I can’t offhand find anything explaining why the common-law easement is not close enough to render the civil-law servitude. Horn, Kötz and Leser use servitude. The only thing I can think of is that the wider ramifications of each term vary – there are variant types in both cases, and these differ.

Incidentally, this week I used wayleave to refer to a right for electricity pipes and conduits (Durchleitungsrecht). But I only used it as an alternative in brackets. That’s another term I need to pin down.

LATER NOTE: I forgot to Google. This definition from answers.com looks good:

bq. The term servitude is also used in property law. In this context, servitude is used with the term easement, a right of some benefit or beneficial use out of, in, or over the land of another. Although the terms servitude and easement are sometimes used as synonyms, the two concepts differ. A servitude relates to the servient estate or the burdened land, whereas an easement refers to the dominant estate, which is the land benefited by the right. Not all servitudes are easements because they are not all attached to other land as appurtenances (an appurtenance is an appendage or that which belongs to something else).

FAZ: Neues Täterprofil soll Polizei zum „Döner-Mörder“ führen

The Scotsman

strafblog

Don’t let that gesture of innocence fool you:

Aus Stephan Handschug, Einführung in das kanadische Recht:

bq. In Kanada … hat diese Unterscheidung [zwischen Barrister und Solicitor] nur noch historische Bedeutung. Zwar findet sich die Differenzierung nach wie vor auf den Briefköpfen der meisten Anwaltskanzleien wieder. Dies hat allerdings vor allem traditionellen Gründe, da jedes Mitglied einer Rechtsanwaltskammer der jeweiligen Provinz sowohl die Tätigkeit eines Barristers als auch diejenige eines Solicitors ohne Einschränkungen wahrnehmen darf.

Recently, on a mailing list, a translator who rarely does legal texts asked the meaning of ‘have your signature witnessed by a lawyer or attorney or member of the town council’ (that wasn’t an exact quote). She knew there are two kinds of lawyers in England and Wales and wondered if these were them.

I don’t think I will now define all these terms: lawyer, attorney, barrister, solicitor, advocate, jurist, paralegal, legal executive and what have you.

Suffice it to say that the English division between barristers and solicitors (‘the divided legal profession’) was followed by some former colonies. Some didn’t follow it, some dropped it.

In Canada, there is now no distinction, but all lawyers can call themselves ‘barrister and solicitor’ – I’ve even seen ‘barrister, solicitor and attorney’. This is really confusing. So now I’ve found a picture of one and would like to link it as a reminder. It comes from the weblog of a Canadian lawyer the daily snivel (admirable cat content in the latest entry). Here it is, entitled Barrister and Solicitor.

bq. I’m pictured above in my legal robes, which are required court attire in the Superior Court and every appeal court, and you can’t be Called to the Bar without them. While some people simply borrow or rent theirs, I know I’ll be needing them sooner or later, and I wouldn’t feel like a proper lawyer if I didn’t have them ready for an unexpected trip to the Supreme Court (as happened to one of my mentors within a week of his first being Called). They cost me $500, all told, but I think they’re worth every penny scrimped and borrowed to afford them.

While YouTube is still online, here is a link to a video of the No Sanity Clause exchange between Groucho and Chico Marx in A Night at the Opera at the ContractsProf blog.
I quoted some of the text in an earlier entry.

(Via Law & Justice – and congratulations on the blog’s first anniversary)

The Domesday Book is now online, but at the moment unreachable, not surprisingly. A bit can be glimpsed in Google caches.
Wikipedia on the Domesday Book.
It can also be accessed here, but the actual excerpts can’t be downloaded free of charge.