In the formulary system of classical law the praetor prescribed the form in which the issue should be submitted to the judex, in the sense that he approved the issues agreed by the parties. These issues would be embodied in a formula, but the praetor was under no duty to see that it correctly stated the dispute between the parties, and the possible defences. A judex having been appointed and the formula having been issued and accepted by defendantlitis contestatio took place, and the parties were bound by the formula as by a contract. The judex was instructed or authorised to proceed in accordance with the formula.

Classification of Animals

In Roman law all animals are either wild or domestic.

(i) Wild: this category includes particularly those of an innate or natural feritas, and generally all animals not normally owned. Wild animals may, however, be owned and, as will be seen later, the owner may be under legal liability in respect of any damage done by them.

(ii) Domestic: these are normally owned. As a species they do not show feritas, though individually they may. Those which do show feritas are therefore regarded as acting contra naturam (of the species). So a horse which is a kicker, or a bull which gores, both of vicious disposition, are nevertheless governed by the rules relating to domestic animals; and a fortiori the domestic animal which has temporary lapses into feritas, e.g., the mare which is touchy, does not cease to be a domestic animal in law.

‘ … It is certain’, says Winfield, in writing of the liability for torts committed by servants of corporations, ‘that, whatever the law may be where the corporation has expressly authorised the commission of an ultra vires tort, no authority to the servant or agent to commit such a tort can be implied’ : and he illustrates his point by the well-known case of Poulton v. L. & S. W. Ry. Poulton, in terms of an arrangement which he had made with the railway company, was entitled to free carriage of a horse. At the end of the journey the local stationmaster demanded payment for the carriage of the horse; Poulton refused to pay, and the stationmaster detained him. The Court of Appeal held that the railway company was empowered to detain goods, but not persons, for non-payment of carriage; that accordingly they had no power to detain Poulton, even on the assumption that he had wrongfully taken the horse by train without paying; that there could be no authority for the arrest implied to the stationmaster; and that his employers were not liable for his tortious act.