16

TRANSFER OF TANGIBLE MOVABLES

This chapter is concerned with transfer of movables, which is

often
often called particular aSSignment of movables, as distinguished
from general assignment, such as devolution of property on the
person, i.e. or distribution
death of a
bankruptcy.
succession, of assets in
Transfer of tangible movables, or particular assign-
ment of movable, means transfers inter vivos, such as sale, gift,
pledge.
While there appears to be almost universal acceptance of
a
or almost all matters
the principle that the lex silus governs all
such acceptance of any one
relating to immovables, there is no and intangibles. In fact,
principle relating to movables, tangibles
are confronted with conflicting
at the outset of our enquiry we it is
pronouncements, from which
theories and confusing judicial
The vital question is
well nigh impossible to deduce anything. allowed to determine all
Whether one system of law
should be
or whether
difforent
that arise in respect of movables, to
guestions different aspects of transfer, such as
to
aws should apply to material validity,
assignabilityof movables, to forma! validity,
to priorities, etC.

THEORIES

the lex domicilii, the

four theories, viz. law of
e r e exist as nmany as theory of d o m i c i l i i and
proper
the and
lex sits, the lex loci a c t u s lex
theories is that of
The oldest of these
ne ]aW theoiy.
West, t seems, is the proper The argument
oldest tlieory. be
the situs c a n
The omicile Theory: This isn o fixed situs; their Italian
has been the m o v a b l e s have medieval
the
shifted aat anyhetime by its
Therefore, personam.
personan.

Snifted owner. sequuntur

nmobilu sequuntur
of mobilu continent

statutists
This ctrinepropounded
Oca
the the
principle
p rinciple
not merely
on
States.'
the
Judicially,
it

Eurooe but had wideEngland and the

acceptance
Euroctrine United
oof
i n authorities
collected
all the (1973) 22
1 had C h e s t e r n i a n

eo he of
Von Bar, see note 1, w h e rc ntribuiion

his ime
488,
See alIs tiie
'ned

I.C.L.Q. 213.
 ATIONA LAW
was accepted in several cases between 1750-1830. In
Worswick,2 Lord Loughborough said, With respectInto Sill
the VN.
position of it, with respect to the transmission of di_
succession or the act of the party, it follows the l a e r by
this principle was applied to of the
person."3 Originally, to the universal the
assignment and, it seems, judges and jurists without
out giviTSa
thought to it, applied it to particular assignments also. giving muchich
In the contemporary world, the theory have few advocaten
has been judicially abandoned both in England and the tini
States
Cheshire says, " .
. I t is now generally
either party to invoke his lex domicilii inagreed that to allow
the case of a dicn
arising out of a transfer of a chattles would be
commercially
practicable and contrary both to natural
justice and to the normol
expectation of the
parties themselves. Graveson very aptly savs
. the chief defect of the domicile principle in this
complete unpredictability in a world where men ofconnection
is its
call, not
always with success, for certainly."o commerce
However,
theory to two situations:Graveson
favours the application of the
transit from one country to (i) when
the movable is in the course of
at the date of
assignment (e.g., goods delivered by post), so another
has no fixed situs between that it
the place of
imate destination. dispatch and that of its
a ship Another illustration of this situation is when
is sold in the course of its voyage on the
such a case reference cannot be high seas. "In
of the movable, and resort reasonably made to the actual situs
may be had to the law of domicile of
the assignor
or the lex actus of the assignment."8
self admits the limited Graveson him
movable came to restapplication of the theory by saying that i
the theory would not through some interruption in transit,
Graveson relates to apply. (ii) The second case advocated by
then
ent non-commercial
assignments, such as assign-
of property to trustees of a settlement.
a case
'domicile may still be one of He says that in
submitted that the several relevant factors." ItSucns
type of particular application of the domiciliary principle to
useful purpose andassignment of auy
it is better to movables is going
going to serve
serve no
abandon the theory entirely.
The lex actus theory : The lex actus or
also a
rejected theory in our contemporary lex loci actus theory
it has been world, though juaica
advocated in some cases
and there are
2.
som
2. (1791)1 Hy. B1. 665.
3. Ibid.
4.
5.
Cheshire,
Ibid.
p. 406.
6.
7.
Graveson, p. 472.
Tbid., at p. 471.
8. Ibid., at p. 473.
9.
Tbid.,
v.
at p. 473 reliance was
I.R.C., (1954) Ch. 364. made on
Upjohn,
vation in /veagh
J.'s observa
 415
lco
also advocate it.
advocate it. In Alcock
who nalsonal chattles,
Smith1o Kay, L.J.
v.
the validity of aobserved:
it is settled that
as to per
"as to notnot upon the transfer
depends,
upon law of the domicile of the
dcr1aw
law of the country in owner, but upon
the
the wncn transfer takes place."11 Most of
the
of private
Writers of
international
law
that the mere fact that a
have criticised this
theory.
Cheshiresa
transaction is
articular place is adequate reason for admittingcompletedd
no in
3 local law. "If, for instance, an Englishman executes the control
a docu-
ent in Edinburgh granting a lien over his furniture in London
to
another Englishman, it is unthidkable that this slight and
accidental perhaps
connectiod with Scotland should require the possessory
rights of the parties to be determined by Scot law."12 Graveson
gives another example to illustrate this:13 A and B are flying from
London to Prague.
London During the fiight A sells to B his wife's
iewellery in England. By English law he cannot do so, even though
assuming he can do so under the law of any of the countries he is
fying. He advances the illustration by saying that suppose at the
very time A's wife in England sells her jewellery to X and, under
English law, sale confers valid title on X. The lex loci actus theory
fails.14 In support of the theory Graveson says (and possibly
nothing else be said in its favour). "It is not unreasonable to
can
suppose that the validity of an act should be governed by the law
of the place where it is performed, for reasonable men expect to
which they may carry out
comply with the law of any country inEnglish
their transaction."S The predominant authority is against
this theory.
lex situs is the most
Thelex situs theory : In our times the
been accepted in English judicial pro-
favoured theory. It has
of writers. In Re Anzinanil6
nouncements and by a majority doubt that with
think anybody can
ugham, J. said: "I do
not must be the law
goods, the law applicable
not be
a r d to the transfer of movable is situate. BusinesS could
where English judge, Devlin,
n e country Another English judge,
so." which, as a
Carried on if that were not doubt that it is the lex situs
when effected
J. said "There is little of
movables

general rule, the

transfer Westlake, Dicey,
le, :g o v eThe
rns
writers like Savignly,
theory.
Westlake said,
said,
Contractually."17 and Wolff
support
this
incorporeal

O u e e c n m i n t h o f f
acquisition
property
of property
in h e m as pledges
them
t
as
o r rights
Questio as to transreevtensive real ig
transfer
real
extensive

less
movables, or of any

10. (1892) 1 Ch. 238.

11. Ibid., at p. 267.
 PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL
LAW
or lien, are generally to be decided by the lex situs"
Wickworth Ltds.18 the ChanceryIn
Christe, Mason and Woods Ltds.8a the Cha.n
v.
Division took for granted that under English private
situs."
law title the goods is determined by the lex situs of
of the internatic
the goods,
Dicey's Rule 152 was to the same effect.19 In Diceysds.
edition, Dicey'hass eighth
Morris has retained this theory, though the rule
worded differently.20
The lex situs theory obviously has its advantages,
which is that in most of the cases it provides a single and
chief of
easilv
ascertainable system of law based on the focal point of transaction
namely, the goods with which the transaction deals.2 "Moreover
its right of control satisfies the expectations of the reasonable
man
for a party to transfer naturally concludes that the transaction will
be subject to the law of the country in which the
is at present situated."22
subject-matter
Morris who supports the lex silus theory and is critical of pro-
per law theory says that a distinction has to be drawn between the
contractual effects of transfer and its proprietary effects. The
former depends upon the proper law of the contract but the latter
on the lc.x silus. He says that in connection with transfer of pro-
perty the propriet ary effects of the transfer are more important
than the contractual effects and gives three reasons for this first
the transferor may fraudulently deliver the goods to a third
party.
instead of to the other party to the contract. It is true that in
this case transferor is liable in damages for breach of contract,
but then, that does not conclude the question of title. In whom
does the title in the transferred goods vests ? Secondly, in a case a
transferor becomes insolvent before the delivery of the goods to
the transferee, according to the good
proper law the property in in B
Would vest in the transferee, but according to the lex
situs in the
transferor's trustee in bankruptcy. Thirdly, in case of gifts,
case of
transferor is not under any contractual giits.he
obligation to perfect the
transferee's favour of the
title.23 The strongest argument in favour
situs be
lex is that under other system, the adjudication aen
no
effective.24 Morris maintains that in the converse case i.e.
the court is apply
Pply
sitting
the situs of good, also the court should ot
at
the conflicts rules and not the domestic law.25
when
The ler situs theory break down vi.
totally in one case, y
the goods are in transit. Graveson says that this s i t u a t i o n
is me
met

18. Westlake, s. 150.

(1980) I AJLE R. 1121.
TRA
NSFER OF TANGIBLE MOVABLES
417
the mercant1le
bytnuch goods;practlce OFreating the normal documenta
itleT
mselves, such as, bills of landing, as
gooo so that in eifect the reprenseting the
fhat of the document of title.o In those relevant situs is
cases where no generally
deeds exist, the lex situs theory
cannot such title
acituation Morris admits of an exception: work and to mect such
andtheir
their situs iS "If goods are in transit,
situs casual or not known,
valid and effective by its transfer which is
a
effective.27 proper law will (semble) be valid
and
The Proper Law Theory
theory, Cheshire says, . : Admitting the virtues of the lex situs
. . It is
going too far to say that every
type of question must be submitted to the law of the situs and
to that law alone."
On this premises, he
proper law thus : the law "that propounds the theory of
be chosen to govern
may questions
arising out of the transfer of movables is the law the
which the transfer has the most real of country with
the lex actus, i.e., the connection or more shortly,
proper law of the transfer, analogous to the
proper aw of the contract."28 The ascertainment of theproper
aw would not present any difficulty, if the
proper law and the lex
situs is the same. But the difficult case will be where it is not so.
Cheshire himself gives the following example: A, resident and
domiciled in England, sells goods lying in a Naples warehouse to
B, a resident and domiciled in Holland. From these facts alone
e cannot say what will be the proper law of the transfer "Before
cOuld reach a decision the court would require to know, inter
a:where was the transfer effected ? I freduced to writing, was
drafted in terms peculiar to English or Dutch law? Were the
80ods only temporarily in Italy 229 Cheshire does not give any
answer. Probably, the proper law theory cannot give an answer
Answer.
to a situatibn like this. Cheshire himself admits that the lex situs
of the original parties to a transfer
8Ovens questions between one obtained derivative title from the other
uda third person who has the
party, but he maintains that proper law of the transfer, andd
noththe
t e lex situs, governs the validity and eiect of transfer when
thereto.0 Morris
he question arises betwesa the otiginal parties
Who is critical of proper law theory this criticism we have noted in
is in favour of applying it to
Connection with the lex situs theory)
80ods in transit.

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY
law re-
The rules of English and Indian private international
still in the formative
lating to transfer of tangible movables are
 418
PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAWw
stage. The controversy
is still among writers,
raging as to which as we
contest is between the law should govern, though have
already seen
proper law theory. We protagonist of the lex situs theorytheandmain
the
may discuss the present
following three heads law under the
(a) matters arising between
parties to the transfer,
(b) matters arising from the transfer which
ties, and affect third Dar.
(c) certain special types of transfer.
Matters arising between the Parties to Transfer
As has been seen earlier in
respect of transfer of property,
two main questions may arise between the parties to the transfer:
(a) contractual question, and (b)
mer is proprietary
obviously governed by the proper lawquestions.
The for
of the contract and
We are not concerned with it here. It is the latter question with
which we are concerned. The
ween the
question is: if a dispute arises bet.
parties as to title to property or as to
possessory rights
to property, which law should
govern the matter ? In Inglis v.
Usherwood,32 an English merchant purchased some goods in Russia
through his factor and ordered him to ship the goods to England.
The goods were loaded on a vessel which the English merchant
had chartered and of which
the defendant was the captain. When
the gocds were on the board of the
to know of the
ship, the Russian factor came
bankruptcy of the English merchant and conse
quently ordered the captain to deliver up the cargo, which the cap
taincomplied. Under the Russian law the action of the factor
was proper, but it was not so under English law, as under English
law property in goods pased to the merchant on being slippea
abroad his own charatered vessel.
This is also the Indian law.
The English court held that the Russian law
applied. It is interest
ing to uote that both the lex situs and proper law were Russian.
Therefore, the judgment can be marshalled in support of botn
theories. In Cammell v. Sewell34 on the order of an English mer
chant, residing in England, his Russian agent shipped a cargo
deals on board a Prussian vessel owned and commanded oy
Prussian captain. The goods were consigned to the Englishmer
carried oto
chant under an ordinary bill of lading and were to be carried
Hull. On the coast of Norway the vessel was wrecked, but the
cargo was safely brought to the shore of Norway. Under the law
of Norway the captain of the vessel in such circumstances wasr
ponsible to the owners if he sold goods improperly, but nonetn
less he had power to sell the cargo. so as t o pass good t a i n
bona fde purchaser. The goods were in fact sold by the captai"
to a bona fide purchaser who brought the goods to England.
32. (1801) 1 East 515.
33. Sees. 23(2), Sale of Goods Act, 1980.
5 & N. 728.
34. (1858) 3 H. & N. 617, on appeal, (1860) H.
RANSFER OF TANGIBLE MOVABLESs
419
gland, the
English merchant brought a n action of
The court said that law of trover for
them. Norway applied and
pca and therefore
the action o f trover failed. It was observed, "If personal pro
T is disposed of in a manneT binding
country where it is, that disposition is according to the law of
binding everywhere; and
THdo not think that it makes any difference that the
wrecked, and not ntended to be sent to the country goodswhere
were
were
they
were sold."

Cheshire favours the application of proper law.35 As hag been

seen earlier Morris propagates the
though he is application of the lex situs,
for the application of the total renvoi theory.36
Question affecting Third Parties
Theproblem that arise under this head is: Suppose A an
Englishman purchases a Chinese made car in Pakistan and brings
it to India. Now suppose, by Indian law such a purchase is not
valid. Nonetheless, A's title in the car will be
recognized as it is
recognized under the lex situs. Now suppose, A takes the car
from B, the dealer in Pakistan, for a trial run, and
brings it to
India and despite several demands, does not return it to B. At
this stage the title of B will be recognized in India. But
suppose
A Sells it to C, an Indian who is a bona fide purchaser, under the
circumstances that are covered under s. 30, Indian Sales of Goods
Act,
Act, 1930 (or s. 25, English Sales of Goods Act, 1893 or
SS. 2, 8 or
or 9, English Factor Act, 1889), then the title
acquired by C will be respected and given effect to over the titl
of B, if the lex situs is to govern the matter. There seems to be
Ieast controversy on this matter and the judges and writers appear
law. We
to be unanimous that the lex situs is the Cammell v. Sewell.37 We had
governing
already discussed the English authority, The
but it cannot
rule obviously causes hardship to the originaB owner,
be helped.38
the lex situs
Cheshire also holds the view that in such
cases

should govern.
govern. He says, ". . in this type
of case logic prin- and
ould .

The lex situs must pre-

ple must certainly yield to expediency.
Vail on practical grounds."9 Wolff says,"As theplace a thing

of rights over it, everybody concern-

Situate is the natural centre
expected to reckon with the law of
such
with the things may be it is now that
place."40 sums up the position by saying
Cheshire of movables
Stablished that the effect of a particular assignmnentwhere they are
the law of the country
1sgoverned exclusively by
c8overned
of assignment.
would be divested
An owner would
ouated at the time
420
PRIVATE INTERNATIONAI.
of his title to movables if LAW
they
there assigned in circumstances
are taken to
a foreign count
a valid title to the suficient by the local law tnd
assignee.
lex situs overrides carlier and
The title recognized by the fo
inconsistent titles, no mattn
what law they have been
reated. Cheshire says that this by
to derivative title also. Cheshire? and Dicey and appliee
for the application of the doctrine of
convoi, i.c. Morris
the lex
means the law that the court at the situs will apply to situe
before it.4 the
Special Types of Transfers
Gifis In Indian law gifts inter vizos of movables may be
ted by a registered instrument efes.
and attested by at least to
signed by or on
behalf of the domor
witnesses or by delivery.45 Under Enalith
law gift of chattels must be confirmed
under seal. An oral gift which
by deliveiy or executed
has not been followed by delivery
of possession cannot be enforced as contract. The question is
which law applies to gifts ? Lex situs or
words, when does the property pass to proper law. Or, in other
the
under which law ? Cheshire gives ah illustrationtransferee, and if so,
blem. "If merely by words of present to explain the pro-
gift spoken in London, an
Englishman purports to pass to another the ownership of a hore
Kept at the stables in Paris, no title whatsover will pass to the
donee. He will be frustrated by the
is
English rule that a gift of
chattels nulity unless
confirmed by delivery or £xccuted under
seal.. Even if the French law were to have a less rigorous rule, i
would not avail the donee."46 These are the facts of Cochrane v.
Moore,47
Moore.". The case was decided according to English law, but then
the French law was not pleaded.43 Dicey and Morris say that by
the French law, the law of the situs of the horse, words of tne
pass the title to the donee. Thus, Cheshire favours the
of proper law to such gifts, as he insists that as betweenappiica
the paruo
the proper law determines whether the
property in goods nas P
ed to the other party. Morris, on the other hand, favours
application of the lex situs. Cheshire too would favour appica
tion of the lex situs if the
donor sells the horse to a third Pa r e
Donationes Mortis Causa: Donationes Mortis
cognized both in the Indian and English law. Section Causd,
1954f the
Indian Succession Act, 1925 lays down that a
person may
41. Cheshire, p. 412.
42. Ibid,p. 414
43. Dicey and Morris, p. 548. i n supper

4 536 "
Cheshire Dulaney v. Merry and Sons, (1901) 1 K.B.
of this proposition
45. Section 123, Transfer of Porperty Act, 1882.
46. Cheshire, p. 411.
Under

47. (1890) 25 Q.B.D. 57.

48. The facts of this case are also given in Dicey's Coniict
Rule 81, in illustration 4 and the learned editor's comm
donee) is (semble) the owoer of the horse." Dicey, p. 34
 O TANOUBLS MOVABLES
T R A N S P E R

421
bygift made nade in contemplation of death, of any movable
hy gift mnid
which he could dispose of by will. property
Delivery
of possession is
neces
W
sary.Such gifts do not take effect if the donor
Such gifts recovered from
$aryess during which it was made or if the
donor survived the
donee. Such gifts
are regarded as inter
gifts e
Donationer mortis r vivos not testa-
vivos and not testa-
mentary
disposition. Donationes
are also recognized in Muslim law, but causa, tgiftconsidered
*they are muraz-ul-maut
part
of testamentary disposition. In English law also donationes mortis
ausa are regarded as gifts inter vivos. The English law applies the lex
Cu determine the nature of the transaction in mortis
causa. In Re Korvine's Trusts, a person, domiciled in the Soviet
donationes
Union and resident in England, made a gift of his movables situa-
ted in England to take aifecton his death. By the law of the
Soviet Union, the lex domicilii, the gift was void, but the English
court applied the lex sifuS (or lex actus) and held the gift valid.
From this case interence seems to be that the capacity to make a
donationes mortis causa, the form of the gift and the material vali-
dity are all to be governed by the lex situs. In this case, inciden-
tally the proper law of the gift was also English law. On the
other hand, in Re Carven's Estates0 a different approach was made.
In this case testarix who died domiciled in England made a
a
donationes morits causa of moneys situated in Monaco. Russell,
J. considered the matter as of testamentary disposition and applied
testarix at the time of
English law, being the lex domicilli of the held that
her death. But the learned judge further what was the
dominion must be determined by
the law of
necessary to pass the and he was satisfied that tho
Monaco, the lex silus of moneys, transferred to the
in the moneys has been validly
domination
donee according to the lex situs.
The difficulty
about the goods in transit
Goods in Transit: situs and
and
fixed situs; they have a shifting situsstated
they have
problem may besale
that no
IS The
eretore the lex situs cannot govern. in the of
Bangladesh for transported
contract
into a
nus: A and B
enter
Calcutta
warehouse to be sold
certain goods lying in a are
are in transit, they
While the goods lex situs
The lex
The
is
silus is
throughthe road. should govern.
someone else.
Which law been almost
almost unani
unani-
to
OSomeone domicilii has been
The lex transactions, even when
Out of the question. commercial in case
and in case
test in is the same; the same; and
and purchaser is be: whose
as a
U s l y rejected seller
e domicile,
of the would place o
domicile further question the stipulated test, Lord
then the law of this
derent, The to
vendor's or
vendee's?
ted.
suggested.
Objecting
prepared
to hold that
been
destinatio
destination has also
" "I] aam
also becu not P
m not rt in one cou
to a port in
said:
country, one
which
Watson very
Watson very pertinon dhio is destineuhe bill
pertinently
ship is of lading
bill of lading wnich
destined

On
whenever the
the cargo
cargo o
of a
of the cargo
cargo w
the goods must
with the must
in cvery
in every
c v must
of the goods
the the of the
p r o p e r t y of
owner the ship where

the dealing
gS of the propertyof the locCus

and carries the law

represents
nts g o v e r n e d by
or
othe
MUnirY
be
 is to PRIVATE INTERNATÍONAL LA
unload."s1 So
any case. The reason far the question has not arisen
which symbolize the be that the bill of ladingdirectly
seems to
documents
dent dealings. Morris or other
treats thisownership
are
case as an capable of indene
general principle that the lex situs governs the exception to the
and advocates the transfer
of proper law. The of movahe
application
propounds this rule very re_ervedly. He learned editor
noted that this says "It
Exception has a somewhat limited should be
expressed in positive terms only, and does not scope. It is
which is invalid or inetfective assert that a
transfer
by its proper
treated as invalid or ineffective in law will necessarily be
when the goods have come to a rest England. Nor Nor does it apply
as when a definite state
in the apply
a ship
is wrecked and the
cargo is transit,
saved."92 To the
situation contemplated in the last
would apply.53 Cheshire sentence, the lex situs, it seems,
suitable to govern
questions
says"Theproper law is, no doubt,
cular transaction, but dependent upon the effect of a parti.
scarcely
truth again is that no one law canapposite to every question.
The
be made the exclusive
ef disputes arising out of a arbiter
transfer of goods in itinere. The
problem must be broken down. A dispute between
a particular
transaction, as, for example, a mortage the parties to
of the goods
granted by the assignee, will be governed by the proper law of the
transaction. If the movables comes to rest
a dealing with them, as where sufficiently to admit of
they are seized by creditors in
accordance with the local law or wrongfully sold by the carrier,
the question of title must be clearly determined
by the lex situs. t
the transit 1s by sea in one ship, there is much to be said for
applying the law of the flag."s4
The Ship If a ship on high seas is transferred, the question
is which law is to govern ? It should be noted that the ship is a
very movable objcct. The sane question is likely to arise in
respect of air-crafts which are sold or transferred in any other
mode. In Dicey's Conflicts of Laws, fifth edition, the law of the
flag of the ship was advocated.35 The dificulty in this test ies
respect of composite states. Therefore, the law of flag wou
indeed meanif it has any meaning-the law in force at the por
ot the ship's registration. It should be noted that the employnci
or the law of ship's flag is a fiction of law-a means of ascerta
af fixing situs of an otherwise very movable thing. Therefore,i
Therelo
ort the
theship acquires a silus in terr.torial waters or at some por
actual situ
fiction no longer remains necessary, and the law of the acti
ofthe ship should be applied. This is the view takenA
English courts. In Liverpool Marine Credit Co. v. Hunter,"
$1. Inglis v. Robertson, (1898) A.C. 616 at p. 627.
52. Dicey, p. 550.
53. Camnell v. Seuell, (1860) 5 H. & N. 728.
54 Cheshire, p. 419.
55. Dicey, Conflict of Laws, 5th ed., p. 996.
56. (1867) L.R. 2 Ch. App. 282.
 OP TANGBLE MOVABLES 423
tRANSPER
Englishman, mortgaged a ship to B, another Englishman, in
London. When the ship was in New Orleans, then P, a creditor
of A got it attached for his debt. Under the law of New Orleans
the mortgage of the ship was invalid. To prevent the ship being
sold
sold in execution, B gave a bondP. Later on B filed a suit for
to
injuction to prevent P from getting the bonds enforced. The
House of Lords applied the lex situs of the ship and held that the
bond was enforceable.57

Negotiable Instruments: In the modern law negotiable instru

ments, such as bills of exchange, cheque, etc. are regarded for the
movables. They are subject to
purpose of assignment as tangible
numerous successive assignments. The intangible nature of right
into the
to payment of money inherent in them has been merged
tangible nature of the document which has come to represent the
title to such right. We shall discuss them in Chapter 21.