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. XLI7,
Pro derelicto
Liber quadragesimus primus
VII.

Pro derelicto

(Concerning Possession on the Ground of Abandonment.)

1Ul­pia­nus 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.

1Ulpianus, 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.

2Pau­lus 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.

2Paulus, On the Edict, Book LIV. Ad Dig. 41,7,2 pr.Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 184, Note 1.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.

3Mo­des­ti­nus 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.

3Ad Dig. 41,7,3Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 169a, Note 5.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.

4Pau­lus li­bro quin­to de­ci­mo ad Sa­binum. Id, quod pro de­relic­to ha­bi­tum est et ha­be­ri pu­ta­mus, usu­ca­pe­re pos­su­mus, et­iam si igno­ra­mus, a quo de­relic­tum sit.

4Paulus, 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.

5Pom­po­nius 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.

5Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XXXII. Ad Dig. 41,7,5 pr.Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 176, Note 6.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.

6Iu­lia­nus li­bro ter­tio ad Ur­seium Fe­ro­cem. Ne­mo pot­est pro de­relic­to usu­ca­pe­re, qui fal­so ex­is­ti­ma­ve­rit rem pro de­relic­to ha­bi­tam es­se.

6Julianus, 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.

7Idem 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.

7The 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.

8Pau­lus 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.

8Paulus, 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.