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. XLIII1,
De interdictis sive extraordinariis actionibus, quae pro his competunt
Liber quadragesimus tertius
I.

De interdictis sive extraordinariis actionibus, quae pro his competunt

(Concerning Interdicts or the Extraordinary Proceedings to Which They Give Rise.)

1Ul­pia­nus li­bro se­xa­gen­si­mo sep­ti­mo ad edic­tum. Vi­dea­mus, de qui­bus re­bus in­ter­dic­ta com­pe­tunt. et scien­dum est in­ter­dic­ta aut de di­vi­nis re­bus aut de hu­ma­nis com­pe­te­re. di­vi­nis, ut de lo­cis sa­cris vel de lo­cis re­li­gio­sis. de re­bus ho­mi­num in­ter­dic­ta red­dun­tur aut de his, quae sunt ali­cu­ius, aut de his, quae nul­lius sunt. quae sunt nul­lius, haec sunt: li­be­rae per­so­nae, de qui­bus ex­hi­ben­dis du­cen­dis in­ter­dic­ta com­pe­tunt. quae sunt ali­cu­ius, haec sunt aut pu­bli­ca aut sin­gu­lo­rum. pu­bli­ca: de lo­cis pu­bli­cis, de viis de­que flu­mi­ni­bus pu­bli­cis. quae au­tem sin­gu­lo­rum sunt, aut ad uni­ver­si­ta­tem per­ti­nent, ut in­ter­dic­tum quo­rum bo­no­rum, aut ad sin­gu­las res, ut est in­ter­dic­tum uti pos­si­de­tis, de iti­ne­re ac­tu­que. 1In­ter­dic­to­rum au­tem tres spe­cies sunt, ex­hi­bi­to­ria pro­hi­bi­to­ria re­sti­tu­to­ria: sunt ta­men quae­dam in­ter­dic­ta et mix­ta, quae et pro­hi­bi­to­ria sunt et ex­hi­bi­to­ria. 2In­ter­dic­to­rum quae­dam in prae­sens, quae­dam in prae­ter­itum re­fe­run­tur: in prae­sens, ut uti pos­si­de­tis: in prae­ter­itum, ut de iti­ne­re ac­tu­que, de aqua aes­ti­va. 3In­ter­dic­ta om­nia li­cet in rem vi­dean­tur con­cep­ta, vi ta­men ip­sa per­so­na­lia sunt. 4In­ter­dic­to­rum quae­dam an­na­lia sunt, quae­dam per­pe­tua.

1Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXVII. Let us see in what cases interdicts are available. It should be noted that they are applicable to both Divine or human affairs; to Divine affairs, where sacred or religious places are concerned. Interdicts are granted with reference to human affairs, where property has an owner, or where it belongs to no one. Free persons are included in that which belongs to no one, and interdicts will lie where they must be produced in court, or conducted anywhere. Things which have an owner are the property of the public, or of individuals. Public property consists of public places, highways, and rivers; property belonging to individuals is such as relates to property in its entirety, as in the case of an interdict Quorum, bonorum, and that which is separated, as in the case of the interdict Uti possidetis or De itinere actuque. 1There are three kinds of interdicts, exhibitory, prohibitory, and restitutory. There are also certain interdicts which are of a mixed nature, and which are both prohibitory and exhibitory. 2Some interdicts have reference to the present time, and others to future time. The interdict Uti possidetis has reference to the present time, and the one De itinere actuque de aqua sestiva has reference to future time. 3All interdicts are personal in their application, although they appear to relate to property. 4Some interdicts only last a year, and others are perpetual.

2Pau­lus li­bro se­xa­gen­si­mo ter­tio ad edic­tum. In­ter­dic­to­rum quae­dam du­pli­cia sunt, quae­dam sim­pli­cia. du­pli­cia di­cun­tur, ut uti pos­si­de­tis, sim­pli­cia sunt ea, vel­uti ex­hi­bi­to­ria et re­sti­tu­to­ria, item pro­hi­bi­to­ria de ar­bo­ri­bus cae­den­dis et de iti­ne­re ac­tu­que. 1In­ter­dic­ta au­tem com­pe­tunt vel ho­mi­num cau­sa vel di­vi­ni iu­ris aut de re­li­gio­ne, sic­ut est ‘ne quid in lo­co sa­cro fiat’ vel ‘quod fac­tum est re­sti­tua­tur’ et de mor­tuo in­fe­ren­do vel se­pul­chro ae­di­fi­can­do. ho­mi­num cau­sa com­pe­tunt vel ad pu­bli­cam uti­li­ta­tem per­ti­nen­tia vel sui iu­ris tuen­di cau­sa vel of­fi­cii tuen­di cau­sa vel rei fa­mi­lia­ris. pu­bli­cae uti­li­ta­tis cau­sa com­pe­tit in­ter­dic­tum ‘ut via pu­bli­ca uti li­ceat’ et ‘flu­mi­ne pu­bli­co’ et ‘ne quid fiat in via pu­bli­ca’: iu­ris sui tuen­di cau­sa de li­be­ris ex­hi­ben­dis, item de li­ber­to ex­hi­ben­do: of­fi­cii cau­sa de ho­mi­ne li­be­ro ex­hi­ben­do: re­li­qua in­ter­dic­ta rei fa­mi­lia­ris cau­sa dan­tur. 2Quae­dam in­ter­dic­ta rei per­se­cu­tio­nem con­ti­nent, vel­uti de iti­ne­re ac­tu­que pri­va­to: nam pro­prie­ta­tis cau­sam con­ti­net hoc in­ter­dic­tum. sed et il­la in­ter­dic­ta, quae de lo­cis sa­cris et de re­li­gio­sis pro­po­nun­tur, vel­uti pro­prie­ta­tis cau­sam con­ti­nent, item il­la de li­be­ris ex­hi­ben­dis, quae iu­ris tuen­di cau­sa di­xi­mus com­pe­te­re, ut non sit mi­rum, si, quae in­ter­dic­ta ad rem fa­mi­lia­rem per­ti­nent, pro­prie­ta­tis, non pos­ses­sio­nis cau­sam ha­beant. 3Haec au­tem in­ter­dic­ta, quae ad rem fa­mi­lia­rem spec­tant, aut apis­cen­dae sunt pos­ses­sio­nis aut re­ci­pe­ran­dae aut re­ti­nen­dae. apis­cen­dae pos­ses­sio­nis sunt in­ter­dic­ta, quae com­pe­tunt his, qui an­te non sunt nanc­ti pos­ses­sio­nem. sunt au­tem in­ter­dic­ta apis­cen­dae pos­ses­sio­nis ‘quo­rum bo­no­rum’: Sal­via­num quo­que in­ter­dic­tum, quod est de pig­no­ri­bus, ex hoc ge­ne­re est: et ‘quo iti­ne­re ven­di­tor usus est, quo mi­nus emp­tor uta­tur, vim fie­ri ve­to’. re­ci­pe­ran­dae pos­ses­sio­nis cau­sa pro­po­nun­tur sub ru­bri­ca un­de vi: ali­qua enim sub hoc ti­tu­lo in­ter­dic­ta sunt. re­ti­nen­dae pos­ses­sio­nis sunt in­ter­dic­ta uti pos­si­de­tis. sunt in­ter­dic­ta ut di­xi­mus, du­pli­cia tam re­ci­pe­ran­dae quam apis­cen­dae pos­ses­sio­nis.

2Paulus, On the Edict, Book LXIII. There are double and single interdicts. The interdict Uti possidetis is an instance of a double one. Exhibitory and restitutory interdicts are single, and there are also prohibitory interdicts, as for instance, those De arboribus cædendis and De itinere actuque. 1Moreover, interdicts will lie in favor either of persons, or for the purpose of upholding the Divine Law, and protecting places which are religious; for example, to prevent any act being committed in a sacred place, or to compel matters to be restored to their former condition, where anything has been done; which includes the interdict having reference to burials and the construction of tombs. Those which have been established in favor of persons either have reference to the common welfare, the maintenance of the rights of individuals, the discharge of official duty, or the preservation of private property. The interdict granting the use of public highways and public rivers, and prohibiting any obstruction from being placed upon a highway is an instance of one instituted for the common welfare; the interdicts to compel the production of children and freedmen in court are examples of those established for the protection of private rights. The interdict requiring the production of a freeman in court is an example of one to compel the performance of an official duty. Other interdicts are granted for the protection of property. 2Some interdicts include the pursuit of property, as, for instance, the one which has reference to private rights of way, for by proceedings under this interdict the title to property is involved. Interdicts which refer to sacred and religious places also embrace, to a certain extent, the title to property. That which has reference to the production of children in court, and which we have stated has for its object the maintenance of private rights, is also of this description, so that it is not strange that interdicts relating to private property include the title to it and not the right to its mere possession. 3Those interdicts which have reference to private property are instituted either for the purpose of acquiring, recovering, or retaining possession. Interdicts to obtain possession are such as are available by parties who have not hitherto acquired it; and an example of these is the interdict Quorum bonorum. The Salvian Edict which relates to pledges is one of this kind, and is as follows: “I forbid violence to be employed to prevent the purchaser from using a right of way which was used by the vendor.” Interdicts for the recovery of possession are mentioned under the title, “Unde vi,” for there are certain interdicts which are classed under this head. The interdict, “Uti possidetis,” is an instance of one of those issued for the purpose of retaining possession. As we have previously stated there are also interdicts which are double; these are for the purpose of both recovering and retaining possession.

3Ul­pia­nus li­bro se­xa­gen­si­mo no­no ad edic­tum. In in­ter­dic­tis ex­in­de ra­tio ha­be­tur fruc­tuum, ex quo edi­ta sunt, non re­tro.

3Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXIX. In interdicts issued to compel the return of crops, the date when they were issued is taken into consideration, and not any previous time.

4Pau­lus li­bro se­xa­gen­si­mo sep­ti­mo ad edic­tum. Ex qui­bus cau­sis an­nua in­ter­dic­ta sunt, ex his de eo, quod ad eum cum quo agi­tur per­ve­nit, post an­num iu­di­cium dan­dum Sa­b­inus re­spon­dit.

4Paulus, On the Edict, Book LXVII. In cases where the interdicts are only in force for a year, Sabinus is of the opinion that an action should be granted after the year has elapsed, if the party who is sued has obtained any of said crops.

5Idem li­bro ter­tio de­ci­mo ad Sa­binum. In­ter­dic­ta noxa­lia ea sunt, quae ob de­lic­tum eo­rum, quos in po­tes­ta­te ha­be­mus, dan­tur, vel­uti cum vi de­ie­ce­runt aut vi aut clam opus fe­ce­runt. sed of­fi­cio iu­di­cis con­ti­ne­tur, ut do­mi­num sua in­pen­sa opus re­sti­tuen­tem ab­sol­vat: pa­tien­tiam tol­len­do ope­ri prae­stan­tem no­xae de­de­re iu­beat et ab­sol­vat, si non de­dat, quan­tum im­pen­sae in tol­len­do ope­re ero­ga­tum sit, tan­ti con­dem­net: si ne­que pa­tien­tiam prae­stet ne­que ip­se tol­lat, cum pos­sit, in tan­tum con­dem­net, in quan­tum iu­dex aes­ti­ma­ve­rit, at­que si ip­se fe­cis­set.

5The Same, On Sabinus, Book XIII. Noxal interdicts are those which are granted on account of some crime committed by persons under our control; as, for instance, where they have forcibly ejected anyone, or have erected a new work either by violence, or clandestinely. It is, however, the duty of the judge to release the owner, if he places the property in its former condition at his own expense; or if he permits the work to be removed, and directs a slave to be surrendered by way of reparation. If he does not surrender the slave, judgment must be rendered against him for the amount of expense incurred in removing the work; and if he neither suffers it to be removed, nor removes it himself, if he can do so, he shall have judgment rendered against him for an amount which the court may determine, just as if he himself has constructed the work in question.