cious refusal to play his part prevented the interdict procedure from accomplishing its course was deprived of possession, or his right of recovering possession, by interdicta SECUNDARIA. From the mention of VIS we gather that, subsequent to the issue of the Interdict and antecedent to further proceedings, one act of the drama was a conventional ejectment (vis ex conventu) corresponding to the Manuum consertio in Sacramentum, and to the Deductio quae moribus fit in Sponsio, p. 463.

APPENDIX.

THE following list of passages shows the extent to which I have deviated from the text of Gaius as published by Gneist.

1 § 123. ‘Si tamen quaerat aliquis, quare a coemptione differat mancipatio,' is the reading of Rossbach for 'Si tamen quaerat aliquis, quare citra coemptionem feminae etiam mancipentur.'

1 § 134. aut non remancipatur patri sed ei qui adoptat in jure ceditur ab eo apud quem in tertia mancipatione est,' is substantially the conjecture of Scheurl for aut jure mancipatur patri adoptivo vindicanti filium ab eo apud quem is tertia mancipatione est,' and later in the same paragraph aut non remancipantur' is for 'aut jure mancipantur.'

1 § 136. Eae vero mulieres quae in manum conveniunt per coemptionem,' is the reading of Huschke for 'Sed mulieres quae coemptionem fecerunt per mancipationem.'

2 § 155. Velut si ex eo quod Latinus adquisierit, locupletior factus sit,' is the conjecture of Savigny for Velut si Latinus adquisierit, locupletior factus sit.'

6

2 § 235. sed et [si quis] si heres verbi gratia intra biennium monumentum sibi non fecerit, x Titio dari jusserit, poenae nomine legatum est,' is the conjecture of Goeschen for sed et si heres,' &c. 3 § 79. si vero mortui per dies xv. postea jubet convenire creditores,' is the reading of Huschke for 'si vero mortui, post dies XV postea jubet convenire creditores.' And later in the same paragraphitaque si vivi bona veneant, in diebus x legem bonorum vendendorum fieri jubet, si mortui, in diebus v. a quibus tandem vivi bona die xx, mortui vero die x emptori addici jubet,' is the reading of Huschke for itaque si vivi bona veneant in diebus pluribus veniri jubet, si mortui, in diebus paucioribus; nam vivi bona xxx, mortui vero xx emptori addici jubet.'

4 § 48. '[sed],' which several critics propose to insert before ' aestimata,' is omitted by Gneist.

4 § 166. et uter eorum vicerit fructus licitando, is tantisper in possessione constituitur, si modo adversario suo fructuaria stipulatione caverit, cuius vis et potestas haec est, ut si contra eum de possessione pronuntiatum fuerit, eam summam adversario solvat' is the restoration of Krueger. Gneist reads: Postquam igitur Praetor interdictum reddidit, primum litigatorum alterutrius res ab eo fructum licitando rei tantisper in possessione constituitur, si modo adversario suo fructuaria stipulatione satisdet cuius potestas haec est, ut si contra ipsum esset postea pronuntiatum, fructus duplam praestet.'

The remarks on Fructuaria stipulatio, p. 463, were based on the reading of Gneist. From Krueger's reading it appears that Fructuaria stipulatio was purely for a penal sum, and was not analogous to the security pro praede vindiciarum. If a plaintiff waived the Fructuaria stipulatio and proceeded by Secutorium with satisdatio judicatum solvi, § 169, he was assured of the penal sum in case of the defendant's insolvency; but, probably, when he afterwards brought Cascellianum, only recovered possession without the interim profits otherwise it does not appear how it could ever have been advantageous to sue on the Fructuaria stipulatio.

CORRIGENDA.

THE contract of Constitutum (guaranty) is described, page 292, as operating a Novation. This is inaccurate; for it is expressly declared that Constitutum adds a second, possibly a stronger, obligation, without extinguishing the original obligation, i.e. without operating a Novation, Dig. 13, 5, 28.

The words quia tenetur ad id ipsum ut praestet actiones, Dig. 46, 1, 36, which are quoted page 324, probably mean that the creditor is compellable to cede to the surety the creditor's right of action-not against the co-sureties, but-against the principal debtor.

Compellability to cede a right of action (superseded in later times by a fiction of cession, or perhaps of succession, page 314, embodied in an actio utilis) was an incident of Correality. Correality or Solidarity, the multiplication of the creditors (duo rei credendi) or debtors (duo rei debendi) in an obligation without a corresponding division of the Object of the right or obligation, was an institution of Roman law in favour of creditors, whereby, exceptionally and usually in virtue of a special agreement, each creditor was severally entitled to recover the whole object of the obligation (solidum) from a common debtor, or each debtor was severally liable to pay the whole object of the obligation to a common creditor, subject to a right of Regress, i.e. to a right of the co-creditors to recover their proportional shares from the creditor who has received the whole from the common debtor, or the right of the debtor who has paid the whole to the common creditor to recover proportional shares from his co-debtors. The ordinary rule, to which Correality forms an exception, is, that when there are several creditors or several debtors in an obligation, the object of the obligation is divided, so that each creditor is only entitled to recover a proportional part of the advantage, and each debtor is only bound to bear a proportional part the burden. There was a Correality between each surety and the principal debtor; but there was no Correality and no right of Regress between co-sureties (Cod. 8, 41, 11), who were protected, at least in later times, by another institution, the Beneficium divisionis, p. 323. After the institution of Beneficium divisionis, we may suppose that the right of emptio nominis against the co-sureties (which was equivalent in effect to a compellability of the creditor to cede his right of action against the co-sureties) was abrogated, and that the law, Dig. 46, 1, 17, which we have quoted, p. 324, was only inserted by inadvertence in the Justinian legislation. Savigny, Obligationenrecht, § 25.

In the commentary on 3 § 80 it is suggested that Bonorum cessio probably passed Quiritary dominion: this is a mistake, for the contrary is expressly declared in a constitution of Diocletian, Cod. 7, 71, 4.