Scanned text contains errors.

On this page: Emansor – Embas – Embateia

/EMBATEIA.

emancipate a grandson, without emancipating the eon, and to emancipate the son without emancipating the grandson, or to emancipate them all. Justinian also (Nov. 89. c. 11) did not allow a parent to emancipate a child against his will, though it seems that this might be done by the old law, and that the parent might so destroy all the son's rights of agnation. But a man might emancipate an'adopted child against the will of the child (Inst. 1. tit. 11. s. 3). As a general rule the father could not be compelled to emancipate a child ; but there were some cases in which he might be compelled.

The emperor Anastasius allowed an emancipated child (under certain restrictions) to succeed to the property of an intestate brother or sister, which the praetor had not allowed ; and Justinian put an emancipated child in all respects on the same foot­ing as one not emancipated, with respect to such succession.

An emancipatio effected a capitis dmiinutio minima, inconsequence of the servile character (ser- vilis causa} into which the child was brought by such act. (Gains, i. 132, cStc.; Dig. 1. tit. 7; Cod. 6. tit, 57. s. 15; 8. tit. 49; Inst. 1. tit. 12; 3. tit. 5; Dirksen, UebersicJtt* &c. p. 278; Thibaut, System* &c., § 783, &c., 9th ed.) [G. L]

EMANSOR. [deser.tor.]

EMBAS (e/>t£as), a shoe worn by men (Stiidas, 5. t>.), frequently mentioned by Aristophanes (Equit. 321, 869, 8/2, Ecc. 314, 850) and other Greek writers. This appears to have been the most common kind of shoe worn at Athens (eu- reAes U7r<$5?7jua5 Pollux, vii. 85 ; compare Isaeus, de Dicaeog. Hered. 94). Pollux (/. c.) says that it was invented by the Thracians, and that it was like the low 'cothurnus. The embas was also worn by the Boeotians (Herod, i. 1:95), and probably in other parts of Greece. (Becker, Ckarikles, vol. ii. p. 372.)

EMBATEIA (^§ar€fa). In Attic law this word (like the corresponding English one, entry}, was used to denote a formal taking possession of real property. Thus, when a son entered upon the land left him by his father, he was said e/.igareveii', or /3a5i£ew eis to, TrarpoSa, and there­upon he became seised, or possessed of his in­heritance. If any one disturbed him in the en­joyment of this property, with an intention to dispute the title, he might maintain an action of ejectment, e|ouA7js 81/07. Before entry he could not maintain such action. 'E^ovXy is from e£i'A-Aejy, an old word signifying to eject. The sup­posed ejectment, for which the action was brought, was a mere formality. The defendant, after the plaintiff's entry, came and turned him off, effiyev €K t'/js 7?}s. This proceeding (called e^aywyty took place quietly, and in the presence of wit­nesses ; the defendant then became a wrong-doer, and the plaintiff was in a condition to try the right.

All this was a relict of -ancient times, when be­fore writs and pleadings and other regular processes were invented, parties adopted a ruder method and took the law into their own hands. There was then an actual ouster, accompanied often with vio­lence and breach of the peace, for which the per­son in the wrong was not only responsible to the party injured, but was also punishable as a public offender. Afterwards, in the course of civilization, violent remedies became useless and were discon­tinued ; yet the ceremony of ejecting was still kept

EMBLEMA.

up as a' form of law, being deemed by lawyers a' necessary foundation of the subsequent legal pro­cess. Thus at Rome, in the earlier times, one party used to summon the other by the words " ex jure te manum consertran yoco," to go with him to the land in dispute, and (in the presence of the praetor and others) turn him out by force. After­wards this was changed into the symbolical act of breaking a clod of earth upon the land, by which the person who broke intimated that he claimed a right to deal with the land as he pleased. We may observe also, that the English action of ejectment in this respect resembles the Athe­nian, that, although an entry by the plaintiff and an ouster of him by the defendant are supposed to have taken place, and are .considered necessary to support the action, yet both entry arid ouster are mere fictions of law.

These proceedings by entry, ouster, &c., took place also at Athens in case of resistance to an exe­cution ; when the defendant, refusing to give up the land or the chattel adjudged, or to pay the damages awarded to the plaintiff, by the appointed time, and thus being uTre/r/^uepos, i. e. the time having expired by which he was bound to satisfy the judgment, the plaintiff proceeded to satisfy himself by seizure of the defendant's lands. This he certainly might do, if there were no goods to levy upon ; though, whether it was lawful in all cases, does not appear. The Athenian laws had made no provision for putting the party, who suc­ceeded, in possession of his rights ; he was there­fore obliged to levy execution himself, without the aid of a ministerial officer, or any other person. If, in doing so, he encountered opposition, he had no other remedy than the €^ov\tjs <5i/€7;, which (if the -subject-matter was land) must have been grounded upon his own previous entry. The action could be brought against any one who impeded him in his endeavour to get possession, as well as against the party to the former suit. The cause of Demosthenes against Onetor was this: — Demo­sthenes having recovered a judgment against Apho-bus, proceeded to take his lands in execution. Onetor claimed them as mortgagee, and turned him out (e'l^'yez'-), whereupon. Demosthenes, con­tending that the mortgage was collusive and frau­dulent, brought the e^ovXys 6(/c??, which is called S'tKT) irpbs 'O^ropa, because the proceeding is in rem* and collateral to another object, rather than a direct controversy between the parties in the cause. The consequence to the defendant, if he failed in the action of ejectment, was, that (besides his liabi­lity to the plaintiff) he was, as a public offender, condemned to pay to the treasury a sum equal to the damages, or to the value of the property re­covered in the first action. While this remained unpaid (and we may presume it could not be paid without also -satisfying the party), he became, as a state debtor, subject to the disabilities of ari^ix. (Meier-,.^ft. Proc. pp. 372, 460, 748.) [C. R. K.] E'MBATES. [modulus.] EMBLE'MA (^e\rj/*o, e>i7rato>a), an inlaid ornament. The art of' inlaying (fj r^wn ^aia-tikji, Ath. xi. p. 488) was employed an producing beautiful works of two descriptions, viz.: — 1st, Those which resembled our marquetry, buhl, and Florentine mosaics; and 2dly, those in which crusts (crustae\ exquisitely wrought in relief and of precious metals, such as gold, silver, and amber, were fastened upon the surface of vessels or other