25

neque enim inundatio speciem fundi commutat et ob id, si recesserit aqua, palam est eum fundum eius manere, cuius et fuit.

Cum ex aliena materia species aliqua facta sit ab aliquo, quaeri solet, quis eorum naturali ratione dominus sit, utrum is qui fecerit, an ille potius qui materiae dominus fuerit: ut ecce si quis ex alienis uvis aut olivis aut spicis vinum aut oleum aut frumentum fecerit, aut ex alieno auro vel argento vel aere vas aliquod fecerit, vel ex alieno vino et melle mulsum miscuerit, vel ex alienis medicamentis emplastrum aut collyrium composuerit, vel ex aliena lana vestimentum fecerit, vel ex alienis tabulis navem vel armarium vel subsellium fabricaverit. et post multas Sabinianorum et Proculianorum ambiguitates placuit media sententia existimantium, si ea species ad materiam reduci possit, eum videri dominum esse, qui materiae dominus fuerat, si non possit reduci, eum potius intellegi dominum qui fecerit: ut ecce vas conflatum potest ad rudem massam aeris vel argenti vel auri reduci, vinum autem aut oleum aut frumentum ad uvas et olivas et spicas reverti non potest ac ne mulsum quidem ad vinum et mel re-. solvi potest. quodsi partim ex sua materia, partim ex aliena speciem aliquam fecerit quisque, veluti ex suo vino et alieno melle mulsum aut ex suis et alienis medicamentis emplastrum aut collyrium aut ex sua et aliena lana vestimentum fecerit, dubitandum non est hoc casu eum esse dominum qui fecerit : cum non solum operam suam dedit, sed et partem eiusdem

§ 25. It is usual to enumerate, as a third natural mode of acquisition, specificatio, the converting of another's material into a new form or 'species,' as in the illustrations given in the text. The Proculians argued the case on the analogy of occupatio, and regarded the giver of the form as the owner of the product; a view which seems to have commended itself to Ulpian ('mutata forma prope interimit substantiam rei' Dig. 10. 4. 9. 3). The Sabinians viewed it as a kind of accessio, and denied any transfer of ownership, Gaius ii. 99. The intermediate opinion, confirmed by Justinian, is found in Gaius (Dig. 41. 1. 77), Paulus (ib. 24), and other jurists. In Justinian, consequently, specification as a mode of acquisition occurs only when 'ea species ad materiam reduci non possit,' and is really a form of occupatio, as appears from the words of Ulpian cited above, and the expression in the Digest 'quod factum est antea nullius fuerat.' Of course the giver of the form had in all cases to pay the owner of the material its full value, on the principle 'neminem cum al

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.

§ 28. 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 spectatur,' 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. 1 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. Ex diverso si quis in alieno solo sua materia domum aedificaverit,

§ 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. 1. 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 frumenta 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 eam 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