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. XLIII4,
Ne vis fiat ei, qui in possessionem missus erit
Liber quadragesimus tertius
IV.

Ne vis fiat ei, qui in possessionem missus erit

(Concerning the Interdict Which Prohibits Violence Being Employed Against a Person Placed in Possession.)

1Ul­pia­nus 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.

1Ulpianus, 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.

2Pau­lus 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.

2Paulus, 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.

3Ul­pia­nus 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.

3Ulpianus, 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.

4Idem 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.

4The 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.