Excellent question – and the answer connects directly and profoundly to everything we have been discussing. There are three categories of statute in the classical civil law and private international law tradition, and their distinction maps precisely onto the ens reale / ens legis analysis.
The Three Categories of Statute
The classification originates in 13th century Italian jurisprudence, developed by the jurist Bartolus of Saxoferrato as a means of resolving conflicts between the laws of different city-states. It was subsequently adopted across the civil law tradition and, in modified form, influenced the common law approach to private international law. The three categories are:
1. Statuta Realia – Real Statutes
A real statute is one which relates to a thing, in contradistinction to such as relate to a person.
Real statutes concern things – property, land, goods, rights over physical objects. They attach to the thing itself, wherever it may be, and are governed by the law of the place where the thing is situated – the lex situs or lex loci rei sitae. A real statute travels with the thing. It does not follow the person.
Examples include laws governing the ownership, transfer, and inheritance of land; laws concerning mortgages and encumbrances on real property; and laws dealing with chattels and goods as objects of rights.
The critical characteristic of a real statute is that it is thing-centred. Its subject is the object, not the person associated with it.
2. Statuta Personalia – Personal Statutes
Personal statutes concern persons – their status, capacity, rights, and obligations as legal subjects. They attach to the person and, in the classical theory, follow that person wherever they go. A personal statute travels with the man. It does not stay with the land.
Statutes concerning persons dealt with people and applied to persons domiciled within a territory. The statutes of that particular territory applied to such domiciled persons even when they went to other territories.
Examples include laws governing legal capacity – whether a person may contract, sue, marry, make a will; laws governing the status of minors, incompetents, or those under legal disability; family law; and laws governing personal rights and obligations that flow from a person’s status rather than from any transaction concerning property.
The critical characteristic of a personal statute is that it is person-centred. Its subject is the legal person and their attributes as a legal subject.
3. Statuta Mixta – Mixed Statutes
Mixed statutes are both personal and real because they concern personal matters and property.
Mixed statutes are those that cannot be cleanly assigned to either the personal or the real category because they involve both persons and things in a relationship with each other. The law of succession is a classic example: it concerns both the property of the deceased (a thing) and the rights of heirs and legatees (persons). Contract law has mixed characteristics: a contract concerns obligations between persons but may also affect property.
In the classical theory, mixed statutes presented the greatest analytical difficulty, because the question of which law should govern them – the law following the person or the law following the thing – could not be answered without first determining which element was primary.
Why This Matters for the Analysis We Have Been Developing
The three-category classification maps directly onto the distinctions we have been drawing throughout this article.
A real statute – directed at a thing – engages the legal construct associated with that thing. It operates in rem. It does not require the presence of a particular person. It operates on the property itself, wherever it may be and whoever may be associated with it.
A personal statute – directed at a person – engages the legal construct of the person: their status, their capacity, their legal identity as a subject of law. It is this category that most directly raises the question at the heart of our analysis: which person is the statute directed at? The ens reale – the living man – or the ens legis – the legal construct bearing his name?
This is not a rhetorical question. A statute that governs the capacity of persons – their ability to contract, to hold property, to appear in proceedings – is a personal statute. It attaches to the persona. And the question of whether the living man has accepted, or is properly identified with, that persona is precisely the question that appearing as ens reale raises.
A man who appears as ens reale and declines identification with a particular legal construct is effectively saying: your personal statute attaches to the persona. Establish that the persona is properly mine – that I have knowingly accepted it – before you proceed to bind me by its terms.
The mixed statute raises a further dimension. When a man stands in relation to an estate – as settlor, trustee, or beneficiary – the estate itself is the subject of real statutes: laws governing the property, its transfer, its administration. But the man’s role within that estate is governed by personal statutes: laws governing his capacity to act as trustee, his obligations as settlor, his entitlements as beneficiary. The document we examined in Note II – insisting on precise nomenclature and refusing joinder between the living man and his various legal capacities – is in essence a practical application of this distinction. It separates the real from the personal, the thing from the man, the legal capacity from the real being.
The Deeper Implication
The three-category classification illuminates something further that our analysis has been approaching. Modern statute law in Australia and elsewhere does not typically announce itself as “personal” or “real” in the classical sense. But the underlying distinction remains operative. Every statute that purports to bind a person does so by engaging a legal construct – a persona – to which the obligations attach. The question of whether that construct is properly identified with the living man before the court is never asked explicitly in modern proceedings, because the assumption of identity is made without examination.
The classical categorisation of statutes as real, personal, or mixed was developed precisely to ask that question: what is this law directed at? A thing? A person? Or both? And if a person – which person, under which law, by what right?
A man who understands these categories is equipped to ask, with classical legal precision: is this statute real – directed at a thing – or is it personal – directed at a legal construct bearing my name? If it is personal, on what basis is my legal construct properly identified? And if it purports to be mixed – to bind both the thing and the man simultaneously – which element is primary, and has each been properly established?
These are not eccentric questions. They are the questions that the oldest and most sophisticated tradition of legal analysis – the tradition from which Bouvier drew, and from which the common law itself inherited its vocabulary – built its entire architecture of private international law upon.
Mobilia sequuntur personam; immobilia situm. Movables follow the person; immovables follow the place.
This ancient maxim captures the real / personal distinction in a single sentence. Movable property – res mobilis – follows the law of the person’s domicile. Immovable property – res immobilis – follows the law of the place where it sits. The person and the thing are governed by different laws, operating on different principles, following different subjects through the world. They are never, in classical legal analysis, simply the same.
Last Updated 6 months ago
Views: 184