Corpus iurisprudentiae Romanae

Repertorium zu den Quellen des römischen Rechts

Digesta Iustiniani Augusti

Recognovit Mommsen (1870) et retractavit Krüger (1928)
Convertit in Anglica lingua Scott (1932)
Dig. XIII3,
De condictione triticiaria
Liber tertius decimus
III.

De condictione triticiaria

(Concerning the Triticarian Action.)

1Ul­pia­nus 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.

1Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXVII. Ad Dig. 13,3,1 pr.Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 156, Note 1.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.

2Idem 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.

2The 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.

3Idem 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.

3The 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.

4Gaius 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.

4Ad Dig. 13,3,4Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 258, Note 7.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.