Pro emptore
(Concerning Possession Acquired by a Purchaser.)
1 Gaius libro sexto ad edictum provinciale. Possessor, qui litis aestimationem optulit, pro emptore incipit possidere.
1 Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book VI. A possessor who tenders the appraised value of the property in court begins to possess it as a purchaser.
2 Paulus libro quinquagensimo quarto ad edictum. Pro emptore possidet, qui re vera emit, nec sufficit tantum in ea opinione esse eum, ut putet se pro emptore possidere, sed debet etiam subesse causa emptionis. si tamen existimans me debere tibi ignoranti tradam, usucapies. quare ergo et si putem me vendidisse et tradam, non capies usu? scilicet quia in ceteris contractibus sufficit traditionis tempus, sic denique si sciens stipuler rem alienam, usucapiam, si, cum traditur mihi, existimem illius esse: at in emptione et illud tempus inspicitur, quo contrahitur: igitur et bona fide emisse debet et possessionem bona fide adeptus esse. 1Separata est causa possessionis et usucapionis: nam vere dicitur quis emisse, sed mala fide: quemadmodum qui sciens alienam rem emit, pro emptore possidet, licet usu non capiat. 2Si sub condicione emptio facta sit, pendente condicione emptor usu non capiat. idemque est et si putet condicionem extitisse, quae nondum exstitit: similis est enim ei, qui putat se emisse. contra si exstitit et ignoret, potest dici secundum Sabinum, qui potius substantiam intuetur quam opinionem, usucapere eum. est tamen nonnulla diversitas, quod ibi, cum rem putat alienam, quae sit venditoris, affectionem emptoris habeat, at cum nondum putat condicionem exstitisse, quasi nondum putat sibi emisse. quod apertius quaeri potest, si, cum defunctus emisset, heredi eius tradatur, qui nesciat defunctum emisse, sed ex alia causa sibi tradi, an usucapio cesset. 3Sabinus, si sic empta sit, ut, nisi pecunia intra diem certum soluta esset, inempta res fieret, non usucapturum nisi persoluta pecunia. sed videamus, utrum condicio sit hoc an conventio: si conventio est, magis resolvetur quam implebitur. 4Si in diem addictio facta sit, id est nisi si quis meliorem condicionem attulerit, perfectam esse emptionem et fructus emptoris effici et usucapionem procedere Iulianus putabat: alii et hanc sub condicione esse contractam, ille non contrahi, sed resolvi dicebat, quae sententia vera est. 5Sed et illa emptio pura est, ubi convenit, ut, si displicuerit intra diem certum, inempta sit. 6Cum Stichum emissem, Dama per ignorantiam mihi pro eo traditus est. Priscus ait usu me eum non capturum, quia id, quod emptum non sit, pro emptore usucapi non potest: sed si fundus emptus sit et ampliores fines possessi sint, totum longo tempore capi, quoniam universitas eius possideatur, non singulae partes. 7Eius bona emisti, apud quem mancipia deposita erant: Trebatius ait usu te non capturum, quia empta non sint. 8Tutor ex pupilli auctione rem, quam eius putabat esse, emit. Servius ait posse eum usucapere: in cuius opinionem decursum est eo, quod deterior causa pupilli non fit, si propius habeat emptorem, et, si minoris emerit, tutelae iudicio tenebitur ac si alii minoris addixisset: idque et a divo Traiano constitutum dicitur. 9Procuratorem quoque, qui ex auctione, quam mandatu domini facit, emerit, plerique putant utilitatis causa pro emptore usucapturum. idem potest dici et si negotia domini gerens ignorantis emerit propter eandem utilitatem. 10Si servus tuus peculiari nomine emat rem, quam scit alienam, licet tu ignores alienam esse, tamen usu non capies. 11Celsus scribit, si servus meus peculiari nomine apiscatur possessionem, id etiam ignorantem me usucapere: quod si non peculiari nomine, non nisi scientem me: et si vitiose coeperit possidere, meam vitiosam esse possessionem. 12Pomponius quoque in his, quae nomine domini possideantur, domini potius quam servi voluntatem spectandam ait: quod si peculiari, tunc mentem servi quaerendam. et si servus mala fide possideat eaque dominus nanctus sit, ut suo nomine possideat, adempto puta peculio, dicendum est, ut eadem causa sit possessionis et ideo usucapio ei non magis procedat. 13Si servus bona fide emerit peculiari nomine, ego ubi primum cognovi sciam alienam, processuram usucapionem Celsus ait: initium enim possessionis sine vitio fuisse: sed si eo tempore quo emit, quamquam id bona fide faciat, ego alienam rem esse sciam, usu me non capturum. 14Et si quod non bona fide servus meus emerit, in pactionem libertatis mihi dederit, non ideo me magis usucapturum: durare enim primam causam possessionis idem Celsus ait. 15Si a pupillo emero sine tutoris auctoritate, quem puberem esse putem, dicimus usucapionem sequi, ut hic plus sit in re quam in existimatione: quod si scias pupillum esse, putes tamen pupillis licere res suas sine tutoris auctoritate administrare, non capies usu, quia iuris error nulli prodest. 16Si a furioso, quem putem sanae mentis, emero, constitit usucapere utilitatis causa me posse, quamvis nulla esset emptio et ideo neque de evictione actio nascitur mihi nec Publiciana competit nec accessio possessionis. 17Si eam rem, quam pro emptore usucapiebas, scienti mihi alienam esse vendideris, non capiam usu. 18Etiam heredi ulteriori defuncti possessio proderit, quamvis medius heres possessionem eius nanctus non sit. 19Si defunctus bona fide emerit, usucapietur res, quamvis heres scit alienam esse. hoc et in bonorum possessore et in fideicommissariis, quibus ex Trebelliano restituitur hereditas, ceterisque praetoriis successoribus observatum est. 20Emptori tempus venditoris ad usucapionem procedit. 21Si rem alienam emero et, cum usucaperem, eandem rem dominus a me petierit, non interpellari usucapionem meam litis contestatione. sed si litis aestimationem sufferre maluerim, ait Iulianus causam possessionis mutari ei, qui litis aestimationem sustulerit, idemque esse, si dominus ei, qui rem emisset a non domino, donasset: eaque sententia vera est.
2 Paulus, On the Edict, Book LIV. He has possession as a purchaser who has actually bought the property, and it will not be sufficient for him merely to be of the opinion that he is in possession as purchaser, but the title to the property, as purchased, must actually exist. If, however, I think that I owe you something, and I deliver it to you without your being aware that it belongs to someone else, you can acquire it by usucaption. Why, therefore, can you not acquire it by usucaption if I deliver it to you, thinking that I have sold it to you? This is because the time of the delivery is considered in all other contracts; hence, if I knowingly stipulate for property belonging to a third party, I can acquire it by usucaption if I thought that it belonged to you when it was delivered to me. In the case of a purchaser, however, the time when the contract was entered into is considered, and therefore the purchase must be made in good faith, and also possession must be obtained in this way. 1Title to possession and title to usucaption are different, for anyone may truthfully be said to have made a purchase, but to have made it in bad faith; for anyone who knowingly buys property in bad faith has possession of it as the purchaser, although he cannot acquire it by usucaption. 2Where a purchase is made under a condition, the purchaser cannot acquire the property by usucaption while the condition is pending. The same rule applies if he thinks that the condition has been fulfilled, and this has not yet taken place, for he resembles a person who thinks that he has made a purchase, when this is not the case. On the other hand, if the condition has been complied with and he is ignorant of the fact, he can be said to acquire it by usucaption, according to Sabinus, who held that this could be done by considering rather the nature of things than mere opinion. Some difference, however, exists between these two instances, because where anyone thinks that property belongs to another, which, in fact, belongs to the vendor, he occupies the position of a purchaser. But when he thinks that the Condition has not yet been complied with, it is just as if he thought that he had not yet made the purchase. This point can be presented more clearly if possession is delivered to the heir, who does not know that the deceased bought the property but thinks it was delivered to him for some other reason; but should it be held that usucaption cannot be acquired under such circumstances? 3Sabinus says that if property has been purchased in such a way that the sale will be void unless payment is made within a certain time, it cannot be acquired by usucaption, unless payment has actually been made. Let us see, however, whether this is a condition or an agreement; for if it is an agreement, the result will more readily be accomplished by payment than by complying with the condition. 4If settlement is to be made within a specified time (that is to say, if anyone does not offer to pay a better price within that time), Julianus thinks that the sale is perfected, and that the profits will belong to the purchaser, who will have a right to acquire the property by usucaption; but others have held that the sale was made under a condition. He said that it was not made under a condition, but that it was annulled under a condition, which opinion is correct. 5A sale is absolute where it is agreed that it shall be void in case the purchaser should not be content with the property within a certain time. 6I purchased Stichus, and Damas was delivered to me instead of him, by mistake. Priscus says that I cannot acquire this slave by usucaption, because what was not bought cannot be acquired in that way by the purchaser. If, however, a tract of land was purchased and a larger amount has been in possession than what was conveyed, it can be acquired by lapse of time, as the entire tract, and not separate portions of the same, is possessed. 7You purchase the property of a person with whom slaves have been deposited. Trebatius says that you cannot acquire the said slaves by usucaption, because they were not purchased. 8A guardian bought an article at an auction of his ward, which he thought belonged to him. Servius says that he can acquire it by usucaption, and his opinion has been accepted, for the reason that the condition of the ward does not become worse if he has a purchaser in his guardian, who will pay more money for the property. If he should purchase it for less, he will be liable to an action on guardianship, just as if he had transferred it to some other person for less than it was worth. This, it is said, was also decided by the Divine Trajan. 9Many authorities hold, if an agent buys property at auction by the direction of his principal, that he can acquire it by usucaption, as a purchaser, on the ground of public convenience. The same rule applies if, while transacting the business of his principal, he makes the purchase without the knowledge of the latter. 10If your slave purchases property for his peculium which he knows belongs to another, you cannot acquire it by usucaption, even if you are not aware that it belongs to someone else. 11Celsus says that if my slave, without my knowledge, obtains possession of property for his peculium, I can acquire it by usucaption. If he does not obtain it as a part of his peculium, I cannot acquire it, unless I know that he has obtained it; and if he has possession which is defective in law, my possession will also be defective. 12Pomponius also says, with reference to property which is possessed in the name of the owner, that the intention of the latter, rather than that of the slave, should be considered. If the slave possesses property as part of his peculium, then his intention must be taken into consideration; and if the slave possesses it in bad faith, and his master obtains it in order to hold it in his own name, for instance, by depriving the slave of his peculium, it must be said that the same reason for possession exists, and therefore, that the master cannot avail himself of usucaption. 13If my slave should purchase property for his peculium in good faith, and when I first heard of it I knew the property belonged to another, Cassius says that usucaption can take place, for the beginning of the possession was without any defect. If, however, at the time he purchased the property, even though he did so in good faith, I knew that it belonged to someone else, I cannot acquire it by usucaption. 14If my slave should give to me, in consideration of his freedom, certain property which he had purchased in bad faith, I cannot acquire it by usucaption; for Celsus says that the first defective possession still continues to exist. 15If I make a purchase from a ward without the authority of his guardian, believing that he has reached the age of puberty, we hold that usucaption can take place, as this rather applies to the property than to the opinion. If, however, you know the vendor to be a ward, and you still believe that wards have the right to transact their own affairs without the authority of their guardians, you will not acquire the property by usucaption, because an error of law is of no advantage to anyone. 16If I purchase property from an insane person whom I think to be of sound mind, it has been established that I can acquire it by usucaption on the ground of public convenience, although the purchase was void; and therefore I will neither be entitled to an action founded upon eviction, nor will the Publician Action lie, nor will any benefit result from previous possession. 17If you sell me property which you are about to acquire by usucaption as a purchaser, and I know that it belongs to another, I cannot acquire it by usucaption. 18Although possession may benefit the immediate heir of the deceased, a more distant heir cannot obtain possession of the property. 19If the deceased bought property in good faith, it can be acquired by usucaption, even though the heir knew that it belonged to someone else. This rule should be observed, not only in the case of prætorian possession, but also in that of trusts by virtue of which an estate is transferred under the Trebellian Decree of the Senate, as well as with reference to all other prætorian successors. 20The time that the property was possessed by the vendor benefits the purchaser in acquiring usucaption of the same. 21If I purchase property belonging to another, and while I am in the course of acquiring it by usucaption, the owner brings an action to recover it from me, my usucaption will not be interrupted by the joinder of issue in the case. If, however, I should prefer to pay the appraised value of the property in court, Julianus says that the title to possession is changed, so far as he who paid the value of the property in court is concerned. The same rule will apply, if the owner donates the property to him who purchased it from one who is not its owner. This opinion is correct.
3 Ulpianus libro septuagensimo quinto ad edictum. Litis aestimatio similis est emptioni.
3 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXXV. Payment of the appraised value of the property in court resembles a purchase.
4 Iavolenus libro secundo ex Plautio. Emptor fundi partem eius alienam esse non ignoraverat: responsum est nihil eum ex eo fundo longa possessione capturum. quod ita verum esse existimo, si, quae pars aliena esset in eo fundo, emptor ignoraverat: quod si certum locum esse sciret, reliquas partes longa possessione capi posse non dubito. 1Idem iuris est, si is, qui totum fundum emebat, pro indiviso partem aliquam alienam esse scit: eam enim dumtaxat non capiet, ceterarum partium non impedietur longa possessione capio.
4 Javolenus, On Plautius, Book II. A purchaser knew that a part of the land which he bought belonged to another. The opinion was given that he could not obtain any of the land by virtue of long possession. I think that this is true, if the purchaser was not aware what part of the land belonged to another; for if he knew that it was a certain tract of it, I have no doubt that he could obtain the remainder on the ground of long possession. 1The same rule of law applies, if a man who purchased an entire tract of land was aware that an undivided part of it belonged to someone else; for he can not only acquire that part by usucaption, but he will not be prevented from acquiring the remaining parts by long possession.
5 Modestinus libro decimo pandectarum. Si rem, quam tibi pigneravi, subripuero, eamque distraxero, de usucapione dubitatum est: et verius est utiliter cedere tempora usucapionis.
5 Modestinus, Pandects, Book X. If I have pledged property with you, and then steal and sell it, a doubt arises as to whether it can be acquired by usucaption. The better opinion is that it can be so acquired.
6 Pomponius libro trigensimo secundo ad Sabinum. Qui, cum pro herede vel pro emptore usucaperet, precario rogavit, usucapere non potest: quid porro inter eas res interest, cum utrubique desinat ex prima causa possidere, qui precario vult habere? 1Si ex decem servis, quos emerim, aliquos putem alienos et qui sint sciam, reliquos usucapiam: quod si ignorem, qui sint alieni, neminem usucapere possum. 2Post mortem eius, qui hominem emerit, expleto tempore, quod defuisset ad usucapionem, quamvis eum hominem heres possidere non coepisset, fiet tamen eius: sed ita hoc, si nemo eum possedisset.
6 Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XXXII. Where anyone who is in a way to acquire by usucaption any property, either as heir or as purchaser, has claimed it by a precarious title, he cannot acquire it by usucaption. For what difference is there between these things, when he claims the property by a precarious title, he ceases in both instances to hold possession under his first title? 1If, out of ten slaves whom I have purchased, I think that some belong to other persons, and I know which ones they are, I can acquire the others by usucaption. If, however, I do not know which of them belong to others, I cannot acquire any of them by usucaption. 2The time for acquiring by usucaption having expired after the death of a man who purchased a slave, although the heir may not have begun to possess the slave, he will still become his, provided no one else has obtained possession of him in the meantime.
7 Iulianus libro quadragensimo quarto digestorum. Qui fundum pro emptore possidebat, antequam diutinam possessionem impleret, decessit: servi, qui in possessionem relicti fuerant, discesserunt relinquendae eius gratia: quaesitum est, an nihilo minus heredi tempus longae possessionis procedere potest. respondit etiam discedentibus servis hoc tempus heredi procedere. 1Si fundum Cornelianum pro emptore longa possessione capiam et partem ex vicini fundo ei adiciam, utrum eam quoque partem reliquo tempore pro emptore capiam an integro statuto tempore? respondi: partes, quae emptioni fundi adiciuntur, propriam ac separatam condicionem habent, et ideo possessionem quoque earum separatim nancisci oportere et longam possessionem earum integro statuto tempore impleri. 2Servus meus Titio mandavit, ut fundum ei emeret, eique manumisso Titius possessionem tradidit: quaesitum est, an longa possessione caperet. respondit, si servus meus mandaverit Titio, ut fundum emeret, et manumisso ei Titius fundum tradiderit, cum putaret peculium ei concessum esse vel etiam cum ignoraret peculium concessum non esse, nihilo minus servum diutina possessione capere, quia aut scit servus peculium sibi concessum non esse aut scire debet et per hoc similis est ei, qui se creditorem esse simulat. quod si scierit Titius peculium manumisso concessum non esse, donare potius quam indebitum fundum solvere intellegendus est. 3Si tutor rem pupilli subripuerit et vendiderit, usucapio non contingit, priusquam res in potestatem pupilli redeat: nam tutor in re pupilli tunc domini loco habetur, cum tutelam administrat, non cum pupillum spoliat. 4Qui bona fide alienum fundum emit et possessionem eius amisit, deinde eo tempore adprehendisset, quo scit rem alienam esse, non capiet longo tempore, quia initium secundae possessionis vitio non carebit, nec similis est ei, qui emptionis quidem tempore putat fundum vendentis esse, sed cum traditur, scit alienum esse: cum enim semel amissa fuerit possessio, initium rursus reciperatae possessionis spectari oportet. quare si eo tempore redhibeatur homo, quo emptor scit alienum esse, usucapio non contingit, quamvis antequam venderet, in ea causa fuerit, ut usucaperet. idem iuris est in eo, qui de fundo deiectus possessionem per interdictum reciperavit sciens iam alienum esse. 5Qui sciens emit ab eo, quem praetor ut suspectum heredem deminuere vetuit, usu non capiet. 6Procurator tuus si fundum, quem centum aureis vendere poterat, addixerit triginta aureis in hoc solum, ut te damno adficeret, ignorante emptore, dubitari non oportet, quin emptor longo tempore capiat: nam et cum sciens quis alienum fundum vendidit ignoranti, non interpellatur longa possessio. quod si emptor cum procuratore collusit et eum praemio corrupit, quo vilius mercaretur, non intellegetur bonae fidei emptor nec longo tempore capiet: et si adversus petentem dominum uti coeperit exceptione rei voluntate eius venditae, replicationem doli utilem futuram esse. 7Furtiva res non intellegitur redisse in domini potestatem, quamvis possideret eam, si modo ignoraverit subreptam sibi esse: si igitur servum, qui tibi subreptus erat, ignoranti tibi tuum esse pignori dedero et soluta pecunia eum Titio vendidero, Titius usucapere non poterit. 8Liber homo, qui bona fide nobis servit, isdem modis ex re nostra adquirit nobis, quibus per servum nostrum adquirere solemus: quare sicut traditione, ita usucapione rem nostram faciemus interveniente libera persona, et si peculii nomine, quod nos sequi debet, emptio contracta fuerit, etiam ignorantes usucapiemus.
7 Julianus, Digest, Book XLIV. A certain person who possessed a tract of land, as purchaser, died before the time had elapsed for acquiring the land by usucaption, and the slaves who had been left in possession of the property departed with the intention of abandoning it. The question arose whether the time of long possession would, nevertheless, continue to benefit the heir. The answer was, that even if the slaves did leave, the heir could profit by the time. 1If I obtain the Cornelian Estate, as purchaser, by virtue of long-continued possession, and I add to it a part of some adjoining land, can I also obtain this portion as purchaser during the remaining time necessary for prescription; or can I acquire it by usucaption during the time prescribed by law? I gave it as my opinion that the adjacent land, which was added to that already purchased, has its own peculiar and distinct condition, and therefore that possession of both tracts must be separately obtained, and must be acquired by long possession in accordance with the time prescribed by law. 2My slave directed Titius to purchase a tract of land for him, and Titius transferred the possession of the same to the slave after his manumission. The question arose whether he could obtain it by long possession. The answer was, that if my slave had directed Titius to purchase the land, and Titius had delivered it to him after his manumission, whether he believed that the slave’s peculium had been given to him, or did not know that it had not, the slave could, nevertheless, obtain the land by long-continued possession, because he either knew that his peculium had been given him, or he ought to have known it, and hence he resembles one who pretends to be a creditor. If, however, Titius knew that his peculium had not been given to the slave, he should be understood to have rather bestowed the land as a donation than, to have relinquished it for the discharge of a debt which was not due. 3If a guardian should steal the property of his ward and sell it, usucaption will not take place before it has been again placed under the control of the ward; for the guardian is only considered to occupy the place of the owner with reference to the property of his ward when he is administering the affairs of the guardianship, and not when he is despoiling his ward. 4Where anyone in good faith purchases land belonging to another and loses possession of the same, and afterwards, when he recovers it, ascertains that it belongs to someone else, he cannot acquire it by lapse of time, for the reason that the beginning of the second possession is defective. Nor does he resemble one who, at the time of the purchase, believed the land to belong to the vendor, but when it was delivered, knew that it belonged to someone else; for, when possession has once been lost, the beginning of the recovered possession must again be taken into consideration. Therefore, if a slave is returned at a time when the purchaser was aware that he belonged to another, usucaption will not take place; even though before he sold him he was in such a position that he could acquire him by usucaption. The same rule applies to one who has been ejected from land, and, knowing that it belonged to another, recovers possession of it by means of an interdict. 5Anyone who knowingly purchases from one whom the Prætor has forbidden to dispose of the property of an estate, on account of his being suspected of not being the heir, cannot acquire it by usucaption. 6If your agent sells a tract of land for only thirty aurei which he could have sold for a hundred, in order to cause you injury, and the ipurchaser is not aware of the fact, there is no doubt that the latter can acquire the land by long-continued possession; for even where anyone knowingly sells land belonging to another to one who is not aware that this is the case, long-continued possession is not interrupted. If, however, the purchaser should be in collusion with the agent, and, for the sake of a reward, corruptly induces him to sell the property for less than it was worth, the purchaser will not be understood to have acted in good faith, and he cannot acquire the land by prescription. If he avails himself of an exception on the ground that the land was sold with the consent of the owner, and the latter brings an action to recover it, the owner can avail himself of a reply based on fraud. 7Stolen property is not understood to be again brought under the control of the owner, even if he regains possession of the same, if he does not know that it has been stolen from him. Therefore, if I should give in pledge a slave who has been stolen from you, and you are not aware that he is yours, and, after payment of the debt, I should sell him to Titius, Titius cannot acquire him by usucaption. 8A freeman who is serving us in good faith as a slave, while managing our property, can acquire other property for us in the same way in which we are accustomed to acquire it by means of our own slaves. Hence, as we obtain the ownership of property either by delivery or by usucaption through the intervention of a person who is free, so, if a contract for a sale is entered into by means of the peculium of a slave, to which we are entitled, we can acquire the property by usucaption, even if we are not aware that the purchase has been made.
8 Idem libro secundo ex Minicio. Si quis, cum sciret venditorem pecuniam statim consumpturum, servos ab eo emisset, plerique responderunt eum nihilo minus bona fide emptorem esse, idque verius est: quomodo enim mala fide emisse videtur, qui a domino emit? nisi forte et is, qui a luxurioso et protinus scorto daturo pecuniam servos emit, non usucapiet.
8 The Same, On Minicius, Book II. Where anyone buys slaves knowing that the vendor will immediately squander the money paid for them, many authorities have held that he will, nevertheless, be a bona fide purchaser in good faith; and this is true. For, how can he be considered to have acted in bad faith, who bought the slaves from their master, unless he bought them from a man of licentious life, who will immediately give the money to a harlot, for then he cannot acquire the slaves by usucaption?
9 Idem libro tertio ad Urseium Ferocem. Qui ob pactionem libertatis ancillam furtivam a servo accepit, potest partum eius quasi emptor usucapere.
9 The Same, On Urseius Ferox, Book III. A man who has received from his own slave a female slave in consideration of the grant of his freedom, can, as a purchaser, acquire by usucaption the child of the said female slave.
10 Idem libro secundo ad Minicium. Servus domino ancillam, quam subripuerat, pro capite suo dedit: ea concepit: quaesitum est, an dominus eum partum usucapere possit. respondit: hic dominus quasi emptor partum usucapere potest, namque res ei abest pro hac muliere et genere quodammodo venditio inter servum et dominum contracta est.
10 The Same, On Minicius, Book II. A slave, in consideration of his freedom, gave to his master a female slave whom he had stolen. She conceived. The question arose whether her master could acquire her child by usucaption. The answer was that the master could, as purchaser, acquire the child by usucaption, for he gave something for the woman, and a kind of sale was made between the slave and his owner.
11 Africanus libro septimo quaestionum. Quod volgo traditum est eum, qui existimat se quid emisse nec emerit, non posse pro emptore usucapere, hactenus verum esse ait, si nullam iustam causam eius erroris emptor habeat: nam si forte servus vel procurator, cui emendam rem mandasset, persuaserit ei se emisse atque ita tradiderit, magis esse, ut usucapio sequatur.
11 Africanus, Questions, Book VII. It is usually said that he who thinks that he has bought something and did not do so cannot, as a purchaser, acquire it by usucaption; but this is only true to the extent that the purchaser must have no just cause for entertaining his erroneous opinion. For if a slave or an agent who has been directed to purchase the property should persuade his principal that he has done so, and deliver the property to him, the better opinion is that usucaption will take place.
12 Papinianus libro decimo responsorum. Misso legatario in possessionem res pro emptore usucapiuntur salva praetorii pignoris causa.
12 Papinianus, Opinions, Book X. When a legatee has been placed in possession of property, this can be acquired by usucaption by the heir, as purchaser, the right of prætorian pledge being reserved.
13 Scaevola libro quinto responsorum. Alienam aream bona fide emit et ante impletam diutinam possessionem aedificare coepit: ei denuntiante domino soli intra tempora diutinae possessionis, perseveravit: quaero, utrum interpellata sit an coepta duraverit. respondit secundum ea quae proponerentur non esse interpellatam.
13 Scævola, Opinions, Book V. A certain man purchased, in good faith, a tract of land belonging to another, and began to build a house upon it before the time for acquiring possession of it by prescription had elapsed; and the owner of the land, having notified him before the term fixed by law had expired, continued to retain possession. I ask whether the prescription was interrupted, or, having once begun, continued to run. The answer was that, in accordance with the facts stated, it had not been interrupted.
14 Scaevola libro vicensimo quinto digestorum. Intestatae sororis hereditas obvenit duobus fratribus, quorum alter absens erat, alter praesens: praesens etiam absentis causam agebat, ex qua hereditate suo et fratris sui nomine fundum in solidum vendidit Lucio Titio bona fide ementi: quaesitum est, cum scierit partem fundi absentis esse, an totum fundum longa possessione ceperit. respondit, si credidisset mandatu fratris venisse, per longum tempus cepisse.
14 The Same, Digest, Book XXV. The estate of a sister, who died intestate, passed to her two brothers, one of whom was absent and the other present. The one who was present acted for the absent one, and sold to Lucius Titius, a bona fide purchaser, an entire tract of land in his own name and in that of his brother. The question arose whether the purchaser, knowing that half of the land belonged to the absent heir, could acquire the entire tract by prescription. The answer was that he could do so, if he believed that it had been sold by the authority of the brother who was absent.