« PreviousContinue »
Fructus Licitatio. 335
latione satisdat, cuius potestas haec est, ut si contra ipsum essel postea pronuntiafum, fructus duplum praestet. nam inter adversarios qui Praetore auctore certant, dum contentio fructus licitationis est, scWicet quia. possessorem interim esse interest, rei possessionem ei Praetor vendit, qui plus licetur. postea alter alterum sponsione provocat: Nisi Adversus Edictum Praetoris rossiDENTi-stry Nobis vis Facta Esset. invicem ambo resti/u/a«tur adversus sponsionem vel [4 lineae]. ■— iudex aput quem de ea re a.g\tur illud scilicet requirit quod Praetor interdicto cowplexus est, id est uter eorum eum fundum easve aedes per id tempus quo interdictwz« redditur nec vi nec clam nec precario possideret. cum iudex id exploraverit, et forte secun
result of their bidding for the grant of the fruits by the Praetor, provided only the successful bidder gives security to his opponent by the "fructuary stipulation," the force and effect of which is, that if the decision subsequently go against him, he pays twice the value of the fruits1. For since there is a rivalry bstween the litigants who are contending one against the other with the Praetor's sanction, because it is an advantage to be interim-possessor, therefore the Praetor sells the possession of the subject to the one who makes the highest bid for it. After this one of them challenges the other with a sponsion running thus: "Unless violence has been done to us contrary to the Praetor's edict whilst we were in possession.
Both in their turn restipulate against the sponsion * the
judex before whom the suit on the subject is conducted proceeds of course to investigate the point which the Praetor dealt with in his interdict, viz. which of the parties was in possession of the land or house at the time when the interdict was granted, holding such possession without violence, clandestinity, or sufferance3. When thejudex has investigated this point, and his decision has been, we will suppose, in my favour,
1 The text adopted here is that of the Praetor." For tantisper in the
Huschke. Heffter's varies consider- sense of interim see D. 9. 3. 1. 9,
ablyfrom it verbally, but onlyslight- D 37. 10. 3. 13, and Gaius, I. 188. ly in sense: the chief difference be- 2 This paragraph is corrupt, and
ing that, instead of fructus diiplum none of the conjectures made by the
praestet, Heffter suggests possessio editors of the text seem happy enough
restituatur, and inclines to translate to merit insertion. ab eo in the earlier part of the pas- 3 IV. Ijo.
sige "from his opponent/' not "iro.n
Зз6 Fructus Licitatio.
dum me iudicattfw sit, adversarium quidem et sponsionis et restipulationis summas quas cum eo feci condemnat, et convenienter me sponsion/s et restipulationis quae mecum factae sunt absolvit. et hoc amplius si aput adversarium meum /ossessio est, qui« is fructus licitatione vici/, nisi restituat mihi possessionem, Cascelliano sive secutorio iudicio condemnatur. (167.) Ergo is qui fructus licitatione vicit, si non probat ad se pertinere possessionem, sponsionis et restipuZztionis et fructus licitationis summam poenae nomine solvere et praeterea possessionem restituere iubetur: et hoc amplius fructus quos interez. percepit reddi/. summa enim fructus licitationis non pretium . est fructuum, sed poenae nomine solvitur, quod quis aliena« possessionem per hoc tempus retinere et facultatem fruendi naflcisci conatus est. (168.) Ille autem qui fructus licitatione victus est, si non probant ad se pertinere possessionem, tantum sponsionis et restipulationis summam poenae nomine debet. (169.) Admonendi tamen sumus liberum esse ei qui fructus licitatione victus erit, omissa fructuaria stipulatione, sicut Cas
he condemns my opponent to pay the amounts of the sponsion and restipulation which I entered into with him, and consequently acquits me from the sponsion and restipulation entered into with me. And besides this, if the (interim-) possession be with my opponent, because he beat me in the bidding for the fruits, he is condemned in a Cascellian or secutory action, unless he restore the possession to me. 167. Therefore the successful bidder for the fruits is ordered to pay the amount of the sponsion and restipulation and of his bid for the fruits by way of penalty, besides restoring the possession, in case he do not prove that the possession belongs to him: and further than this, he restores the fruits which he has enjoyed in the meanwhile. For the amount of the bid for the fruits is not the price of the fruits, but is paid by way of penalty for a man's attempting to retain during such (intermediate) time the possession and the power of enjoyment appertaining to another. 168. On the other hand, if he who has been beaten in the bidding for the fruits fail to prove that the possession belongs to him, he only owes by way of penalty the amount of the sponsion and restipulation. 169. We must, however, bear in mind that he who is beaten in the bidding for the fruits is at liberty, even though no fructuary Dupli actio. 337
celliano sive secutorio iudicio de possessione reciperanda experitur, ita separatim et de fructus licitatione ag<T<?: m quam rem proprium iudicium cowparatum est, quod appellatur fructuarium, quo nomine actor iudicatum solvi satis accipirt. dicitur autem et hoc iudicium secutorium, quod sequitur sponsionis victoriam; sed non aeque Cascellianum vocatur. (170.) Sed quia nonnulli interdicto reddito cetera ex interdicto facere nolebant,
atque ob id non poterat res expediri, Praetor
— «>mparavit interdicta [desuni 47 lineae].
171. Sed adversus reos quidem infitiantes ex quibusdam causis dupli actio constituitur, velut si iudica/2 aut depensi aut damwi mi«ria<? aut legatorum per damnationem reiictot um nomine agitur; ex quibusdam causis sponsionem facere permittitur, velut de pecunia certa credita et pecunia constituta: sed certa<? quidem creditae pecuniae tertiae partis, constitutae vero pecu
stipulation have been made, to proceed separately for the amount offered for the fruits, just as he can proceed separately for the recovery of the possession by the Cascellian or secutory action: and for this purpose a special form of proceeding has been provided, called judicium fructuarium, by meansof which the plaintiff can obtain security for the payment of the award of the judex1. This action is called "secutory" as well as the other, because it follows upon success in the sponsion, but it is not properly called Cascellian also. 170. But inasmuch as some persons, after the interdict had been issued, refused to conform the rest of their conduct to the spirit of the interdict, and so matters could never be brought to a conclusion,
therefore the Praetor provided (other) interdicts
171. In some cases an action for double the value of the matter in dispute is allowed against defendants who deny their liability, as in the instance of the actions judicati2, depensi", damni injuriae*, or for legacies left by damnation5: in some cases it is allowable to enter into a sponsion, as for example, in suing upon the loan of an ascertained sum6, or for an agreed amount7; but in the case of an ascertained loan the sponsion 33 8 Jusjurandum de calumnia.
1 iv. 91. 5 II. 201—208, 282.
* iv. 9, 21, 25. 6 m. 124.
* III. 127. 7 Constitutum was one of the Pac
* III. 210, 216. ta Praetoria, mentioned in note (I)
niae partis dimidiae. (172.) Quodsi neque sponsionis, neque dupli actionis periculum ei cum quo agitur /niungatur, z.ut ne statim quidem ab initio pluris quam simpli sit actio, permittit Praetor iusiurandum exigere non calumniae causa in/i/ias ire: unde quia heredes vel qui heredum loco /fobentur, nu»zquam poenis obligati sunt, item feminis pupilliíque remitti solet poena sponsionis, iubet modo eos iura,re. (173.) statim SMtem ab initio pluris quam simpli actio est, velut furti manifesti quadrupli, nec manifesti dupli, concepti et oblati tripli:
is allowed for a third part, in the case of an agreed amount it may be for a half. 172. But if the risk neither of a sponsion nor of an action for the double amount be cast upon the defendant, or if the action at starting be not for a larger amount than the simple sum demanded, the Praetor allows the exaction of an oath, "that the traverse is not pleaded vexatiously':" hence, since heirs and those who are esteemed as heirs2 are never liable to penalties8, and since the penalty of the sponsion is generally remitted in the case of females and minors, the Praetor orders such persons merely to take the oath. 173. Examples of actions which from their very outset are for more than the simple value of the thing in dispute are such as the action of furtum manifestum for four-fold, of furtum nec-manifestum for double, those of furtum conceptum and oblatum for three-fold4; for in these and some other cases
in the Appendix. It was a pact penalty for falsely taking the oath de
whereby a man entered into a new calumnia, was branding on the fore
and special engagement to pay a debt head with the letter К (for Kalum
already existing, and such debt might nia); and Heineccius thinks this pe
be either one owed by the man him- nalty was inflicted whether the per
self or by another person. A con- jury took place in a civil or criminal
stitutum would render actionable a action. See Heinecc. Antiq. iv. 16.
promise which previously was a 3.
mere nudum pactum not giving rise 2 %c Bonorum possessores; II. 119
to an action, and the process pro- et seqq.
vided for its recovery by the Praeto- 3 Another reading is "jure civili
rian edict was that named in the text, non amplius obligati sint:" the
viz. the actio coustitutaepecuniae. See meaning of which is the same as
Paul. S. R. 11. 2. that of "poenis nunquam obligati
1 Paulus, S. R. 11. i, D. 10.2. 44. sunt."
4. From Cic. pro Rose. Amer. c. 20 * III. 189—191. we learn that in earlier times the
nam ex his causis et aliis quibusdam, sive quis negrt sive fateatur, pluris quam simpli est actio.
174. Actoris quoque calumnia coercetur modo calumniae iudicio, modo contrario, modo iureiurando, modo restipulatione. (175.) Et quidem calumniae iudicium adversus omnes actiones locum habet. et est decimae partis causae; adversus interdicta auta« quartae partis causae. (176.) Liberum est i//i cum quo agitur aut calumniae iudicium opponere, aut iusiurandum exigere non calumniae causa agere. (177.) Contrarium autem iudicium ex certis causis constitui/wr.velut si iniuriarum agatur, et si cum muliere eo nomine agatur, quod dicatur ventris nomine in possessionem missa dolo malo ad alium possessionem transtulisse; et si quis eo nomine agat, quod dicat se a Praetore in possessionem mis
the action is for more than the simple value, whether the defendant traverse or admit the claim.
174. Vexatious conduct (calumnid) on the part of the plaintiff too is restrained; sometimes by the action of calumnia1, sometimes by a cross-action, sometimes by an oath*, sometimes by a restipulation. 175. The action of calumnia is admitted in opposition to all actions whatever, and is for a tenth part of the matter in dispute; or when it is allowed against interdicts, for the fourth part. 176. It is in the defendant's power to elect whether he will reply with the action of calumnia, or reqiiire the oath "that the action is not brought vexatiously." 177. The cross-action is applicable to certain special cases; for instance, to that of the actio injuriarum*, and the proceedings taken against a woman when she is charged with having fraudulently transferred possession to another after having been put in possession ventris nomine*: so also to the case of a person bringing his action on the ground that although he had received from the Praetor
1 See Sandars' notes on Inst. IV. sion for a child of whom she said she 16. pr. was enciente. In such a case, as we
2 Similar to that referred to in IV. see, interim-possession of the pro17«. perty claimed was given to her. See
3 II1. 224. D. 3. 2. 15—19, D. 25. 5i D- 25- 6, * This was when a woman on the D. 29. 2. 30. 1.
death of her husband claimed succes