1Ulpianus, Institutes, Book I. A precarious tenure is one by which a party petitioning for it is permitted to enjoy the use of property as long as he who grants him permission suffers him to do so. 1This species of generosity is derived from the Law of Nations. 2It differs from a donation, in that he who makes a donation has no intention of receiving the property again; but he who grants anything by a precarious tenure does so with the expectation of resuming control of the property when he chooses to release it from the tenure. 3It also resembles a loan for use, for he who lends property in this manner does so in such a way as not to render the article loaned the property of the person who receives it, but he only permits him to make use of it.

2The Same, On the Edict, Book LXIII. The Prætor says: “You must return the property in question to him from whom you hold it by a precarious tenure, or which you have ceased to possess through some fraudulent act.” 1This interdict is restitutory. It is based upon natural equity, and lies in favor of anyone who desires to revoke the precarious tenure. 2Ad Dig. 43,26,2,2Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 376, Note 3.For it is naturally just that you should only enjoy my liberality as long as I desire you to do so, and that I can revoke it whenever I change my mind. Therefore, where anything is granted under a precarious tenure, we can not only make use of the interdict, but also of the Actio præscriptis verbis, which is based upon good faith. 3He is considered to hold property by a precarious title who has possession of the same either in fact or in law, for the sole reason that he has asked for, and obtained the right to possess, or to use it.

3Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XXV. For example, where you have requested me to give you a right of way over your land, or to permit you to allow your gutter to project over my roof, or your beams to rest upon my wall.

4Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XVII. A precarious title also exists with reference to movable property. 1Moreover, we must also remember that he who holds property by a precarious tenure is also in possession of the same. 2It is not he who has asked for the property under a precarious tenure, but he who holds it under such a tenure, that is liable under this interdict. For it may happen that he who did not ask for it may, nevertheless, hold it by a precarious tenure; as, for instance, if my servant should apply for it, or anyone else who is under my control should do so, he will acquire it for me under this tenure. 3Likewise, if I should ask for property under a precarious tenure, which already belongs to me, although I have made this request, I will not hold the property under this tenure, for the reason that it is established that no one can hold his own property by a precarious title. 4Likewise, he who requests property to be given him under a precarious tenure, for a certain period of time, will still be considered to possess it under this tenure after the time has elapsed, even though he may not have asked to hold it longer; as the owner of property is understood to renew the precarious tenure when he permits the person who asked for it under such a title to continue to hold possession of the same.

5Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XXIX. If while the precarious tenure is still existing, you request that it be continued for a long time, it will be extended; for the title to possession is not changed and a precarious title is not created in this way, but is merely prolonged. If, however, you request it after the time has elapsed, the better opinion is that a precarious title having once been extinguished is not renewed, but a new one is established.

6Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXXI. If, in the meantime, the owner of the property should become insane, or die, Marcellus says that it is not possible for the precarious tenure to be renewed. This is true. 1If my agent, under my direction, asks for property under a precarious tenure, or if I ratify his act, I will properly be said to hold it under such a tenure. 2He who has asked permission to reside upon land under a precarious tenure is not in possession of the land, but its possession remains with the person who granted him permission. For jurists hold that an usufructuary, a tenant, and a lessee, all live on the land, and still they are not in possession of it. 3Ad Dig. 43,26,6,3Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 182, Note 10.Julianus says that where anyone who has forcibly ejected another afterwards obtains from him the same land by a precarious tenure, he ceases to possess it by force, and begins to hold it by a precarious title; and he does not think that he has changed his title to the property, as he commences to possess it under a precarious tenure with the consent of him who ejected him. For if he had bought the same property for him, he would begin to acquire the ownership of the same as the purchaser. 4The question arose, if anyone should give his property to me in pledge, and then ask to hold it by a precarious tenure, whether there would be ground for this interdict. The point in this case is whether a precarious title to one’s own property can exist. The better opinion seems to me to be that the precarious tenure relates to the pledge, as it is the possession, and not the ownership, which is granted. This opinion is extremely useful, for, every day, creditors are requested by those who have given their property in pledge, to permit them to hold it by a precarious tenure. A precarious tenure of this kind should be valid.

7Venuleius, Interdicts, Book III. But if I am entitled to retain possession of property by means of the interdict Uti possidetis, although the question relating to the ownership of the same may not have been decided, and I grant you possession of it under a precarious tenure, you will be liable under this interdict.

8Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXXI. The question arose, if Titius should request me to allow him to use something belonging to Sempronius, and I afterwards ask Sempronius to grant permission for this to be done and he, desiring to favor me, gives permission, Titius will hold the property from me by a precarious title, and I can sue him under the interdict. Sempronius, however, cannot proceed against him, because the following words, “which you hold of him by a precarious title,” show that the interdict can be employed by the person who asked for the precarious tenure, and not by him to whom the property belongs. But will Sempronius be entitled to sue me under the interdict, on account of my having requested him to permit the property to be held under a precarious tenure? The better opinion is, that he will not be entitled to the interdict, because I do not hold the property by a precarious title, as I did not obtain it for myself, but for another. He will, nevertheless, be entitled to an action on mandate against me, because he granted it to you under my direction. Or, if anyone should say that this was done, not by my direction, but rather in order to render me his debtor, it must be held that an action in factum should also be granted against me. 1When anyone has obtained property from Titius under a precarious tenure, it is also considered to be held from his heir in the same manner, as is stated by Sabinus and Celsus; and this is our practice. Therefore, a man is considered to hold property under this tenure from all other successors; which opinion is approved by Labeo. He adds that, even if he did not know that there was an heir, fie would still hold the property from him under a precarious tenure. 2Let us see what the rule will be, if you request me to grant you property under a precarious tenure, and I alienate it; will the tenure continue to exist, after the transfer of the property to another? The better opinion is that he can make use of the interdict, if he has not revoked the precarious tenure; just as if you held the property in this way from him, and not from me, and if you permit him to hold it by this tenure for some time, he can properly employ the interdict just as if you held it from him. 3The Prætor wished that he also should be liable under this proceeding, who committed a fraudulent act in order to avoid retaining possession. It must be noted that anyone who retains possession by a precarious tenure is not liable for negligence, but only for fraud; although he who has borrowed an article is responsible for negligence, as well as for fraud. And it is not without reason that he who obtains property by a precarious title is only liable for fraud, for all this only arises from the generosity of him who granted the property under such a tenure; and it is sufficient if he is only liable for fraud. It may, however, be said that he will also be liable for gross negligence which resembles fraud. 4Under this interdict the property should be restored to its original condition, and if this is not done, judgment must be rendered for the amount of the interest of the plaintiff in having the property restored to its former condition, from the time when the interdict was issued. Therefore, an estimate of the crops should also be made, and paid for from the same date. 5If he who obtained the property under a precarious tenure does not make use of a servitude, and, on this account, it is extinguished, let us see whether he will be liable to the interdict. I think that he will not be liable, unless he was guilty of fraud. 6Generally speaking, it must be held that in making restitution, both fraud and gross negligence should be taken into account, but nothing else. It is evident that after the issue of the interdict, fraud, and both gross and ordinary negligence should be considered, for where anyone who holds property under a precarious tenure is in default, he should be responsible for everything. 7Ad Dig. 43,26,8,7Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 160, Note 17.Labeo says that this interdict can be employed after the lapse of a year, and this is our practice; for, as property is sometimes granted under a precarious tenure for a considerable time, it would be absurd to hold that there will be no ground for the interdict after a year. 8The heir of him who asks that he be granted the property under a precarious tenure will be liable under this interdict, just as he himself would be, if he had possession of the property, or was guilty of fraud to avoid having it, or to prevent it from coming into his hands; but he will only be liable for the amount of the profit which he obtained, where any fraud was committed by the deceased.

9Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XXVI. Precarious possession can be established between parties who are either present, or absent; for instance, by means of a letter, or a messenger.

10Pomponius, On Plautius, Book V. Although anyone may have only asked for a female slave under a precarious tenure, it is held that it was intended that he should be entitled to any offspring of the said female slave.

11Celsus, Digest, Book VII. If a debtor who has asked that property pledged be given him under a precarious tenure should discharge the debt, the said tenure comes to an end; as it was the intention of the parties that it should only continue to exist until the time when the debt was paid.

12The Same, Digest, Book XXV. When anything is granted under a precarious tenure, and it is agreed that the grantee shall hold possession under it until the Kalends of July, will he who received it be entitled to an exception to prevent him from being deprived of possession of the property before that time? An agreement of this kind is of no force or effect, for it is not lawful for property belonging to another to be held in possession against the consent of the owner. 1Property held by a precarious tenure passes to the heir of him who granted it, but it does not pass to the heir of him who received it, because possession was given only to himself, and not to his heir.

13Paulus, On Quintus Mucius, Book XXXIII. If your slave should request that property be granted him under a precarious tenure, and this is done by your order, or you ratify his request in your own name, you will be liable as holding the property in this manner. If, however, your slave or your son should make a request in his own responsibility, without your knowledge, you will not be considered to hold the property under a precarious tenure, but the person who granted it will be entitled to proceed against you by the action De peculia, or by that for property employed for the benefit of another.

14Paulus, On Sabinus, Book XIII. The interdict having reference to property held by a precarious tenure was introduced with good reason, because there was no action available for this purpose under the Civil Law. For occupancy by a precarious tenure relates to donations and benefactions, rather than to contracts made in the ordinary course of business.

15Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XX. It is based upon absolute justice, as it prescribes that a person shall only make use of our property to the extent that we are willing to grant him permission to do so. 1Guests, and others who are entitled to free lodgings, are not understood to hold under a precarious tenure. 2We can hold under a precarious tenure property which consists of a right, as thai which permits the insertion of beams into a building, or allows structures to project over land. 3Anyone who has obtained security for the restitution of his property is not entitled to the benefit of the interdict relating to a precarious tenure. 4Ad Dig. 43,26,15,4Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 154, Note 5.There is no question that anyone who has obtained possession under a precarious tenure does not actually acquire it. But is there any doubt that he who has requested to grant it, will continue to retain possession? Where possession under a precarious tenure has been granted to a slave, it is established that it is held by both parties; by him who made the request, because he holds possession in fact, arid by the owner of the property, because he did not have the intention of relinquishing it. 5It makes no difference, so far as this interdict is concerned, in what place anyone holds possession, or began to hold it under a precarious tenure.

16The Same, On Sabinus, Book XXII. If I adopt a person to whom property has been granted under a precarious tenure, I will also hold possession of it under the same tenure.

17The Same, On Sabinus, Book XXIII. When anyone possesses land under a precarious tenure, he can make use of the interdict Uti possidetis against all other persons, except him from whom he obtained the land.

18Julianus, Digest, Book XIII. Anyone can give his own property under a precarious tenure to the. party in possession, even though he himself does not possess it.

19The Same, Digest, Book XLIX. Two persons cannot hold the same property by a precarious title, any more than two can hold possession of the same thing through violence, or clandestinely; for two just or unjust possessions of it cannot exist at one and the same time. 1Anyone who requests that my slave be transferred to him under a precarious title is considered to hold him from me under such a title, if I grant his request; and hence he will be liable to me under the interdict in question. 2Where anything is requested to be granted under a precarious tenure, we cannot only make use of this interdict, but also of the proceeding for the recovery of property whose amount is undetermined; that is to say, the Actio Præscriptis Verbis.

20Ulpianus, Opinions, Book II. The vendor can follow up any property which has been sold, and which is to remain in the hands of the purchaser under a precarious title, until the entire price has been paid, if it was the purchaser’s fault that payment has not been made.

21Venuleius, Actions, Book IV. When anyone obtains permission to reside upon land under a precarious tenure, it is superfluous for the words, “For him and his household” to be added; for it is understood that permission is granted through him for his family to make use of the property.

22The Same, Interdicts, Book III. If anyone who is in possession merely as possessor should request the owner of the property to grant him permission to retain it under a precarious tenure, or if he who purchased property belonging to another should make this request to the owner of the same, it is evident that they will hold possession under a precarious tenure; and they should not be considered to have themselves changed their title to possession, as possession under a precarious tenure has been granted them by the owner of the land. For if you should ask another for property in your possession to be granted you under a precarious tenure, you will be considered to have ceased to possess it under the first title, and to begin to hold it under a precarious one. On the other hand, if a person who has the right to take the property away from the possessor should ask him to grant it to him by a precarious tenure, he will be liable under the interdict in question; as an advantage has been obtained by this request, that is to say, the possession which belongs to another. 1If a ward, without the authority of his guardian, should ask that property be granted him under a precarious tenure, Labeo says that he will hold precarious possession of it, and will be liable under this interdict; for where anyone has possession naturally, there is no ground for the exertion of the authority of a guardian. The words, “which you hold under a precarious tenure,” are perfectly applicable, because what he possesses he holds by the title under which he asked for the grant of the property. There is nothing new to be determined by the Prætor in this case; for if the ward holds the property, he will be required by the judge to surrender it, and if he does not hold it, he will not be liable.