De condictione triticiaria
(Concerning the Triticarian Action.)
1 Ulpianus libro vicensimo septimo ad edictum. Qui certam pecuniam numeratam petit, illa actione utitur ‘si certum petetur’: qui autem alias res, per triticariam condictionem petet. et generaliter dicendum est eas res per hanc actionem peti, si quae sint praeter pecuniam numeratam, sive in pondere sive in mensura constent, sive mobiles sint sive soli. quare fundum quoque per hanc actionem petimus et si vectigalis sit sive ius stipulatus quis sit, veluti usum fructum vel servitutem utrorumque praediorum. 1Rem autem suam per hanc actionem nemo petet, nisi ex causis ex quibus potest, veluti ex causa furtiva vel vi mobili abrepta.
1 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXVII. He who brings suit for a certain sum of money must make use of the action to which the clause, “Where a certain demand is made,” refers: but a party who sues for any other kind of property must do so by means of a Triticarian Action. And, generally speaking the property to be sued for in this action is anything except a definite sum of money, whether it is established by weight or by measure, and whether it is movable or a part of the soil. Therefore, we may also bring suit for a tract of land, whether it is under perpetual lease, or whether anyone has stipulated for a right, as, for instance, an usufruct, or a servitude attaching to either kind of estate. 1No one can, by means of this action, bring suit for his own property, except where he is permitted to do so in certain cases; as, for instance, in an action based on theft, or where movable property has been taken away by force.
2 Idem libro octavo decimo ad Sabinum. Sed et ei, qui vi aliquem de fundo deiecit, posse fundum condici Sabinus scribit, et ita et Celsus, sed ita, si dominus sit qui deiectus condicat: ceterum si non sit, possessionem eum condicere Celsus ait.
2 The Same, On Sabinus, Book XVIII. Sabinus states that where anyone has forcibly ejected another from his land, he can be sued for its recovery; and Celsus also holds the same opinion, but this rule applies only where the party who was ejected and brings the suit is the owner; but if he is not, Celsus states he can still bring an action for possession.
3 Idem libro vicensimo septimo ad edictum. In hac actione si quaeratur, res quae petita est cuius temporis aestimationem recipiat, verius est, quod Servius ait, condemnationis tempus spectandum: si vero desierit esse in rebus humanis, mortis tempus, sed ἐν πλάτει secundum Celsum erit spectandum: non enim debet novissimum vitae tempus aestimari, ne ad exiguum pretium aestimatio redigatur in servo forte mortifere vulnerato. in utroque autem, si post moram deterior res facta sit, Marcellus scribit libro vicensimo habendam aestimationem, quanto deterior res facta sit: et ideo, si quis post moram servum eluscatum dederit, nec liberari eum: quare ad tempus morae in his erit reducenda aestimatio.
3 The Same, On the Edict, Book XXVII. If it is asked, in this action, to what time the appraisement of the property for which suit is brought should date back; the better opinion is, as Servius says, that the time when judgment was rendered against the defendant ought to be considered. For, if the property has ceased to exist at the time of death, according to Celsus, we must grant some latitude, and not make the estimate from the very last moment of life, lest it be reduced to a very small amount; for instance, where a slave is mortally wounded. In either case, however, if the property is deteriorated after default, Marcellus states in the Twentieth Book that an estimate must be made of the amount to which the property is deteriorated, hence, if the party delivered a slave who, after default, had lost his eye, he is not released; and therefore the estimate must be reckoned from the date of the default.
4 Gaius libro nono ad edictum provinciale. Si merx aliqua, quae certo die dari debebat, petita sit, veluti vinum oleum frumentum, tanti litem aestimandam Cassius ait, quanti fuisset eo die, quo dari debuit: si de die nihil convenit, quanti tunc, cum iudicium acciperetur. idemque iuris in loco esse, ut primum aestimatio sumatur eius loci, quo dari debuit, si de loco nihil convenit, is locus spectetur, quo peteretur. quod et de ceteris rebus iuris est.
4 Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book IX. Where an action is brought for some kind of merchandise which should have been delivered on a certain day, for instance, wine, oil, or grain; Cassius says that the damages should be appraised in accordance with what the property would have been worth on the day when it should have been delivered, or if the day was not agreed upon, then, according to its value when issue was joined. The same rule applies with reference to place, so that the valuation should first be made with reference to the place where the property should have been delivered, but where there was nothing agreed upon with reference to place, then the place where the action was brought should be taken into consideration. This law also applies to other matters.