Starting from a comparison of the older and newer German natural law theories, Christoph Ulmschneider critically examines the current state of research on the theory of property justification around 1800 in the first part. The author notes that recent legal historical literature unjustly denies any significant historical impact of Kant's property theory. Furthermore, the assumption made by Hecker that there was a convergence or merging of acquisition titles and modes during the period in question cannot be substantiated by the sources, according to the author. Ulmschneider finds Brockers' thesis that John Locke's labor theory became the dominant natural law justification for the emergence of property by the end of the 18th century to be untenable. The insights gained in the first part.