materiae praestavit. Si tamen alienam purpuram quis intexuit 26 suo vestimento, licet pretiosior est purpura, accessionis vice cedit vestimento: et qui dominus fuit purpurae, adversus eum qui subripuit habet furti actionem et condictionem, sive ipse est qui vestimentum fecit, sive alius. nam extinctae res licet vindicari non possint, condici tamen a furibus et a quibusdam aliis possessoribus possunt. Si duorum materiae ex volun- 27 tate dominorum confusae sint, totum id corpus, quod ex confusione fit, utriusque commune est, veluti si qui vina sua confuderint aut massas argenti vel auri conflaverint. sed si diversae materiae sint et ob id propria species facta sit, forte ex vino et melle mulsum aut ex auro et argento electrum, idem iuris est: nam et eo casu communem esse speciem non dubitatur. quodsi fortuitu et non voluntate dominorum confusae fuerint vel diversae materiae vel quae eiusdem generis sunt, idem iuris esse placuit. Quodsi frumentum Titii tuo 28 frumento mixtum fuerit, si quidem ex voluntate vestra, commune erit, quia singula corpora, id est singula grana, quae cuiusque propria fuerunt, ex consensu vestro communicata terius detrimento fieri locupletiorem.' It has been much disputed whether bona fides is essential to acquisition by specificatio: the passages bearing upon this point are Dig. 13. 1. 13; ib. 14. 3; 10. 4. 12. 3; 41. 4. 3. 20; 47. 2. 52. 14.

§ 26. The principles which govern this case of the purple are as follow accessio cannot affect the right to things 'quae singulae suam speciem retinent' or 'quae distant,' but only to those which are so combined that the independent existence of the one is lost in the other ('quae cohaerent') Dig. 6. 1. 23. 5: when this is the case, and the one thing forms a whole by itself (i. e. is a res 'in qua propria qualitas spec. tatur,' such as a cup, a statue, a ship, a building, a garment), it absorbs the other irrespective of the latter's relative value, Dig. 41. 26. 1; ib. 27. pr., and the former owner of the purple cannot sue for it by real action (vindicatio) because its independent existence is gone. But, supposing the case to be one of theft (the definition of which was very wide, see on Bk. iv. 1. I inf.), he could bring the actio furti for the recovery of a penalty for the delict (ib. 19) and also the conditio furtiva for value of the purple. If it was not theft, but the aliena purpura had been bona fide possessed by the person who wove it into his garment, the only action which would lie was a condictio sine causa, also applicable in the cases mentioned in the following sections, its ground being the enrichment of the one party at the expense of the other without any consideration, which affords the clue to the meaning of the 'quidam alii possessores.'

sunt. quodsi casu id mixtum fuerit vel Titius id miscuerit sine voluntate tua, non videtur commune esse, quia singula corpora in sua substantia durant nec magis istis casibus commune fit frumentum, quam grex communis esse intellegitur, si pecora Titii tuis pecoribus mixta fuerint: sed si ab alterutro vestrum id totum frumentum retineatur, in rem quidem actio pro modo frumenti cuiusque competat, arbitrio autem iudicis continetur, ut is aestimet, quale cuiusque frumentum 29 fuerit. Cum in suo solo aliquis aliena materia aedificaverit, ipse dominus intellegitur aedificii, quia omne quod inaedificatur solo cedit. nec tamen ideo is, qui materiae dominus fuerat, desinit eius dominus esse: sed tantisper neque vindicare eam potest neque ad exhibendum de ea re agere propter legem duodecim tabularum, qua cavetur, ne quis tignum alienum aedibus suis iniunctum eximere cogatur, sed duplum pro eo praestet per actionem quae vocatur de tigno iuncto (appellatione autem tigni omnis materia significatur, ex qua aedificia fiunt): quod ideo provisum est, ne aedificia rescindi necesse sit. sed si aliqua ex causa dirutum sit aedificium, poterit materiae dominus, si non fuerit duplum iam 30 persecutus, tunc eam vindicare et ad exhibendum agere. diverso si quis in alieno solo sua materia domum aedificaverit,

Ex

§ 29. It would seem that the materials were in this case subject to a double ownership: the person to whom they belonged before being used for building 'non desinit dominus eius esse,' and yet the builder 'dominus intelligitur aedificii, quia omne quod inaedificatur solo cedit.' The solution of the difficulty lies perhaps in the notion of dominium dormiens or dormant rights, of which there is an illustration in Gaius iv. 78, or in the analogy of postliminium; cf. Dig. 6. 1. 59 simul atque... dempta essent, continuo in pristinam causam reverti.' The actio de tigno iniuncto lay only where the materials of which the house was built had been stolen: 'sed in hoc solum agi potest, ut sola vindicatio soluta re competat mulieri, non in duplum ex lege duodecim tabularum : neque enim furtivum est, quod sciente domino inclusum est' Dig. 24. 1. 63. If the materials had been stolen the action lay against a bona fide possessor of the house no less than against the thief in possession himself : but, as is stated in the text, the former was not, like the latter, liable also to the actio ad exhibendum (for which see on Bk. iv. 6. 31 inf.) which entailed separation, and vindicatio. If they were not stolen, the only remedy available before separation was an actio in factum Dig. 6. I. 23. 5.

§ 30. The principles laid down in this section cannot be applied

illius fit domus, cuius et solum est. sed hoc casu materiae dominus proprietatem eius amittit, quia voluntate eius alienata intellegitur, utique si non ignorabat in alieno solo se aedificare: et ideo, licet diruta sit domus, vindicare materiam non possit. certe illud constat, si in possessione constituto aedificatore soli dominus petat domum suam esse nec solvat pretium materiae et mercedes fabrorum, posse eum per exceptionem doli mali repelli, utique si bonae fidei possessor fuit qui aedificasset: nam scienti alienum esse solum potest culpa obici, quod temere aedificaverit in eo solo, quod intellegeret alienum esse. Si Titius alienam plantam in suo solo posuerit, ipsius 31 erit et ex diverso si Titius suam plantam in Maevii solo posuerit, Maevii planta erit, si modo utroque casu radices egerit. antequam autem radices egerit, eius permanet, cuius

between landlord and tenant, dominus and usufructuary, etc., in whose cases this matter of fixtures was regulated by rules specially governing such relations. The true position of a mala fide possessor of solum alienum who builds upon it with his own materials is somewhat contradictorily stated in the Corpus iuris, but the two following conclusions appear to be warranted: (1) provided he does not injure the soil he may raze the building and remove his materials, though he cannot claim compensation for his outlay (even by advancing the exceptio doli, Cod. 8. 10. 5), Dig. 6. 1. 37, Cod. 3. 32. 5; the passage of Paulus in which the latter right is affirmed (Dig. 5. 3. 38) relates to an exceptional case, and under ordinary circumstances would be overridden by the latter part of this section, as well as by Dig. 6. 1. 37, Cod. 3. 32. 5; ib. 16. (2) If the domus is diruta, he can bring vindicatio to recover the materials, unless it was animo donandi that he erected the building: 'sed et id quod in solo tuo aedificatum est, quoad in eadem causa manet, iure ad te pertinet si vero fuerit dissolutum, materia eius ad pristinum dominium redit, sive bona sive mala fide aedificium exstructum sit, si non donandi animo aedificia alieno solo imposita sint' Cod. 3. 32. 2. It is true that this passage seems directly to contradict the text before us and Dig. 41. 1. 7. 12, but in both of these statements of the law the animus donandi must be taken to be implied. The general rule applicable in this and the four following sections as to improvements made by the possessor of a res aliena may be briefly stated thus: (1) every possessor (except the fur, Cod. 8. 52. 1) can demand compensation for impensae necessariae, Dig. 25. 1. 1. 1; ib. 3. 2 and 4: (2) for impensae utiles only the bona fide possessor is entitled to compensation, Dig. 25. I. 5. 3, though the value of fruits which he retains may be set off; (3) mala fide no less than bona fide possessors may, where possible, remove the results of their outlay; see the passages cited above.

§ 31. Plants, cereals, etc. raised from seed belonged even after separa

et fuerat. adeo autem ex eo, ex quo radices agit planta, proprietas eius commutatur, ut, si vicini arborem ita terra Titii presserit, ut in eius fundum radices ageret, Titii effici arborem dicimus rationem etenim non permittere, ut alterius arbor esse intellegatur, quam cuius in fundum radices egisset. et ideo prope confinium arbor posita si etiam in vicini fundum 32 radices egerit, communis fit. Qua ratione autem plantae, quae terrae coalescunt, solo cedunt, eadem ratione frumental quoque, quae sata sunt, solo cedere intelleguntur. ceterum sicut is qui in alieno solo aedificaverit, si ab eo dominus petat aedificium, defendi potest per exceptionem doli mali secundum ea quae diximus: ita eiusdem exceptionis auxilio tutus esse potest is qui alienum fundum sua impensa bona fide consevit. 33 Litterae quoque, licet aureae sint, perinde chartis membranisque cedunt, acsi solo cedere solent ea quae inaedificantur aut inseruntur: ideoque si in chartis membranisve tuis carmen vel historiam vel orationem Titius scripserit, huius corporis non Titius, sed tu dominus esse iudiceris. sed si a Titio petas tuos libros tuasve membranas esse nec impensam scripturae solvere paratus sis, poterit se Titius defendere per exceptionem doli mali, utique si bona fide earum chartarum membrana34 rumve possessionem nanctus est. Si quis in aliena tabula pinxerit, quidam putant tabulam picturae cedere: aliis videtur picturam, qualiscumque sit, tabulae cedere. sed nobis videtur melius esse tabulam picturae cedere: ridiculum est enim picturam Apellis vel Parrhasii in accessionem vilissimae tabulae cedere. unde si a domino tabulae imaginem possidente is qui pinxit cam petat nec solvat pretium tabulae, poterit per exceptionem doli mali summoveri: at si is qui pinxit possideat, consequens est, ut utilis actio domino tabulae adversus eum detur, quo casu, si non solvat impensam picturae, poterit per exceptionem doli mali repelli, utique si bona fide possessor fuerit ille qui picturam imposuit. illud enim

tion from the soil to the latter's owner, the reason why they were thus treated differently from materials used for building being that they were no longer what they had been: 'nam credibile est alio terrae alimento aliam factam' Dig. 41. 1. 6. 1.

§ 34. Gaius (ii. 78) remarks on the unreasonableness of treating paintings differently from writings, and in Dig. 6. 1. 23. 3 exactly the opposite

palam est, quod, sive is qui pinxit subripuit tabulas sive alius, competit domino tabularum furti actio.

Si quis a non domino, quem dominum esse crederet, bona 35 fide fundum emerit vel ex donatione aliave qua iusta causa aeque bona fide acceperit: naturali ratione placuit fructus quos percepit eius esse pro cultura et cura. et ideo si postea dominus supervenerit et fundum vindicet, de fructibus ab eo consumptis agere non potest. ei vero, qui sciens alienum fundum possederit, non idem concessum est. itaque cum fundo etiam

rule is stated by Paulus, 'sed necesse est ei rei (sc. tabulae) cedi, quod sine illa esse non potest;' but there is no doubt that the anomaly was supported by great weight of legal opinion. If the painter had possession of the tabula, the latter's former owner could bring only a utilis rei vindicatio, because in point of fact he was its owner no longer and even then, if the painter's possession was bona fide, the latter could meet him with the exceptio doli or plea of fraud, if he refused to pay the value of the painting, and could even exclude the action altogether by himself offering to pay the value of the board. The actio furti lay only against the thief.

§ 35. A fourth natural mode of acquisition is fructuum perceptio, as exemplified in those persons who derive their right to take fruits from the consent of the owner, especially the usufructuary and lessee (colonus, § 35 inf.). The rights of other persons to fruits were based on other titles. The dominus of a fruit-bearing object (e. g. land) is entitled to the fruits, while stil unseparated, as part of the land itself: after separation, as a consequence of his property in the soil. The title, or rather the quality of the right, is not the same before and after separation for the fructus separati of an estate which a man has in bonis only belong to him ex iure Quiritium. The title of the emphyteuta (Excursus II at the end of this Book) was separation: 'sicut eius qui vectigalem fundum habet fructus fiunt simul atque solo separati sunt' Dig. 22. 1. 25. I: the reason of his being differently treated from the lessee being the larger nature of his interest, evidenced also by his having a vindicatio utilis. The precise rights of the bona fide possessor (i.e. one who has obtained a res aliena by a iustus titulus from another whom he believed to have the right of alienation) are much disputed: but the better opinion seems to be that he became complete owner of all fruits whatsoever (though not of accessions) by the mere fact of separation: Iulianus ait, fructuarii fructus tunc fieri, cum eos perceperit bonae fidei possessoris mox cum a solo separati sunt' Dig. 7. 4. 13: cf. Dig. 22. 1. 25. I ; 41. 1. 48. If this be correct, the words quos percepit in this section must be read as if they were 'qui separati sunt.' If, however, the dominus was successful in a vindicatio against the bona fide possessor, the latter had to restore fructus extantes (i.e. separati but not comsumpti, Bk. iv. 17. 2 inf.), but for fructus consumpti, as is ob