On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 9:03 PM, Eritivus <eriti...@gmail.com> wrote: > There is always the Referee (as an office), even when there is no > officeholder. I believe the (real, not hypothetical) obligation was > the office's, despite its vacancy. E.g. CFJ 2437?
For the record, if the obligation actually belonged to the office itself as an abstract entity, then it would be impossible for a holder of the office to fulfill the obligation. But if you mean that an obligation can belong to "the holder of X office" (by reference), then... dunno. This seems to comport with the judgement you mentioned, but it conflicts with the text of Rule 2160, which implies that vacancy obligations are only hypothetical. The whole thing's a mess.
