II. Et, si in rem actum sit coràm judice, sivè contra petitorem judicaverit, absolvere debet possessorem ; sivè contra possessorem, jubere ei debet, ut rem ipsam restituat cum fructibus. Sed si possessor neget, in præsenti se restituere posse, et sinè frustratione videbitur tempus restituendi causâ petere, indulgendum est ei ; ut tamen de litis æstimatione caveat eum fidejussore, si intra tempus, quod ei datum est, non restituerit. Et, si hæreditas petita sit, eadem § 2. When a real action, is brought before a judge, and he pronounces against the demandant, the possessor ought then to be acquitted; if against the possessor, he must be admonished to restore the very thing in dispute, together with all its produce. But, if the possessor should alledge, that he is unable to make immediate restitution, and petition for longer time, without any seeming intention to frustrate the sentence, he is to be indulged; provided he gives security for the full payment circa fructùs interveniunt, quæ diximus intervenire de singularum rerum petitione. Illorum autem fructuum quos culpà suâ possessor non perceperit, sivè illorum, quos perceperit, in utrâque actione eadem ratio penè habetur, si prædo fuerit. Si verò bonæ fidei possessor fuerit, non habetur ratio neque consuptorum, neque non perceptorum. Post inchoatam autem petitionem etiam illorum fructuum ratio habetur, qui culpâ possessoris percepti non sunt, vel percepti consumpti sunt. of the condemnation and costs of suit, if he should fail to make restitution within the time appointed. And, if an inheritance be sued for, a judge ought to determine in the same manner as to the profits, as he would in a suit for some particular thing only; for, if the defendant appear to have been a possessor malâ fide, then almost the same reasoning prevails in both actions as to the profits, whether they were taken or neglected by the possessor: but, if the defendunt be a possessor bonâ fide, then no account is expected, either of produce consumed or not collected before the suit. But all produce must be accounted for from the date of the action, whether used or neglected. De actione ad exhibendum. cau § III. Si ad exhibendum actum fuerit, non sufficit, si exhibeat rem is, cum quo actum est; sed opus est, ut etiam rei causam debeat exhibere, id est, ut eam sam habeat actor, quam habiturus esset, si, cum primum ad exhibendum egisset, exhibita res fuisset : ideòque, si inter moras exhibendi, usucapta sit res à possessore, nihilominus condemnabitur. Præterea fructuum medii temporis, id est, ejus, quod post acceptum ad exhibendum judicium, ante rem judicatam, intercesserit, rationem habere debet judex. Quod si neget reus, cum quo ad exhibendum actum est, in præsenti se exhibere posse, et tempus exhibendi causâ 3. If a man proceed by an action ad exhibendum, it is not sufficient, that the defendant should exhibit the thing in question, but he must also be answerable for all profits and emoluments accruing from it; that the plaintiff may be in the same state, as if his property had been restored to him when he first brought his action: and therefore, if the possessor, during his delay to surrender the thing in dispute, shall gain a prescriptive title to it, he shall nevertheless be condemned to restitution. Morever it is the duty of the judge to take an account of the mesne profits accruing between the suit and the sentence. But, when the defendant declares, that he is not able petat, idque sinè frustratione pos- instantly to produce the thing adtulare videatur, dari ei debet, ut`judged, and prays a farther time, tamen caveat, se restituturum. without apparent affectation of deQuod si neque statim jussu judi- lay, time should be allowed, on his cis rem exhibeat, neque postea se giving security for restitution. But, exhibiturum caveat, condemnan- if he neither obey the command of the dus sit in id, quod actoris intere- magistrate by instantly producing rat, si ab initio res exhibita esset. the thing adjudged, nor in giving sufficient security for the production of it at a future day, he must be condemned in the full damages, which the plaintiff hath sustained by not having the article delivered to him at the commencement of the suit. Familiæ erciscundæ. § IV. Si familiæ erciscundæ judicio actum sit, singulas res singulis hæredibus adjudicare debet; et, si in alterius personâ prægravare videatur adjudicatio, debet hunc invicem cohæredi certâ pecuniâ (sicuti jam dictum est) condemnare. Eo quoque nomine cohæredi quis que suo condemnandus est, quod solus fructus hæreditarii fundi perceperit, aut rem hæreditariam corruperit, aut consumpserit. Quæ quidem similiter inter plures quoque quam duos cohæredes subsequuntur. Communi V. Eadem interveniunt, etsi communi dividundo de pluribus rebus actum sit. Quod si de unâ re, veluti de fundo; siquidem iste fundus commodè regionibus divi When a suit is commenced for the partition of an inheritance, the judge must decree to each heir his respective portion; and, if the partition, when made, be more advantageous to the one than to the other, the judge ought as we have before observed, to oblige him, who has the largest part, to make a full recompense in money to his co-heir: it therefore follows, that every co-heir, who hath taken the profits of an inheritance to his sole use, and consumed them, is liable to be compelled to make restitution. And this is the law whether there are two heirs, or many. dividundo. 5. The law is the same, when a suit is brought communi dividundo, for one particular thing only, it being but a part or parcel of an inheritance, as a field, or any piece of ground, which, if it can be conveniently divided, ought to be adjudged to each claimant in equal portions; and if the share of one be larger than the others, the party having the largest portion, must be condemned to make a recompense in money. But, if the thing sued for be of such a nature, that it cannot be divided, as a slave, or a horse, it must be given entirely to one of the co-partners, who must be ordered to make satisfaction in money to the other. Finium regundorum. VI. Si finium regundorum actum fuerit, dispicere debet judex, an necessaria sit adjudicatio; quæ sanè uno casu necessaria est, si evidentioribus finibus distingui agros commodius sit, quam olim fuissent distincti: nam tunc necesse est, ex alterius agro partem aliquam alterius agri domino adjudicari; quo casu conveniens est, ut is alteri certâ pecuniâ debeat condemnari. Eo quoque nomine condemnandus est quisque hoc judicio, quod fortè circa fines aliquid malitiosè commisit; verbi gratià, quia lapides finales furatus est, vel arbores finales excidit. Contumaciæ quoque nomine quisque eo judicio condem 6. When the action finium re gundorum is brought for the determination of boundaries, the judge ought first to examine, whether it be absolutely requisite to proceed to an adjudication; in one case, it is undoubtedly so; viz. when it becomes expedient, that grounds should be divided by more conspicuous bounda➡ ries than formerly; for necessity then requires, that a part of one man's ground should be adjudged to another, in which case it is incumbent upon a judge to condemn him, whose estate is enlarged, to pay an equivalent to the other, whose estate is diminished. By this action, that any one may be prosecuted, who hath 3 D |