« PreviousContinue »
in loco sacro aedificari, vel in flumine publico ripave eius aliquid fieri, quo peius navigetur. restitutoria sunt, quibus restitui aliquid iubet, veluti cum bonorum possessori possessionem eorum, quae quis pro herede aut pro possessore possidet ex ea hereditate, aut cum iubet ei, qui vi possessione fundi deiectus sit, restitui possessionem. exhibitoria sunt, per quae iubet exhiberi, veluti eum, cuius de libertate agitur, aut libertum, cui patronus operas indicere velit, aut parenti liberos, qui in potestate eius sunt. sunt tamen qui putant proprie interdicta ea vocari, quae prohibitoria sunt, quia interdicere est denuntiare et prohibere: restitutoria autem et exhibitoria proprie decreta vocari : sed tamen optinuit omnia
restitutoria, and exhibitoria, being based upon the tenor of the praetor's order, and derived from Gaius (iv. 140, 142), is in Justinian a mere anachronism : interdicts aim at prevention, restitution, and production, no more, and no less, than ordinary actions. In Dig. 43. 1. 1. i Ulpian adds a fourth species-interdicts which are mixed-i.e. both prohibitoria and exhibitoria.
The interdict forbidding violent ouster of an innocent possessor is that known as uti possidetis, $ 4 inf. That de mortuo inferendo is treated in detail in Dig. 11. 8; its formula ran 'quo quave illi mortuum inferre invito te ius est, quominus illi eo eave mortuum inferre et ibi sepelire liceat vim fieri veto ;' that of the third prohibitory interdict mentioned in the text in loco sacro facere inve eum immittere quid veto' Dig. 43. 6; that of the fourth 'ne quid in flumine publico ripave eius immittas, quo statio iterve navigio deterior sit fiat' Dig. 43. 12.
Restitutorium as applied to interdicts has the same wide meaning as restituere in general ; it denotes, besides the restitution of possession, as in unde vi, $ 6 inf., (1) delivery of possession where none has preceded (as in quorum bonorum, $3 inf.) ; (2) the removal of a nuisance or demolition of an unlawful structure, Dig. 43. 8. 2. 35 and 43.
For the meaning of exhibitorium and exhibere see on Tit. 6. 31 supr. Theophilus illustrates the interdict by which the praetor 'iubet exhiberi eum cuius de libertate agitur' by saying åtokpÚTTELS Tòv čuor ådel póv, λέγων αυτών είναι δούλον σόν, εμου βουλομένου περί της αυτού δικάσασθαι élevdepias : it was thus a different remedy from the interdictum de homine libero exhibendo, which lay only for the production of a person whose free status was not questioned : 'plane si dubitat, utrum liber an servus sit, vel facit status controversiam, recedendum erit ab hoc interdicto et agenda causa libertatis ; etenim recte placuit tunc demum hoc interdictum locum habere, quotiens quis pro certo liber est : ceterum si quaeratur de statu, non oportet praeiudicium fieri alienae cognitioni' Dig. 43. 29. 3. 7.
For the production of a libertus 'cui patronus operas indicere velit'
interdicta appellari, quia inter duos dicuntur. Sequens 2 divisio interdictorum haec est, quod quaedam adipiscendae possessionis causa comparata sunt, quaedam retinendae, quaedam reciperandae. Adipiscendae possessionis causa interdictum 3 accommodatur bonorum possessori, quod appellatur quorum bonorum, eiusque vis et potestas haec est, ut, quod ex his bonis quisque, quorum possessio alicui data est, pro herede aut pro possessore possideat, id ei, cui bonorum possessio data est, restituere debeat. pro herede autem possidere videtur, qui putat se heredem esse : pro possessore is possidet, qui nullo iure rem hereditariam vel etiam totam hereditatem sciens ad se non pertinere possidet. ideo autem adipiscendae possessionis vocatur interdictum, quia ei tantum utile est, qui nunc primum conatur adipisci rei possessionem : itaque si quis adeptus possessionem amiserit eam, hoc interdictum ei inutile est. interdictum quoque, quod appellatur Salvianum,
cf. Gaius iv. 162. Certain services could be legally claimed from the libertus by his patron if they had been promised under oath ; see pp. 371, 388 supr. The interdict is not mentioned elsewhere in the Corpus iuris.
For the pater's right to enforce production of children in his power see Dig. 43. 30; the formula of the interdict ran qui quaeve in potestate Titii est, si is eave apud te est dolove malo tuo factum est quominus apud te esset, ita eum eamve exhibeas.'
Gaius (iv. 140) says that orders enjoining restitution or production were not improperly called decreta ; cf. the lex de Gall. cisalp. decernet, interdicetve. For interdicere in the sense of 'ordering' cf. 'ut navigare liceat ... interdicam’ Dig. 43. 14. 1. pr. Justinian's derivation of interdictum is reproduced by Theophilus, ivrepôiktov ... cotiv óudia IIpairwpos Meta&ù dúo tivâv, and possibly is supported by Dig. 43. 20. 1. 29 “intertrimentum ab eo, quod duo quae inter se trita et deminuta. .,' Isidorus' etymology is different, 'interdictum est, quia ad tempus interim dicitur' orig. 5. 25.
$ 2. This of course is a division only of Possessory interdicts ; it is 'sequens,' or subordinate ; that into prohibitoria, etc., is 'summa' (I supr.) or 'principalis' (Gaius iv. 142).
$ 3. The formula of quorum bonorum is given in Dig. 43. 2. I ' quorum bonorum ex edicto meo illi possessio data est, quod de his bonis pro herede aut pro possessore possides, possideresve si nihil usucaptum esset, quodque dolo malo fecisti uti desineres possidere, id illi restituas.' Two views are held as to its nature ; Savigny maintains that it was a definitive remedy by which the bonorum possessor obtained a judicial recognition of his title as praetorian heir, while most other writers on
adipiscendae possessionis causa comparatum est eoque utitur dominus fundi de rebus coloni, quas is pro mercedibus fundi
the subject are of opinion that it was merely a summary and provisional machinery by which he was enabled to get actual possession of the corporeal property belonging to the deceased's universitas iuris, his right to the universitas itself being established by hereditatis petitio (direct or possessoria, according as he was civil heir or not). The latter view seems favoured by the text above, and to be conclusively proved by Dig. 43. 2. 2 'interdicto quorum bonorum debitores hereditarii non tenentur, sed tantum corporum possessores,' and Cod. 8. 2. 2 ergo iubemus, ut omnibus frustrationibus amputatis per interdictum quorum bonorum in petitorem corpora transferantur, secundaria actione proprietatis non exclusa.
No one could apply for the interdict, even though he were civil heres, (Gaius iii. 34), who had not by agnitio obtained bonorum possessio. On application made by such person it would be directed against any one who was in possession of corporeal property belonging to the inheritance either pro herede or pro possessore. Possessores pro herede include (besides persons 'qui putant se heredes esse') others who had made agnitio, Dig. 5. 3. 11. pr. ; ib. 20. 13, or to whom the inheritance or part of it had been transferred per fideicommissum ib. 13. 5-7, or who had bought the inheritance in whole or part, or had so received it dotis causa, ib. 13. 4. Possession pro possessore is defined in Dig. 5. 3. 11. I ‘pro possessore vero possidet praedo, qui interrogatus, cur possideat, responsurus sit, quia possideo, nec ullam causam possessionis possit dicere, et ideo fur et raptor petitione hereditatis tenentur.'
As appears from the text of the interdict cited above, any one could be proceeded against by it who had fraudulently got rid of the possession of res hereditariae, and even a completed usucapion would not protect the possessor, the senatusconsult of Hadrian (Gaius ii. 57), which had been passed primarily in the interests of civil heirs, having been extended also to praetorian successors. The grantee of the interdict would obtain possession of the object in dispute on proving not only that he had accepted the succession, but that no one else had a better right than he :
quamvis bonorum possessionem agnovisti, non aliter possessor constitui poteris quam si te defuncti filium esse probaveris' Cod. 8. 2. 1.
For the interdictum Salvianum cf. p. 534 supr. Its relation to the actiones Serviana and hypothecaria seems identical with that of quorum bonorum to hereditatis petitio ; the plaintiff, alleging that he has a hypothec over specific property of his debtor, which he fears may be made away with before he can prove his right, obtains possession by the interdict, and then proves his right by the action ; 'in Salviano interdicto, si in fundum communem duorum pignora sint ab aliquo invecta, possessor vincet, et erit iis descendendum ad Servianum iudicium 'Dig. 43. 33. 2. It would appear that the interdict lay not only against the hypothecary debtor himself, but against any one who had possession of the property subject to the hypothec : Karà tavròs katéxovtos Tà Toù
pignori futuras pepigisset. Retinendae possessionis causa 4 comparata sunt interdicta uti possidetis et utrubi, cum ab utraque parte de proprietate alicuius rei controversia sit et ante quaeritur, uter ex litigatoribus possidere et uter petere debeat. namque nisi ante exploratum fuerit, utrius eorum possessio sit, non potest petitoria actio institui, quia et civilis et naturalis ratio facit, ut alius possideat, alius a possidente petat. et quia longe commodius est possidere potius quam petere, ideo plerumque et fere semper ingens existit contentio de ipsa possessione. commodum autem possidendi in eo est, quod, etiamsi eius res non sit qui possidet, si modo actor non potuerit suam esse probare, remanet suo loco possessio : propter quam causam, cum obscura sint utriusque iura, contra petitorem iudicari solet. Sed interdicto quidem uti possidetis de fundi vel aedium possessione contenditur, utrubi vero interdicto de rerum mobilium possessione. quorum vis et potestas plurimam inter se differentiam apud veteres habebat: nam uti possidetis interdicto is vincebat, qui interdicti tempore possidebat, si modo nec vi nec clam nec precario nanctus fuerat ab adversario possessionem, etiamsi alium vi expulerit aut clam abripuerit alienam possessionem aut precario rogaverat aliquem, ut sibi possidere liceret : utrubi vero interdicto is vincebat, qui maiore parte eius anni nec vi nec clam nec precario ab adversario possidebat. hodie tamen aliter observatur: nam utriusque interdicti potestas quantum ad possessionem pertinet exaequata est, ut ille vincat et in re soli et in re mobili, qui possessionem nec vi nec clam nec precario ab adversario litis contestationis tem
Kolwvoù apiypata kivnOńoetai tò Ea Blávelov ivrépdiktov Theoph. ; cf. Dig. 43. 33. 1 (et adversus extraneos ... dari debebit ') : though Cod. 8. 9. I is irreconcileable : 'non interdicto Salviano, id enim tantummodo adversus conductorem debitoremve competit.'
Other examples of interdicts adipiscendae possessionis given by Gaius (iv. 145-6) are those called possessorium and sectorium, the first being the remedy of the highest bidder in the bankruptcy procedure called bonorum venditio, p. 375 supr., the second that of the sector or purchaser at a state auction.
§ 4. Opinions have differed very much as to the true nature and purpose of the interdicts uti possidetis and utrubi. It will have been obvious from the account given of them in a preceding note on this Title,
5 pore detinet. Possidere autem videtur quisque non solum,
si ipse possideat, sed et si eius nomine aliquis in possessione
and from the opening words of this section, which correspond exactly with Gaius iv. 148, that their original object was to determine a question preliminary to a vindicatio—which of two parties, each of whom claims to be entitled to the possession of specific property, is actually to have the possession during the vindicatio itself, and so play the role of defendant ? The commodum possessionis, or advantage which the defendant had over the plaintiff, is clearly put in the text ; if the latter could not prove his case, the possession remained with him ; 'in pari causa possessor potior' Dig. 50. 17. 128. pr. ; órav kai to Deúyovti kai tą diákovti vñpou ioai, ó peúywv vika, Aristotle, probl. 29. 12, 'necessitas probandi incumbit illi, qui agit' Dig. 22. 3. 21. Of course the party vanquished in the possessory process might acquiesce in the decision there, and not push matters to a vindicatio at all; but the true function of the interdict was to clear the way for the action.
This, in fact, is the main purpose of these two interdicts under Justinian. It is uncertain which of two parties, each of whom claims to be dominus of specific property, shall be defendant in the real action which is to settle the question of dominium ; and this is determined by a preliminary process, the interdict, which results in the award of the possession (and therefore of the role of defendant) to the one who at litis contestatio (i.e. at the time when the hearing began) actually had possession without having obtained it by violence, secrecy, or permission, from his adversary; if the latter could prove that his possession was defective in any of these respects, the possession was adjudged to him instead, and to this extent the interdict was recuperandae, not retinendae possessionis, Dig. 43. 17. 1.9; ib. 3. pr.
It would seem too that uti possidetis, if not utrubi as well, had in course of time come to be employed when one person intersered in any way whatsoever with the possession of another, much in the same sort of manner as the English assize of Novel Disseisin came to lie against any one who in any way whatsoever interfered with the enjoyment of the freehold, and even for disturbance of common (Dig. 43. 17. 3. pr.). In this form it had lost its double character, and was in effect a remedy ex delicto. Both interdicts are said to be prescribed in a year ; by this is meant that where brought on an actual disturbance of possession, they must be brought within a year of the date of such disturbance, Dig. 43. 17. I. pr., except so far as the defendant had been enriched by his act, Dig. 43. I. 4, and that no vitium possessionis (vi, clam, precario) could be advanced which did not fall within a year next immediately preceding litis contestatio in the interdict.
he date of the assimilation of utrubi to uti possidetis in the point ced at the end of the section is uncertain : that it had not been cted so early as Diocletian is clear from fragm. Vat. 293, so that the be in Dig. 43. 31 attributed to Ulpian must be an interpolation.
For the Roman theory of Possession in general see Excursus
passage in Dig. 43.