Ownerless rights

There is no any unanimity of opinion as to whether every right have an object or not. According to Salmond , an ownerless right is an impossibility. There can not be a right without a subject to whom it inheres any more than there can be weight without a heavy body ; for rights are merely attributes of persons and can have no independent existence. 

The object of law is to protect the person in the exercise and enjoyment of a particular right and not to protect a right in itself . A right can not exists in vacuum . A right may be held of a determinate individual or by the public at large. Although every right has an owner , it need not have a vested and certain owner. The fee example of a land may be left by will to a person who is unborn to at the time of the death of the testator. The ownership of the land is contingent on the birth of the child. Sometimes the question arises as to who is the owner of a debt in the interval between the death of the creditor intestate and the vesting of his estate in an administrator. 

According to Roman law , the right contingently belong to the heir but they are for the time being vested in the inheritance by virtue of its fictitious personalty. The fictitious personality was that of the deceased and not of the future heir . At present neither the Roman or the English fiction is necessary. There is no difficulty in saying that the estate of the intestate is presently own by a incentra prsona or by the person who is subsequently appointed its administrator. 

There are some writer who are in the opinion that there are rights without objects. According to them , the objects of a rights means some material things to which it relates. In this sense , an object is not an essential part of a right as in the case of a husband having a right in respect of his wife or a father having a right in respect of this children. They deny that the right of reputation or personal liberty or the right of a patent of copyright has any object at all.