libertate cum effectu procedente (cuius favore et antiquos legislatores multa et contra communes regulas statuisse manifestissimum est) et eo qui eam imposuit suae liberalitatis stabilitate gaudente et socio indemni conservato pretiumque servi secundum partem dominii, quod nos definivimus, accipiente.

VIII.

QUIBUS ALIENARE LICET VEL NON.

Accidit aliquando, ut qui dominus sit alienare non possit et contra, qui dominus non sit alienandae rei potestatem habeat. nam dotale praedium maritus invita muliere per legem Iuliam prohibetur alienare, quamvis ipsius sit dotis causa ei datum. quod nos legem Iuliam corrigentes in meliorem statum deduximus. cum enim lex in soli tantummodo rebus locum habebat, quae Italicae fuerant, et alienationes inhibebat quae invita muliere fiebant, hypothecas autem earum etiam volente: utrisque remedium imposuimus, ut etiam in eas res, quae in provinciali solo positae sunt, interdicta fiat alienatio vel obligatio et neutrum eorum neque consentientibus mulieribus procedat, ne sexus muliebris fra

12. 1, and for Justinian's change Cod. 7. 7. With cuius favore et antiquos legislatores etc. cf. Dig. 40. 5. 24. 10 multa contra iuris rigorem pro libertate sunt constituta,' 35. 2. 32. 5 'favor libertatis . . . saepe benigniores sententias exprimit.' By legislatores seems to be meant the jurists.

Tit. VIII. For the anomalies mentioned here cf. Seneca, benef. 7. 12 'non est argumento, ideo aliquid tuum non esse, quia vendere non potes,' Dig. 41. 1. 46 'non est novum, ut, qui dominium non habeat, alii dominium praebeat,' Cic. pro Balbo 13 'fundamenta firmissima nostrae libertatis, sui quemque iuris et retinendi et dimittendi esse dominum,' Tit. I. 40 supr. and Dig. 50. 17. 54 'nemo plus iuris in alium transferre potest, quam ipse haberet.'

The lex Iulia was that of Augustus, de adulteriis, Paul. sent. rec. 2. 21 b. 2. In the time of Gaius (ii. 63) it had been doubted whether it applied to praedia provincialia.

Besides the cases mentioned in the text, alienation was prohibited (1) of res litigiosa, property which was the subject of a real action or iudicium divisorium, Nov. 112. 1; (2) of immoveable property forming part of a donatio propter nuptias or belonging to religious or charitable foundations; (3) of peculium adventitium without the consent of the paterfamilias. The effect of an alienation forbidden by law is nil.

1 gilitas in perniciem substantiae earum converteretur. Contra autem creditor pignus ex pactione, quamvis eius ea res non sit, alienare potest. sed hoc forsitan ideo videtur fieri, quod voluntate debitoris intellegitur pignus alienare, qui ab initio contractus pactus est, ut liceret creditori pignus vendere, si pecunia non solvatur. sed ne creditores ius suum persequi impedirentur neque debitores temere suarum rerum dominium amittere videantur, nostra constitutione consultum est et certus modus impositus est, per quem pignorum distractio possit procedere, cuius tenore utrique parti creditorum et debitorum 2 satis abundeque provisum est. Nunc admonendi sumus neque pupillum neque pupillam ullam rem sine tutoris auctoritate alienare posse. ideoque si mutuam pecuniam alicui sine tutoris auctoritate dederit, non contrahit obligationem, quia pecuniam non facit accipientis. ideoque vindicare nummos possunt, sicubi extent: sed si nummi, quos mutuos dedit, ab eo qui accepit bona fide consumpti sunt, condici possunt, si mala fide, ad exhibendum de his agi potest. at ex contrario omnes res pupillo et pupillae sine tutoris auctoritate recte dari possunt. ideoque si debitor pupillo solvat, necessaria est tutoris auctoritas: alioquin non liberabitur. sed etiam hoc evidentissima ratione statutum est in constitutione, quam ad Caesareenses advocatos ex suggestione Triboniani viri eminentissimi quaestoris sacri palatii nostri promulgavimus, qua dispositum est ita licere tutori vel curatori debitorem pupillarem solvere, ut prius sententia iudicialis sine omni damno celebrata hoc permittat. quo subsecuto, si et iudex pronuntiaverit et debitor solverit, sequitur huiusmodi solutionem plenissima securitas sin autem aliter quam disposuimus solutio facta fuerit et pecuniam salvam habeat pupillus aut ex ea locupletior sit et adhuc eandem summam pecuniae petat, per exceptionem doli mali summoveri poterit: quodsi aut male consumpserit aut furto amiserit, nihil proderit debitori doli mali exceptio, sed nihilo minus damnabitur, quia temere sine tutoris auctoritate et non secundum nostram dispositionem

§ 1. For the power of sale in a pignus and for Justinian's own regulations thereon see Excursus 11. inf.

§ 2. For the necessity of the guardian's auctoritas in certain classes of

solverit. sed ex diverso pupilli vel pupillae solvere sine tutore auctore non possunt, quia id quod solvunt non fit accipientis, cum scilicet nullius rei alienatio eis sine tutoris auctoritate concessa est.

IX.

PER QUAS PERSONAS NOBIS ADQUIRITUR.

Adquiritur nobis non solum per nosmet ipsos, sed etiam per eos quos in potestate habemus: item per eos servos, in quibus usum fructum habemus: item per homines liberos et servos alienos quos bona fide possidemus. de quibus singulis diligentius dispiciamus. Igitur liberi vestri utriusque sexus, 1 quos in potestate habetis, olim quidem, quidquid ad eos pervenerat (exceptis videlicet castrensibus peculiis), hoc parentibus suis adquirebant sine ulla distinctione et hoc ita parentum fiebat, ut esset eis licentia, quod per unum vel unam eorum adquisitum est, alii vel extraneo donare vel vendere vel quocumque modo voluerant applicare. quod nobis inhumanum visum est et generali constitutione emissa et liberis pepercimus et patribus debitum reservavimus. citum etenim a nobis est, ut, si quid ex re patris ei obveniat,

san

dispositions see on Bk. i. 21. pr. supr.: for condictio v. General Index: for the actio ad exhibendum, Bk. iv. 6. 31 inf. The enactment to which Justinian refers, requiring a judicial order before payment could safely be made to a guardian, is in Cod. 5. 37. 25.

Tit. IX. The problem of agency in the acquisition of ownership and possession, upon which there is a good deal in this Title, may be stated thus :- Will delivery of possession, or conveyance of ownership, to B, acting as agent for A, make A possessor or owner without more, or is it necessary that there shall be a second conveyance from B to A? This question the old law answered in the negative: it tolerated only one necessary exception. Some persons, viz. slaves, filiifamilias, and those in manu or mancipio, could not hold property owing to their subjection to a superior: if ownership or possession (as to the latter there was a doubt in respect of those in manu or mancipio, Gaius ii. 90) was transferred to them, the conveyance, unless it was to be nugatory, must enure solely to the benefit of the superior: they served solely as conduit-pipes through whom rights passed instantaneously to the latter, Gaius ii. 86-88. Other gradual modifications of the strict old rule are noticed in the text and following notes.

§§ 1, 2. The first inroad upon the proprietary incapacity of the filius

hoc secundum antiquam observationem totum parenti adquirat (quae enim invidia est, quod ex patris occasione profectum est, hoc ad eum reverti?): quod autem ex alia causa sibi filius familias adquisivit, huius usum fructum quidem patri adquiret, dominium autem apud eum remaneat, ne, quod ei suis laboribus vel prospera fortuna accessit, hoc in alium perveniens 2 luctuosum ei procedat. Hocque a nobis dispositum est et in ea specie, ubi parens emancipando liberum ex rebus quae adquisitionem effugiunt sibi partem tertiam retinere si voluerat licentiam ex anterioribus constitutionibus habebat quasi pro pretio quodammodo emancipationis et inhumanum quid accidebat, ut filius rerum suarum ex hac emancipatione dominio pro parte defraudetur et, quod honoris ei ex emancipatione additum est, quod sui iuris effectus est, hoc per rerum deminutionem decrescat. ideoque statuimus, ut parens pro tertia bonorum parte dominii, quam retinere poterat, dimidiam non dominii rerum, sed usus fructus retineat: ita etenim et res intactae apud filium remanebunt et pater ampliore summa familias was made about the time of Augustus, in favour of the military profession, it being enacted that of whatever a son in power acquired as soldier, e.g. outfit, pay, booty, gifts, legacies, etc. from comrades, etc., he should be absolute owner, under the name of peculium castrense, with full powers of disposition both inter vivos and by will, Dig. 49. 17. 11: if he died without disposing of it in the latter way, it went to the pater, iure communi, as peculium. No further changes were made for about three hundred years; but under Constantine the earnings of a filiusfamilias in certain offices of the public service were made entirely his own (peculium quasi-castrense) except that as a rule he could not dispose of them by will (Tit. 11. 6 inf.), a privilege first conferred by Justinian; and the term was gradually made to include all official, public, and ecclesiastical salaries, fees earned by advocates, and gifts from the emperor. Under Justinian the succession to peculium castrense or quasi-castrense, if the owner died intestate, was governed by the ordinary rules: the pater could succeed only as heres, not iure peculii, and was postponed to certain other relations of the deceased. By another enactment of Constantine bona materna, property descending to a child in power from his or her mother, were in future to belong to the child, the pater, however, having the administration and usufruct during his lifetime. This, which is commonly called peculium adventitium (in contradistinction to peculium profectitium, property of his own which the pater allowed the child to enjoy without prejudicing his right to resume it at any moment) was extended by the emperors between Gratian and Honorius so as to include all bona materni generis, property coming to the child from the mother or

fruetur pro tertia dimidia potiturus. Item vobis adquiritur, 3 quod servi vestri ex traditione nanciscuntur sive quid stipulentur vel ex qualibet alia causa adquirunt. hoc enim vobis et ignorantibus et invitis obvenit. ipse enim servus qui in potestate alterius est nihil suum habere potest. sed si heres institutus sit, non alias nisi iussu vestro hereditatem adire potest: et si iubentibus vobis adierit, vobis hereditas adquiritur, perinde ac si vos ipsi heredes instituti essetis. et convenienter scilicet legatum per eos vobis adquiritur. non solum autem proprietas per eos quos in potestate habetis adquiritur vobis, sed etiam possessio: cuiuscumque enim rei possessionem adepti fuerint, id vos possidere videmini. unde etiam per eos usucapio vel longi temporis possessio vobis accedit. De his 4 autem servis, in quibus tantum usum fructum habetis, ita placuit, ut, quidquid ex re vestra vel ex operibus suis adquirant, id vobis adiciatur, quod vero extra eas causas persecuti sunt, id ad dominum proprietatis pertineat. itaque si is servus heres institutus sit legatumve quid ei aut donatum fuerit, non usufructuario, sed domino proprietatis adquiritur. idem placet et de eo, qui a vobis bona fide possidetur, sive is liber sit sive

maternal ancestors by any title whatever: Theodosius II added lucra nuptialia (dos and donatio propter nuptias), and reformed the rules as to the intestate succession to peculium adventitium and preferring the child's own issue to the pater, who by Leo and Anthemius was postponed also to brothers and sisters. Justinian, as he says in § 1, included under peculium adventitium (which in the text is called 'res quae adquisitionem effugiunt') all that the child acquired otherwise than ex re patris or in the way of peculium castrense or quasicastrense: under his legislation consequently a child might have rights over property of three kinds, over one of which he had the absolute control; one over which his pater had a usufruct, while he was its dominus; and lastly peculium profectitium, property of the pater which the latter could resume at will, and of which he himself had only the use and enjoyment. If he were emancipated, the father originally was entitled absolutely to half the peculium adventitium, 'quasi pro pretio emancipationis:' the change which Justinian made in this matter is mentioned in § 2.

§ 3. For the institution of servus alienus as heres see Tit. 14. 1, 2, Tit. 19. 4 inf. for stipulations of slaves, Bk. iii. 17 inf.: for acquisition of possession through one's own slave, p. 229 supr. Possession could not be thus acquired unless the slave was himself possessed by the dominus, Dig. 41. 1. 21. pr., e.g. if he was in pledge, Dig. 41. 2. 1. 15.

§ 4. A free man bona fide possessed, though he could own, could not