Ne vis fiat ei, qui in possessionem missus erit
(Concerning the interdict which prohibits violence being employed against a person placed in possession.)
1 Ulpianus libro septuagensimo secundo ad edictum. Ait praetor: ‘Si quis dolo malo fecerit, quo minus quis permissu meo eiusve, cuius ea iurisdictio fuit, in possessionem bonorum sit, in eum in factum iudicium, quanti ea res fuit, ob quam in possessionem missus erit, dabo’. 1Hoc edictum summa providentia praetor proposuit: frustra enim in possessionem mitteret rei servandae causa, nisi missos tueretur et prohibentes venire in possessionem coerceret. 2Est autem generale hoc edictum: pertinet enim ad omnes, qui in possessionem a praetore missi sunt: convenit enim praetori omnes, quos ipse in possessionem misit, tueri. sed sive rei servandae causa sive legatorum aut ventris nomine in possessionem missi fuerint, habent ex hoc edicto in factum actionem, sive doli sive aliter prohibuerint. 3Haec actio non tantum eum tenet, qui prohibuit quem venire in possessionem, sed etiam eum, qui possessione pulsus est, cum venisset in possessionem: nec exigitur, ut vi fecerit qui prohibuit. 4Si quis ideo possessione arcuerit, quia rem suam putabat vel sibi nexam vel certe non esse debitoris, consequens est, ut hoc edicto non teneatur. 5Haec verba ‘quanti ea res erit, ob quam in possessionem missus erit’ continent utilitatem creditoris, ut quantum eius interest possessionem habere, tantum ei qui prohibuit condemnetur. proinde si ob falsum creditum vel ob falsam petitionem missus est in possessionem vel si exceptione summoveri potuit, nihil ei debet prodesse hoc edictum, quia propter nullam causam in possessionem missus est. 6Hoc edicto neque pupillum neque furiosum teneri constat, quia affectu carent. sed pupillum eum debemus accipere, qui doli capax non est: ceterum si iam doli capax sit, contra erit dicendum. ergo et si tutor dolo fecerit, in pupillum dabimus actionem, si modo solvendo sit tutor: sed et ipsum tutorem posse conveniri Iulianus scribit. 7Si domini vel patris voluntate prohibitus quis sit a possessione, in ipsos dabitur actio, quasi per alios hoc fecerint. 8Hanc actionem excepta legatorum missione intra annum competere et non postea sciendum est, cum sit poenalis, nec in heredes similesque personas dabitur, nisi in id quod ad eas pervenit: sed heredi similibusque personis dabitur. nam cum prohibitus quis est legatorum vel fideicommissorum causa possessionem adipisci, tunc actio et perpetua est et in heredem dabitur, quia est in potestate successorum evitare interdictum satisdatione oblata.
1 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXXII. The Prætor says: “I will grant an action in factum, for the amount of the value of the property of which a person was placed in possession, against anyone who acts fraudulently to prevent him from obtaining control of said property by my permission, or by that of any other magistrate having jurisdiction.” 1It was with the greatest wisdom that the Prætor introduced this interdict; for it would be useless for him to place anyone in possession of property for the purpose of preserving it, unless he protected him, and punished those who prevented him from occupying it. 2Moreover, this Edict is of general application, for it has reference to all persons placed in possession of property by the Prætor, as it seemed proper to him that all those whom he placed in possession should be protected. Where persons are placed in possession, either for the purpose of preserving the property, or to insure the payment of their legacies, or to protect the rights of an unborn child, they will be entitled to an action in factum under this Edict, if a master or anyone else should prevent them from doing so. 3This action will not only lie against anyone who prevents another from taking possession, but also against a person who drives him away, after he has already obtained possession. It is not required that he who prevents him from taking possession should use force. 4Therefore, where if anyone hinders another from taking possession, because he thinks that the property belongs to him, or is encumbered to him, or, in fact, does not belong to the debtor, the result will be that he will not be liable under this Edict. 5The following words, “for the amount of the value of the property of which he was placed in possession,” include the entire interest of the creditor, so that the defendant shall have judgment rendered against him to the extent of the interest he had in not being prevented from obtaining possession. Hence, if he was placed in possession by virtue of a false claim or demand which was groundless, or if he should have been barred by an exception, this Edict will be of no advantage to him, because there was no reason why he should have been placed in possession. 6It is established that neither a minor nor an insane person is liable under this Edict, because they are destitute of will power. We should understand a minor to be one who is incapable of committing fraud, but if he is already capable of doing so, the opposite opinion must be held; therefore, if a guardian should commit a fraudulent act, we will grant an action against his ward, provided the guardian is solvent. Julianus says that the guardian himself can be sued. 7If anyone is prevented from obtaining possession with the consent of a master or a father, an action will be granted against them, just as if they committed the act by the agency of others. 8This action can only be brought within a year, except where anyone is placed in possession to insure the payment of a legacy; and it must be noted that it cannot be brought after the year has expired, as it is a penal one; nor will it be granted against heirs and other persons of this kind, unless with reference to property which has come into their hands. It will, however, be granted to the heir and other successors. For when anyone is prevented from obtaining possession on account of the preservation of legacies or trusts, the action is perpetual and is granted against the heir, because it is in the power of successors to avoid the operation of the interdict by offering to give security.
2 Paulus libro quinquagensimo nono ad edictum. Suo quis an alieno nomine prohibitus sit, nihil interest: haec enim verba ‘quanti ea res est’ referenda sunt ad personam domini. 1Item tam is tenetur, qui suo nomine, quam qui alieno nomine prohibuit.
2 Paulus, On the Edict, Book LIX. It makes no difference whether anyone is prevented from taking possession in his own name, or in that of another, for the words, “For the amount of the value of the property,” have reference to the owner personally. 1He also is liable who, either in his own name or in that of another, prevents possession from being taken.
3 Ulpianus libro sexagensimo octavo ad edictum. Si quis missus fuerit in possessionem fideicommissi servandi causa et non admittatur, potestate eius inducendus est in possessionem, qui eum misit, aut si quis volet uti interdicto, consequens erit dicere interdictum locum habere. sed melius erit dicere extra ordinem ipsos iure suae potestatis exsequi oportere decretum suum, nonnumquam etiam per manum militarem. 1Constitutum est ab Antonino, ut etiam in bona heredis quis admittatur certis modis. si quis igitur in his bonis non admittatur, dicendum est actionem hanc utilem competere: ceterum poterit uti et extraordinaria exsecutione. 2Praetor ventrem in possessionem mittit, et hoc interdictum prohibitorium et restitutorium est. sed si mulier velit in factum actione uti ad exemplum creditorum magis quam interdicto, posse eam experiri sciendum est. 3Si mulier dicatur calumniae causa in possessionem venisse, quod non sit praegnas vel non ex eo praegnas, vel si de statu mulieris aliquid dicatur: ex epistula divi Hadriani ad exemplum praesumptionis Carboniani edicti ventri praetor pollicetur possessionem.
3 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXVIII. Where anyone is awarded possession for the protection of a trust, and is not admitted, he should be placed in possession by the authority of him who granted it to him. If he wishes to avail himself of the interdict, it must be said that it will be applicable. It would, however, be better for the judge to have his decree executed by extraordinary process, derived from the power of his office, and sometimes even to accomplish this by armed force. 1It was decided by Antoninus that a person may, under certain circumstances, be permitted to take possession of the property of the heir himself. Therefore, if anyone is not permitted to take possession of such property, it must be held that this equitable proceeding will lie. He can also make use of extraordinary execution. 2The Prætor places an unborn child in possession. This interdict is both prohibitory and restitutory. If the mother prefers to bring an action in factum, it must be remembered that she can do so (as in the case of creditors), rather than avail herself of the interdict. 3If the woman is alleged to have obtained possession for the purpose of causing annoyance, or because she is not pregnant, or is not pregnant by the man whose property is in question, or where anything is alleged with reference to her status, the Prætor promises possession to the unborn child, under a Rescript of the Divine Hadrian, in conformity with the presumption of the Carbonian Edict.
4 Idem libro sexagensimo nono ad edictum. Per interdictum etiam ei subvenit praetor, qui damni infecti ab eo in possessionem missus est, ne ei vis fiat. 1Poena autem eius, qui non promittit vel satis non dat, haec est, ut in possessionem mittatur adversarius. sive ergo promittat, sive per eum non fiat, quo minus promittat, non tenebit interdictum repulso per exceptionem eo qui experitur. 2Praetor in eum, qui neque cavit neque possidere passus est eum qui missus est, iudicium pollicetur in tantum, quantum praestare eum oporteret, si de ea re cautum fuerat. 3Sed et ex alia causa hoc iudicium proposuit, si eo tempore, quo in possessionem mitti desiderabat, praetoris adeundi potestas non fuerit, scilicet ut, si, cum potestas praetoris adeundi non esset, damnum interim datum est, haberet iudicium qui damnum passus est. 4Item subiectum, si ex alia causa in possessionem missus prohibitus esse dicetur, habere in factum actionem.
4 The Same, On the Edict, Book LXIX. The Prætor, by means of this Edict, conies to the relief of a person who has been placed in possession by him for the prevention of threatened injury, in order to prevent violence being employed against him. 1Moreover, the penalty imposed upon him who does not promise security or furnish it is that his adversary shall be placed in possession. Therefore, if he promises to give security, or if he was not required to do so, the interdict will not apply, and the plaintiff can be barred by an exception. 2The Prætor promises an action against a party who neither gave security, nor suffered him who had been placed in possession to enter upon the premises, for the amount which he must have paid if he had furnished security. 3The Prætor introduced this action for another reason, namely, so that, if when a person desired to be placed in possession he was unable to appear in court, and in the meantime while his inability continued, he sustained any injury he might be entitled to bring the action. 4It was also added that if anyone who was placed in possession was alleged to have been prevented for some other reason, he would have a right to an action in factum.