立教法学88号1Word文档下载推荐.docx

立教法学88号1Word文档下载推荐.docx

《立教法学88号1Word文档下载推荐.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《立教法学88号1Word文档下载推荐.docx（15页珍藏版）》请在冰点文库上搜索。

privatelaw,whichislargelybasedonCivilLawsystem.Nordidthedrafters

sawitasacontradictionthatthefinalActcontainedanumberofprovisions

thatprovideremediesofinremnature.Rather,thoseprovisions,insertedat

differentphasesofdrafting,reflectthedraftersʼpragmaticresponsetothe

shiftingneedsofthetime,suchastheneedtopreventthecreationoftrustsfor

abusivepurposes,torestrainthetrusteesfromabusivepractices,andto

encourageandregulatetrustbusinesses.

Thispaperaimstoillustratethepragmatismunderlyingtheconceptionof

trustsinJapanbyexaminingthelinkbetweensomeofthemajordraft

provisionsandthevariousaspectsofdraftersʼthinkingatdifferentdrafting

phases.ItwillbeginbydiscussingatPart1thedevelopmentpriortothe

draftingofcomprehensivetrustcode.Part2containsthemaindiscussionof

thedraftingprocess,whichbeganinthe1910sandleduptotheenactmentof

theTrustAct1922.Duringthisperiod,theinitialdraftwasamendedona

numberoftimestoaccommodatetheshiftingneedsofthesociety.Finally,Part

3examineshowthefinalproduct,theTrustAct1922,hasshapedthetheory

andpracticeofJapanesetrustsintheensuingdecades.

立教法学第88号（2013）

218（97）

1.ReceivingtheIdeaofTrusts:

Early20thCentury

（1）Earlyusesoftrusts:

bondissuesinLondon

TheearlyuseoftrustsinJapanoccurredwhentheJapanesegovernment

wasindireneedoffundingtodeveloptheinfrastructureafterthewarwith

Russia（1904-05）.InordertoissuebondsinLondon,thegovernmenthadto

employthetruststructuretosetasidecertainassetsforcollateral.Tofacilitate

suchtransaction,theSecuredBondTrustActwaspassedin1905.Thefact

thatthetrustwasfirstemployedinthiscommercialcontext,asopposedtothe

traditionalcontextofmanagingfamilyassets,leftuniquemarkingsonthe

subsequentdevelopmentoftrustsinJapan.First,thegovernmenthasastrong

interestinhowthetrustlegislationtakesshape.Second,theuseoftrusts

occurspredominantlyincommercialsettings.Andlastly,asareversesideof

thesecondfeature,thereisnofeltneedforusingtrustsforsuccession

purposes.

Shortlyafterthe1905Act,thegovernmentinitiatedadraftingprocess

towardsmoregenerallegislationontrusts.Beingspecificallyaddressedtothe

needofintroducingforeigncapital,the1905Actcontainednosubstantive

definitionoftrusts.Article1oftheActdefinedthetermʻtrustcompanyʼasʻa

companyengagedintrustbusinessconnectedwithsecuredbondsʼ.Article2

thenprovidedthatsecuredbondsmustbeissuedinaccordancewiththeʻtrust

contractconcludedbetweenthecompanyissuingthebondsandthetrust

companyʼ.However,thewordsʻtrustʼ,ʻtrustbusinessʼorʻtrustcontractʼ

remainedundefinedintheAct.

Therewasanother,andperhapsmorepressing,reasonforthegovernment

toproceedwiththedraftingofgeneraltrustlegislation.Shortlyafter1905,a

numberofbusinessessprungup,presentingthemselvesastrustcompanies.In

fact,notmanyofthemwereworthyoftrusting,andsomewereineffectloan

sharksanddebtcollectors.Thegovernmentkeenlyfelttheneedtoregulate

them.Atthesametime,theJapaneseeconomywasexpanding,andthe

urbanisedsocietyhadyettolocateasoundsourceofcapitalforsmallto

mid-sizebusinessesandconsumers.There,thegovernmentsawapotential

roleforthetrustcompaniestoplayasafinancialinstitution.Thesituation

物権と信託（連続講演・シンポジウム）

217（98）

providedthegovernmentwithsufficientimpetustodraftlegislationto

regulatetrustbusinesses.

Intheearly1910s,theinitiativeofdraftingtrustlegislationfellonthe

Treasury.Itturnedoutthatthedraftwastoomuchfocusedonregulatory

concernsandlackedprovisionswithsubstantivecomponent.Dissatisfiedwith

thedevelopment,theMinistryofJusticeobtainedtheTreasuryʼsconcessionin

1917todraftseparatetrustlegislation.Thus,whiledraftingforthelegislation

forregulationoftrustbusinesseswascontinuedbytheTreasury,ultimately

leadingtothepassageoftheTrustBusinessAct1922,thedraftingofthe

substantivelegislationwascarriedoutbytheMinistryofJustice,leadingtothe

TrustAct1922.Themainfocusofthispaperfallsonthelatter.

（2）Doctrinalreception

Akeyfigure,whoprovidedtheintellectualbackbonethroughouttheprocess

ofintroducingtruststoJapan,wasTorajiroIkeda（1879-1939）.Hegraduated

fromTokyoImperialUniversityandstartedworkingfortheMinistryof

Justicefrom1903,wherehewasinvolvedinthedraftingoftheSecuredBond

TrustAct1905.HethenservedvariouspostswithintheMinistry,asajudge

fortheTokyoDistrictCourt,andaprosecutorfortheSupremeCourtof

Judicature,andultimatelybecametheChiefJusticeoftheSupremeCourtof

Judicature.

In1909,IkedapublishedabooktitledOntheLawofTrustsforSecured

Bonds.Thisprovedhighlyinfluentialonthesubsequentdraftingofthetrust

legislation.Mostnotably,hecharacterisedthebeneficialinterestsasbeingofin

personamnature,anassumptionthatwasnevertobechallengedseriouslyin

thefollowingdraftingprocess.Inhisdefinition,

Thetrustisaninstitutionwherethetrusteeholdsthebasis-rightforthe

beneficiary.Therefore,althoughthedoctrinalexplicationofthisnaturehas

yettosettleintheAnglo-Americanscholarship,myexplicationisthatthe

legalrelationshipbetweenthetrusteeandthebeneficiaryisoneofobligation.

Inotherwords,Ibelievethatthenatureinquestionbestfitswiththe

explanationthatthetrusteeowesanobligationtoholdthetrustbasis-right

forthebeneficiaryandthebeneficiaryhastherighttorequestit.1）

216（99）

Thewordʻbasis-rightʼ,whichappearsonthefirstquotedpassageandforms

thebasisofIkedaʼsdefinitionoftrust,doesnotbelongtocommonusageeither

inEnglishorJapaneseterminology.Thetermcanbefoundinanarticle

ʻLecturesonEquityʼ（1907）,whichwaswritteninEnglishbyHenryT.Terry,

anAmericanlawprofessorwhotaughtatTokyoImperialUniversityin

1877-84and1894-1912.2）ThearticleappearedayearbeforeIkedaʼsbookwas

published,anditsinfluenceonIkedaʼsformulationoftrustsisnoticeable.Infact,

IkedafollowedTerryincharacterisingtrustsininpersonamterms.

Nonetheless,IkedadidnotblindlyfollowTerryʼsteaching.Carefullynoting,

aswesawinthequotedpassage,thattheviewsoncharacterisationoftrustsis

dividedamongtheAnglo-Americanscholarship,Ikedaexaminedbothsidesof

argument.Ontheinremcamp,helistedSpence,J.Smith,Snell,Story,

Ashburner,Thomson,Pomeroy,IndermourandSalmond,andonthein

personamcamp,helistedH.Smith,Adams,Perry,Erskine,Underhill,Terry,

Lewin,PollockandAmes.Hisconclusionwasrathernuanced.Inhisview,the

beneficiaryʼsrightnecessarilydependedonthecategoriesoftrusts.For

passivetrusts,theinremtheorywasmoreappropriate,whileforactivetrusts,

inpersonamtheorywasmorepersuasive.Fromthisobservation,Ikeda

concludedthattheinpersonamtheorywaspreferablebecauseitwascapable

ofprovidingamorecomprehensiveexplanationthantheinremtheory.

Apparently,Ikedadidnotadopttheduty-basedconceptionoftrustsbecause

thatwouldrelievethetheoreticaltensionwiththeCivilCode.Infact,innopart

ofhisbook,IkedadiscussedtheinevitableconflictbetweentheCommonLaw

trustsandtheCivilLawtradition.Onepossiblereasonforthisisthathehadno

choicebuttoadoptEnglishtrustdoctrine.Hewasdevelopingthetheoryof

trustsaroundtheexistinglegislation,theSecuredBondTrustAct1905,which

wasspecificallyenactedtofacilitatebondissuesinLondon.Afterall,hewasnot

strictlyanacademicbutapragmaticpractitioner.Thetrustlegislationwasnot

toformpartoftheCivilCode,andthushewouldhavehadnoqualmwith

215（100）

?

）TorajiroIkeda,OntheLawofTrustsforSecuredBonds（ShimizuShoten,1909）,at119.〔池

田寅二郎『担保附社債信託法論』（清水書店・明治40年）119頁〕

）HenryT.Terry,ʻLecturesonEquityʼ（1907）25（4）HogakuKyokaiZasshi453,460.

followingthelogicofspecialiageneralibusderogant（specialthingsderogate

fromgeneralones）.

（3）TheExemplarsofCodification:

California（1872）andIndia（1882）

InadditiontoTerryʼsteachingandacademicliteratureinEnglandandthe

UnitedStates,Ikedatookadvantageoftwoexemplarsoftrustcodification.

OnewastheCaliforniaCivilCode.Enactedin1872,itisacomprehensive

formofprivatelawcodification.Theprovisionsontrustsarefoundintwo

separatepartsoftheCode,Articles847to871,whicharecontainedinDivision

IIonProperty,andArticles2215-2289,whicharelocatedinDivisionIIIon

Obligation.Hisadmirationofthecodeisevidentinhisbook:

ʻThelanguage[of