their own property according to their liking, they are able also to agree together for any reasons whatever as to the method by which the property is to be used and by this agreement to limit the use of the same by definite conditions. Therefore, since agreements must be observed, in this case the individuals are not able to use the property of a corporation except upon those conditions by which its use has been limited. Which was the second point.
So in forests fit for cutting which belong to some district, individuals can cut as great a supply of wood as they need, if indeed there shall be an adequate supply of wood. If, however, in the opposite case, it has been laid down by a definite provision, how much each one is allowed to cut, each one ought to be content with just that amount. But in a public theatre individual citizens may look on, as shall have seemed best to each. And in the same way individuals can hurl javelins on the field used for javelin practice, and bathe in the public bath.
§ 95. Who are restrained from it
§ 88 h, and § 112, part 2, Jus Nat.
§ 130, part 2, Jus Nat.
No one can use the goods of a corporation who is outside the corporation, unless that be allowed him by the consent of the corporation. For the goods of a corporation are in the mixed common holding of the corporation. Therefore, since those who are in a mixed common holding may in their own right exclude all who are outside the corporation, in like manner no one can use the goods of a corporation who is outside the corporation. Which was the first point.
§ 94, Note 2.
Nevertheless, since all together can dispose of the use according to their liking, as we have just proved, it is not to be doubted that those who are in a corporation can by common consent grant to an outsider any use of the goods of a corporation. Which was the second point.
So no one can feed cattle in a common pasture, or cut grain with a sickle in the common meadow, who is outside the corporation, unless that is allowed him by the corporation. But nothing stands in the way of granting this, since it concerns only those who now are in the corporation, that no one outside may feed his cattle in the common pasture or cut grain with the sickle in the common meadow.
[print edition page 82]
§ 96. Of the prohibition of the proper use of the property of a corporation
§ 94.
§ 336, part 2, Jus Nat.
No one who is in the corporation can without wrong be restrained from using the property of the corporation as it suits him. For suppose some one who is in the corporation is restrained from the use of the property of the corporation permitted by the provision which sets bounds to its use. Since the individuals who are in the corporation have the right of using and enjoying the property of the corporation, either in general, as shall seem best, or by that provision by which the use is limited, his right is taken from him without his consent. But one’s right cannot be taken from him without his consent. Therefore no one who is in a corporation can be restrained from using the property of the corporation in the manner which seems best. Which was the first point.
§ 239, part 1, Phil. Pract. Univ.
§ 859, part 1, Jus Nat.
Therefore, since if he is restrained, his right is taken from him, as demonstrated, consequently that happens contrary to his right, and since he who does what is contrary to his right, does him a wrong; if any one in a corporation is restrained from using the property of a corporation in a proper manner, that is a wrong to him. Which was the second point.
So one cannot without wrong be restrained from cutting in a forest ready to cut the quantity of wood which the law allows to the individuals who are in the corporation, nor from cutting in accordance with his need, if it shall have been allowed generally to every one to cut that quantity of wood which he needs.
§ 97. Whether a right in the property of a corporation can be transferred to another
§ 12, part 3, Jus Nat.
§ 11, part 3, Jus Nat.
By nature nothing prevents any one from transferring, as he likes, the right which he has in the property of a corporation, to any other person whomsoever and in any way he pleases: it is still possible to reach a different agreement. For since any one can transfer any right whatsoever to any other person as he likes and in the way that shall seem best to him, nothing by nature prevents any one from transferring, as he likes, the right which he has in the property of a corporation, to any other person whomsoever, and in any way he pleases. Which was the first point.
[print edition page 83]
§ 170, part 1, Phil. Pract. Univ.
§ 118, part 1, Phil. Pract. Univ.
But since what is allowed, we are not compelled to do, consequently it is not necessary that we should do it; it is left to our free will to do or not to do as shall have seemed best. Therefore, although nothing by nature prevents any one from transferring, as he likes, the right which he has in the property of a corporation, to any other person whomsoever and in any way he pleases, as shown above, nevertheless it can be agreed otherwise. Which was the second point.
So it is plain that by the law of nature a right in the property of a corporation can none the less be transferred to a stranger than to an associate, or another who is in the same corporation, as well by lucrative title, when given for nothing, as by onerous title, when granted on such terms that something should be given in exchange, both for a fixed time, and at will, either as a whole or in part. So if any one can pasture a hundred sheep in the common pasture, he can transfer to another the right to feed thirty, while he himself feeds seventy. Likewise he can sell or give to another hay due to him from the common meadow, or he can exchange it for something else. But if indeed it shall have been determined that he cannot feed more than a hundred sheep in the common pasture and none except his own; even if he have only fifty sheep, nevertheless he cannot grant to another permission to pasture fifty others in the same place, nor can he rent out his right of pasturing one hundred sheep. Moreover it is readily apparent in this case that the right of pasturing fifty sheep, which he does not use, by no means accrues to the others, who themselves in fact are not able to pasture more than a definite number.
§ 98. Of the ownership and use of public property
§88.
§ 129, part 2, Jus Nat.
Public goods are in the ownership of the whole people, but the use of them belongs to the individuals without distinction, according of course as there shall have been need to any one of them. For the public goods have been brought under the mixed community holding of the whole nation or people and have remained there. Therefore, since goods in a mixed community holding are in the ownership of the corporation, but the use of them belongs to the individuals without distinction, as of course there shall have been the need of the same to each, public goods
[print edition page 84]
are in the ownership of the whole people, but the use of them belongs to the individuals without distinction, as of course each one shall have need of them.
§ 88.
§§ 88, 94.
§ 112, part 2, Jus Nat.
So, for example, a river is in the ownership of the whole people, or is the property of the people, nevertheless any one of the people as he likes can sail or fish
