TOKSO. 365 TORT. to the Vatican by Pope Clement VII. (1523-34). Consult: Loewy, Inschriften der griechischen liildhaucr, No. 343 (Leipzig, 1885) ; B. Sauer, Torso von Belvedere (Giessen, 1894). TOR'STENSON, Lennart, Count of Ortala ( l(illo-.)l ) . A Swedish general, born at Tor- stena. West Gothland, August 17, 1603. He became a royal page in 1618 and attended Gustavus Adolphus in most of his earlier cam- paigns. When Gustavus entered Germany in 1630. Torstenson was captain of the body-guard ; and the brilliant services he rendered at Brciten- feld, the Lech, and in other battles, were re- warded witl> rapid promotion. Taken prisoner at the storming of Wallenstein's camp near Nurem- berg (September 3, 1632). he was released in February of the following year and served till 1635 in Livonia, returning in that year to duty under Bernhard of Weimar and Bauer, the suc- cessors of Gustavus. In 1641, on the death of Banfr, he was appointed to the command of the Swedish forces in Germany. His military career was marked by brilliancy of conception, fer- tility of resource, resolute daring, and extraor- dinary rapidity of execution. He invaded Silesia in May, 1642, routed the Imperialists at Glogau and Schweidnitz, reduced most of Moravia, and being pressed back into Saxony by the Archduke Leopold William and Piccolomini, turned upon his pursuers (November 2, 1642), and signally defeated them on the historic field of Breiten- feld. He then laid Moravia and Austria under contribution. The Emperor, Ferdinand III., de- spairing of protecting his territories from Tor- stenson, negotiated with Christian IV. of Denmark to make a diversion by invading Sweden : but Torstenson, with characteristic promptitude, left Moravia in September, 1643, traversed Saxony, burst into Holstein, and in less than six weeks subjugated the Danish mainland. The Imperialists under Gallas fol- lowed him to aid their allies, but arrived too late, and were routed and driven into Saxony, and again totally defeated at Jiiterbog, in at- tempting to bar Torstenson's return into Bo- hemia (IG-f-l). The Swedish general won a great victory over Hatzfeld at Jankau (March 6. 1645), and carried his arms to the Danube. The Emperor was compelled to flee from Vienna ; the Saxons again joined the Swedes ; and the Danes, routed at sea as well as on land, sought peace. In 1646 disease compelled Torstenson to resign the command and retire to Sweden, where he was created a count and appointed to vari- ous high offices. He died at Stockholm. April 7, 1651. Consult De Peyster, Torstenson (New York, 1880). See Thirty Years' War. TORT (Fr., wrong). A civil wrong other than a breach of contract, which entitles the injured person to a common-law action for damages. It must be admitted that this is rather a general description than an accurate definition of the important legal term before us. And yet, the present state of English law does not warrant a more specific statement. A breach of contract, without excuse, is undoubted- ly wrongful, and entitles the party harmed by such breach to a common-law action for dam- ages. But this wrong is always treated under the head of contract (q.v.). and is never spoken of as a tort. The right to damages for breach of contract flows from the agreement of the parties, while that for a tort is conferred by the law, "independent of any previous consent of the wrongdoer to bear the loss occasioned by his act." Again, a trustee who uses trust property for his own benefit without authority wrongs his cestui que trust. As the hitter's re- dress, however, is not to be obtained in a com- mon-law action, but by a proceeding in equity, the term 'tort' is not applied to it. The same is true of an inexcusable refusal to pay salvage as redress, for it is to be souglit in admiralty and not at common law. These limitations upon the term, it will be observed, are the results of what may be called accidents of legal pro- cedure. A tort is, as said above, a 'civil' wrpng. This clement distinguishes it from a crime. It is true that the same act or omission may subject the wrongdoer to a tort action and also to a crimi- nal prosecution. One person deliberately, and without excuse, attacks and wounds another. This assault and battery is a tort, as it gives to the injured person a common-law action in damages, for the invasion of his right of personal .security. It is also a crime, as it violates a right of the State by a breach of the peace and b}' harming one of its citizens. This branch of our law was one of the latest to receive systematic treatment, either by judges or by text writers. Frederick Pollock declared, in 1886, that the really scientific treatment of this topic by judges begins with the decisions of the last fifty years. In 1882 the New York Court of Appeals asserted that an accurate and perfect definition of a tort was nowhere to be found ; nor did it essay to formulate one. The earliest treatise in which an attempt was made to systematize the law of torts was published in 1859. Various classifications of torts have been sug- gested. One of them is as follows: "First, law- ful acts done by wrongful means or of malice. Second, unlawful acts. Third, events caused by negligence." The first includes deceit, slander of title, malicious prosecution, and malicious in- terference with contracts between others. The second class includes assault and battery, conversion, defamation, false imprisonment, nuisance, trespass, and some other forms of tort. The third embraces the various phases of negli- gence. ( See these various topics in this En- cyclopaedia.) A similar classification was sug- gested by a learned judge in a recent decision of the House of Lords, and has received some judi- cial approval in the United States. It follows the ordinary classification of personal rights. The first class of torts, according to his suggestion, includes all wrongful invasions of the right of reputation. The second class includes such in- vasions of the rights of bodily safety and free- dom. The third class includes such invasions of the rights of property. The domain of tort in our law is more ex- tensive than that covered by actions ex delicto in Roman law. Speaking broadly, a wrongful intent was necessary to such actions. Mere negligence might subject one to an action quasi em contractu if by agreement he had assumed a duty of care; but otherwise it subjected him to no liability. Certain wrongs were styled quasi ex delicto, but as a rule the actionable character of these was of pnetorian origin. In
