32 FEDERAL REPORTER.
knew, and had been judicially decreed to have known, belonged to
complainant. ,
It is not now as warrantor that we are considering the defendant’s
conduct, but as a person who, from motives springing from her own
advantage, has caused to the complainant pecuniary loss, and that,
too, when aware of her own wrong doing. From this fact a liability
springs up which is not necessarily satisfied by the redress given indi-
rectly through the machinery of warranty; i. c., the complainant may
recover from the defendant all the loss which she suffered for the en-
tire period during which she has been kept out of possession by the
defendant.
Of all the writers on the subject ofthe obligation to redress wrongs
and injuries none are more discriminating, or consider the matter in
broader relations, than Puffendorf in his Law of Nations. He states
(book 3, c. 1, § 3) the division of damage by the civilians into dam-
mtm, emergens (loss which one suffers by diminishing his present
goods) and lttcrunt cessans, (damage which one receives by loss of
gain which he might have made.)
"All hurt, spoil, or diminution of whatever is actually our own, and
all interception of wl1at we ought to receive," the same writer says,
entitles us to reparation. At section 4 he enumerates those who are
responsible for a wrong as comprising those who give any real assist-
ance in the act of damage, or who, by any antecedent motion or de-
fault, caused it to be undertaken, or who came in for any part of the
advantage; to those, he says, must be added all who hinder the duty
of restitution. He cites tl1e case of Probus, a prefect, who, under tl1e
Emperer Valentinian, did nothing but protect his clients in unlawful
action, and he was held to be responsible therefor; "for here," says
the author, "protection of a great patron, interposing, hindered them
from making good the damage they had been guilty of."
At the common law, at a time when its maxims were but an utter-
ance of the civil law in another tongue, the disseizor was liable for
the possession of his grantees and feoffees, and until the statutes of
Gloucester and Marlbridge he alone was liable, and after those stat-
` utes the tenants were liable to- the extent of the insolvency of the
disseizor. In construing the statute, it was held that the damages
should still be recovered against the disseizor, if he was able to
satisfy them. See a summary of the law on this point derived from
Bracton, in Prof. Stearns’ Treatise on lleal Actions, 389, 390.
See Pothier, Contract of Sale, Cushing’s translation, No. 127.
Now, in this case, the evidence establishes that the tenants have
been kept from making restitution, and the complainant from receiv-
ing it, solely by the defendant, and it is a case where every day of hin-
drance added fresh loss to complainant. _
- It must be that a defendant, clothed with such semi-sovereign
powers alike for repairing or committing injury, must render to this