Page images
PDF
EPUB

est, quam is qui putat se heredem esse: pro possessore is possidet qui sine causa aliquam rem hereditariam vel etiam totam hereditatem, sciens ad se non pertinere, possidet. ideo autem adipiscendae possessionis vocatur, quia ei tantum utile est qui nunc primum conatur adipisci rei possessionem: itaque si quis adeptus possessionem amiserit, desinit ei id interdictum utile esse. (145) Bonorum quoque emptori similiter proponitur interdictum, quod quidam possessorium vocant. (146.) Item ei qui publica bona emerit, eiusdem condicionis interdictum proponitur, quod appellatur sectorium, quod sectores vocantur qui publice bona mercantur. (147.) Interdictum quoque quod appellatur Salvianum apiscendae possessionis comparatum est,

any one who thinks himself heir, is held to possess pro herede: whilst a possessor pro possessore is anyone who possesses without title any item of the inheritance or the whole inheritance, knowing that he has no claim to it. The interdict is styled adipiscendae possessionis, because it is only available for a man who is now for the first time endeavouring to obtain possession of a thing'; and therefore if after obtaining possession he lose it again, the interdict ceases to be of service to him. 145. Sɔ too, an interdict is set forth in the edict for the benefit of a bonorum emptor2, which some call by the name interdictum possessorium3. 146. So too, an interdict

of like character is set forth for the benefit of a purchaser of public property, to which the name interdictum sectorium is given, because those who buy property sold for the good of the state are called sectores*. 147. The interdict also which is called Salvianum is provided for the purpose of obtaining

[blocks in formation]

asserts that the old interdict, as well as that termed sectorium, was framed upon the interdict quorum bonorum.

4 See Pseudo-Asconius on Cic. in Verr. II. 1. 52 and II. 1. 61. Festus says: "Sectores et qui secant dicun-' tur, et qui emta sua persequuntur." In 2 Phil. 26, Cicero calls Antony "Pompeii sector," and in § 29 of the same oration speaks of money "quam pro sectione debebas.' For further information see Heineccius, Antiqq. Rom. p. 356.

Interdicta retinendae possessiones.

327

eoque utitur dominus fundi de rebus coloni quas is pro mercedibus fundi pignori futuras pepigisset.

148. Retinendae possessionis causa solet interdictum reddi, cum ab utraque parte de proprietate alicuius rei controversia est, et ante quaeritur, uter ex litigatoribus possidere et uter petere debeat, cuius rei gratia comparata sunt UTI POSSIDETIS et UTRUBI. (149.) Et quidem UTI POSSIDETIS interdictum de fundi vel aedium possessione redditur, UTRUBI vero de rerum mobilium possessione. (150.) Et si quidem de fundo vel aedibus interdicitur, eum potiorem esse Praetor iubet qui eo tempore quo interdictum redditur nec vi nec clam nec precario ab adversario possideat ; si vero de re mobili, tunc eum potiorem esse iubet qui maiore parte eius anni nec vi nec clam nec precario ab adversario possidet: idque satis ipsis verbis

possession, and the owner of land employs it with reference to the property of his tenant which the latter has pledged for the rent of his farm.

148. An interdict for the purpose of retaining possession is usually granted when two litigants both lay claim to the ownership of a particular thing, and the first question for decision is, which of them ought to be possessor and which plaintiff; to this end the interdicts uti possidetis and utrubi are provided'. 149. The interdict uti possidetis is granted for the possession of land or a house, the interdict utrubi for the possession of moveables. 150. And if the interdict be granted for land or a house, the Praetor orders that he is to be preferred who at the time of the grant of the interdict is in possession, provided it be without violence, clandestinity, or sufferance on the part of his opponent. This is fully

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

interdictorum significatur. (151.) At in UTRUBI interdicto non solum sua cuique possessio prodest, sed etiam alterius quam iustum est ei accedere, velut eius cui heres extiterit, eiusque a quo emerit vel ex donatione aut dotis datione acceperit. itaque si nostrae possessioni iuncta alterius iusta possessio exsuperat adversarii possessionem, nos eo interdicto vincimus. nullam autem propriam possessionem habenti accessio temporis nec datur nec dari potest; nam ei quod nullum est nihil accedere potest. sed et si vitiosam habeat possessionem, id est aut vi aut clam aut precario ab adversario adquisitam, non datur; nam ei possessio șua nihil prodest. (152.) Annus autem retrorsus numeratur. itaque si tu verbi gratia anni mensibus possederis prioribus v, et ego vii posterioribus, ego potior ero quantitate mensium possessionis; nec tibi in hoc interdicto prodest,

stated in the actual wording of the interdict'. 151. But in the interdict utrubi a person is not only profited by his own possession, but also by that of any other person which lawfully accrues to him, for instance by that of one whose heir he is, or that of one from whom he has bought the thing or received it as a gift or an assignment of dos. If therefore the good possession which belonged to another when joined to our possession exceed the possession of our opponent, we succeed upon this interdict. But no accession of time is allowed or can be allowed to a man who has no possession of his own for to that which is a nullity nothing can be added. And further, if he have a tainted possession, i. e. one acquired by violence, clandestinity, or sufferance on the part of his opponent, no accession is allowed: for his own possession does not count for him. 152. The year is reckoned backwards; therefore if you, for example, have been in possession for the first five months of the year, and I for the last seven, I shall be in the better position by the amount of the months of my possession; nor will it be of service to

hoc sibi concedi postulavit, sed et is qui nullo voluntatis indicio, patiente tamen domino possidet." S. R. v. 6. 11. See also D. 43. 26. I.

The interdict is given in full in D. 43. 17. I.

2 Instead of the words "quanti

tate.... possessio est," Heffter reads "quaelibet vero plurium mensium possessionis causa tibi in hoc interdicto aequiparabit anni possessionem" i. e. a man is understood to have had possession for the major part of the year, who has had pos

[blocks in formation]

quod prior tua eius anni possessio est. (153.) Possidere autem videmur non solum si ipsi possideamus, sed etiam si nostro nomine aliquis in possessionem sit, licet is nostro iuri subiectus non sit, qualis est colonus et inquilinus. per eos quoque aput quos deposuerimus, aut quibus commodaverimus, aut quibus gratuitam habitationem constituerimus, ipsi possidere videmur. et hoc est quod volgo dicitur, retineri possessionem posse per quemlibet qui nostro nomine sit in possessione. quinetiam plerique putant animo quoque retineri possessionem, quod nostrorum praeceptorum sententia est. Diversae autem scholae auctoribus contrarium placet, ut animo solo, quamvis voluerimus ad rem reverti, tamen retinere possessionem non videamur. apisci vero

you as regards this interdict, that your possession was earlier in the year. 153. We are regarded as possessors not only when we possess personally, but also when any other is in possession in our name', even though he be not subject to our authority, as a tenant of land or of a house. We are also considered to possess by means of those with whom we have deposited or to whom we have lent anything, or to whom we have given a right of habitation gratuitously. And this is the meaning of the common saying "that possession can be retained by means of any one who is in possession in our name." Moreover many lawyers think that possession can be retained by mere will, and this is the opinion of our authorities. The authorities of the other school uphold the opposite view, that even though we have the wish to return to the thing, yet we are not to be regarded as retaining possession by mere will2. Now who those persons are by whom we

session only for two months, provided the opponent's possession, which has continued for the residue of the year, be vitiosa, and so not to be reckoned; see D. 50. 16. 156, D. 43. 31. I.

1 Esse in possessione does not mean the same as possidere, the former expression denoting the mere fact of detention, the latter that the detention is protected by means of interdicts; hence a tenant is "in possession, "whereas his landlord "possesses." See Savigny On Possession,

translated by Perry, Bk. I. § 7.

2 Savigny holds that possession is acquired by a conjunction of these elements, (1) the physical power of dealing with a thing and of preventing others doing so, (2) a knowledge that we have this power, (3) an intent to use it as owners of the thing and not for another's benefit. If we hold the thing with the intent of giving the ownership to another, that other acquires through us a derivative possession and we have merely detention. The first two

possessionem per quos possimus, secundo commentario rettulimus; nec ulla dubitatio est, quin animo possessionem apisci non possimus.

154. Recuperandae possessionis causa solet interdictum dari, si quis vi deiectus sit. nam ei proponitur interdictum cuius principium est: UNDE TU ILLUM VI DEIECISTI. per quod is qui deiecit cogitur ei restituere rei possessionem, si modo is qui deiectus est nec vi nec clam nec precario possidet ab adver

acquire possession we have stated in the second commentary': and there is no doubt that we cannot acquire possession by mere will2.

154. An interdict for recovering possession is generally granted when a man has been forcibly ejected. For there is set forth for his benefit the interdict which commences with the words:" Unde tu illum vi dejecisti3:" by means of which the ejector is compelled to restore the possession of the thing, provided only he who was ejected did not get the possession from his adversary1 by violence, clandestinity, or sufferance:

elements make up the factum, the latter is the animus.

Possession, he says, is retained by the same conjunction of animus and factum, but neither reed be so strongly developed as for acquisition. There need not be an active will to hold the thing, but the mere absence of a will to cease to hold it is enough; and the factum is not the absolute power to deal with the thing, but the ability to reproduce that power at will, coupled with a knowledge that we have such power of reproduction. See Savigny's Treatise on Possession, translated by Perry, passim. The reading of this passage which Heffter suggests agrees with Savigny's view. His reading is: "Unde etiam placuit ut quoniam possidemus animo solo, quando voÎuerimus reversuri abire, retinere possessionem videamur."

[blocks in formation]

animo solo; yet to acquire posses sion, the factum, as stated in the note above, must be of a much more marked character, viz. an actual power of dealing.

3 This is fully explained in Savigny's Treatise, Bk. iv. § 42; where the amount of violence necessary to found a claim for its benefit, and the question of self-redress are also entered into.

The interdict ran on "id illi restituas," i. e. "Restore to him that from which you have ejected him."

4 There is another reading adversus alterum, and if we adopt it, the passage will run : "provided the person ejected did not get possession as against the other by force, clandestinity, or sufferance." There is

much to be said for this reading, for it is a well-known principle that the possessor was not liable under the interdict, if his wrongful dealing had been directed against a person different from the applicant for the

same.

« PreviousContinue »