(1281) to real property-such as ouster, trespass, with reference to the question whether, on nuisance, waste, subtraction, disturbance; the death of the person injured, or of the (3) torts to personal property, consisting (a) in the unlawful taking or detaining of or damage to corporeal personal property or chattels (see DETINUE; REPLEVIN; TROVER); or (b) in the infringement of a right to a patent, trade-mark, copyright, &c., (see INFRINGEMENT; PIRACY, 1); (4) slander of title; (5) deprivation of service and consortium. See MASTER AND SERVANT, & 3; PER QUOD. tortfeasor, his personal representatives can sue or be sued for the tort; the general rule being, that the right to sue, and the liability to be sued, for torts to property (including fraud. Twycross v. Grant, 4 С. P. D. 40,) passes to the personal representatives of the injured person, or of the tortfeasor, but that in other cases it does not, except where the death of the deceased was caused by the tort. See Dic. Part. 314, 402, 481; Stats. 3 and 4 Will. IV. c. 4;9 and 10 Vict. c. 93. See, also, ACTIO PERSONALIS, &c. 4. Fraud and negligence. -The second class includes deceit and fraud (q. v.), and negligence in the discharge of a private duty. Thus, if A., a stage-coach 27. The distinction between tort and proprietor, contracts with B. to carry his servant C., and, in performing his contract, is guilty of negligence which causes bodily hurt to C., and consequent damage, by loss of his services, to his master; then A. may be sued by B. for breach of contract, and by C. for negligence, i. e. for a tort. So, if a physician is guilty of negligence in treating a patient, he may be sued either for breach of contract or for tort.* This kind of tort is called a "tort arising out of contract," in opposition to a pure tort, e. g. an assault. Berringer v. G. E. R., 4 C. P. D. 163. contract is important with reference to the limitation of actions (q. v.), and in the law of bankruptcy, claims for damages from torts not being provable. See DEBT, & 11; also, DAMAGE; DAMNUM SINE INJURIA; INJURY; NEGLIGENCE; QUASI-TORT. TORT, (defined). 87 N. Y. 390. Tort a le ley est contrarie (Co. Litt. 158): Tort is contrary to the law. - Wrongful. Formerly certain modes of conveyance (e. g. feoffments, fines, &c.,) had the effect of passing not merely the estate of the person making the conveyance, but the whole fee-simple, to the injury of the person really entitled to the fee, and they were hence called 26. These divisions are of importance FEOFFMENT, 23; FINE, & 9. *3 Bl. Com. 165; Broom 672. At first sight it seems incorrect to make what is apparently a breach of contract equivalent to a tort, and that it would be more accurate to call this kind of injury a "quasi-tort," as is done by Mr. Underhill (p. 24). It is submitted, however, that the old classification is really correct. It is of course possible for a person who is about to travel by a stage-coach, or to undergo an operation, to stipulate that he shall be carried safely, or that the operation shall be skillfully performed; but not only is this never done exVOL. II. See pressly, but the parties do not as a rule even think of such a condition at the time. The duty on the part of the contractor, therefore, is not created by an actual contract, whether express or tacit, but is created by the law, and the breach of it is rightly called a "tort." The inaccuracy consists in also treating it as a breach of contract; but this is explained by the fact that in English law contracts and quasi-contracts are not distinguished. (See QUASI-CONTRACT.) See, however, the remarks in Dic. Part. 16 et seq. 4F