Pro derelicto
(Concerning possession on the ground of abandonment.)
1 Ulpianus libro duodecimo ad edictum. Si res pro derelicto habita sit, statim nostra esse desinit et occupantis statim fit, quia isdem modis res desinunt esse nostrae, quibus adquiruntur.
1 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XII. Where property is considered to be abandoned, it immediately ceases to be ours, and belongs to the first occupant, because it ceases to belong to us under the same circumstances that it is acquired by others.
2 Paulus libro quinquagensimo quarto ad edictum. Pro derelicto rem a domino habitam si sciamus, possumus adquirere. 1Sed Proculus non desinere eam rem domini esse, nisi ab alio possessa fuerit: Iulianus desinere quidem omittentis esse, non fieri autem alterius, nisi possessa fuerit, et recte.
2 Paulus, On the Edict, Book LIV. We can acquire property on the ground of abandonment, if we know that it is considered as relinquished by its owner. 1Proculus holds that the property does not cease to belong to the owner, unless possession of it is acquired by someone else. Julianus, however, thinks that it ceases to belong to the owner when he abandons it, but that it does not become the property of another, unless he obtains possession of it. This is correct.
3 Modestinus libro sexto differentiarum. An pars pro derelicto haberi possit, quaeri solet. et quidem si in re communi socius partem suam reliquerit, eius esse desinit, ut hoc sit in parte, quod in toto: atquin totius rei dominus efficere non potest, ut partem retineat, partem pro derelicto habeat.
3 Modestinus, Differences, Book VII. An inquiry is sometimes made whether a portion of anything can be considered to have been abandoned. And, indeed, if a joint-owner gives up his share of the common property, it ceases to belong to him, so that the same rule is applicable to a portion that is to all. The sole owner of property, however, cannot retain a part of the same and abandon the remainder.
4 Paulus libro quinto decimo ad Sabinum. Id, quod pro derelicto habitum est et haberi putamus, usucapere possumus, etiam si ignoramus, a quo derelictum sit.
4 Paulus, On Sabinus, Book XV. We can acquire by usucaption property which is considered to be abandoned, when we think that this is the case, even if we do not know by whom it has been abandoned.
5 Pomponius libro trigensimo secundo ad Sabinum. Si id, quod pro derelicto habitum possidebas, ego sciens in ea causa esse abs te emerim, me usucapturum constat nec obstare, quod in bonis tuis non fuerit: nam et si tibi rem ab uxore donatam sciens emero, quia quasi volente et concedente domino id faceres, idem iuris est. 1Id, quod quis pro derelicto habuerit, continuo meum fit: sicuti cum quis aes sparserit aut aves amiserit, quamvis incertae personae voluerit eas esse, tamen eius fierent, cui casus tulerit ea, quae, cum quis pro derelicto habeat, simul intellegitur voluisse alicuius fieri.
5 Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XXXII. If you possess any article which is considered to have been abandoned, and I, knowing this to be the case, purchase it from you, it is established that I can acquire it by usucaption, and the objection that it is not included in your property cannot be raised. For if I knowingly purchase property given to you by your wife, for the reason that you have done this, as it were, with the consent and permission of the owner, the same rule will apply. 1Whatever anyone considers to have been abandoned by himself immediately becomes mine, if I take it. Hence, if anyone throws away money, or releases birds, although he intends that they shall belong to anyone who may seize them, they, nevertheless, become the property of him whom chance may favor; for where anyone relinquishes the ownership of property, he is understood to have intended it to belong to anyone else whomsoever.
6 Iulianus libro tertio ad Urseium Ferocem. Nemo potest pro derelicto usucapere, qui falso existimaverit rem pro derelicto habitam esse.
6 Julianus, On Urseius Ferox, Book III. No one can acquire property by usucaption on the ground of abandonment who erroneously thinks that it has been abandoned.
7 Idem libro secundo ex Minicio. Si quis merces ex nave iactatas invenisset, num ideo usucapere non possit, quia non viderentur derelictae, quaeritur. sed verius est eum pro derelicto usucapere non posse.
7 The Same, On Minicius, Book II. When anyone finds merchandise which has been thrown overboard from a ship, the question arises whether he cannot acquire it by usucaption, for the reason that it should be considered as abandoned. The better opinion is that he cannot acquire it by usucaption on the ground of abandonment.
8 Paulus libro octavo decimo responsorum. Sempronius Thetidi status quaestionem facere temptabat, quasi de serva sua nata sit. qui iam testato conventus a Procula nutrice Thetidis in solvendis alimentis respondit non se habere, unde alimenta eiusdem exsolvat, sed debere eam patri suo restituere Lucio Titio: idque ex illa in testationem redegisset, ut postea nullam quaestionem pateretur ab eodem Sempronio, Lucius Titius Seiae Proculae solutis alimentis puellam vindicta manumisit: quaero, an possit rescindi libertas Thetidis. Paulus respondit, quoniam dominus ancillae, ex qua Thetis nata est, Thetidem pro derelicto habuisse videtur, potuisse eam a Lucio Titio ad libertatem perduci.
8 Paulus, Opinions, Book XVIII. Sempronius attempted to raise a question as to the condition of a certain Thetis, alleging that she was the daughter of one of his female slaves. He, however, having been sued by Procula, the nurse of Thetis, in an action to compel him to reimburse her for Thetis’s support, answered that he did not have the means to make payment, but that the nurse should restore the child to her father, Lucius Titius. The nurse then instituted proceedings to prevent any question from being raised afterwards by the said Sempronius. Lucius Titius, after having paid Seia Procula her claim for support, publicly manumitted the child. I ask whether the freedom granted to Thetis can be revoked. Paulus answered that, as the owner of the female slave to whom Thetis was born was considered to have abandoned the latter, she could obtain her freedom at the hands of Lucius Titius.