1Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXXIV. For the reason that a discussion frequently arises with reference to available days, let us see in what the power to maintain one’s rights consists. In the first place, it is requisite for the plaintiff to have power to bring an action, for it is not sufficient for the defendant to be able to himself make a defence, or employ someone who can properly do so for him, but the plaintiff also must not be prevented by any lawful reason from instituting proceedings. Hence, if he is in the hands of the enemy, or absent on business for the State, or is in prison, or if he is detained somewhere by a storm so that he cannot bring the suit, or direct this to be done, he is held not to have the power to do so. It is clear that a person who is prevented by illness, but is able to direct suit to be brought, should be considered as having the power to do so. There is no one who is not aware that he who has not the opportunity of appearing before the Prætor has not the power to bring an action. Hence only those days are available on which the Prætor dispenses justice.

2Marcellus, Digest, Book VI. The question is asked whether or not the intercalary day should be counted in favor of the party against whom judgment was rendered, in the time prescribed for levying execution on the judgment. Should it also be included in the time fixed by law for the right of action to be extinguished? It should undoubtedly be held that the time is prolonged by the intercalary day; for instance, where a question arises with reference to usucaption which is to be completed within a prescribed period, or to actions which must be brought within a certain time, as is the case with the greater portion of those which have reference to the acts of the Jildiles. If, however, anyone should sell a tract of land under the condition that, unless the price was paid within thirty days, the sale should be void, will the purchaser be entitled to the benefit of the intercalary day? I hold that he will not.

3Modestinus, Differences, Book VI. It is clear that prescription based upon long possession applies to land as well as to slaves.

4Javolenus, Epistles, Book VII. If a slave belonging to an estate, or to anyone who is in the hands of the enemy, should receive security for the payment of a debt, the time prescribed for said security begins to run immediately; for we must ascertain not whether he who placed a lien on the property can bring an action, but whether the person in whose favor it was encumbered has a right to do so against the former. Otherwise, it would be extremely unjust if, on account of the rank of the plaintiffs, the obligations of the defendants should be prolonged, since nothing can be done by them to prevent suit from being brought against them.

5Ulpianus, Disputations, Book III. Let us see whether any defect in the title of the plaintiff, or of the donor, or the testator who bequeathed me property, will prejudice my rights, if he did not have a good title to its possession in the first place. I think that it will neither be of any disadvantage nor of any benefit to me, for I can acquire by usucaption something which the party from whom I obtain the property cannot acquire in that manner. 1The following case has been proposed. A certain woman sold an article after having pledged it, and her heir redeemed it. The question arises whether the heir can make use of an exception on the ground of long possession against the creditor attempting to obtain possession of the pledge. I held that this heir who redeemed the pledge from a third party can avail himself of the exception, because he succeeds to the place of the latter, and not to that of him who pledged the property. The case is the same as if he had redeemed the property and subsequently became the heir.

6Africanus, Questions, Book IX. If I sell the same property, separately, to two persons, the purchaser to whom it was first delivered will be the only one who will profit by the possession. For if I sell you anything, and afterwards purchase it from you, and then sell it to Titius, he will be entitled to the benefit of both your possession and mine, because you are obliged to give possession to me, and I am obliged to transfer it to him. 1I sold you a slave, and it was agreed between us that unless the price was paid by a certain date, the sale should be considered void. As this actually took place, the question arose what opinion should be given with reference to the additional time you held the slave. The answer was, that the same rule should be observed as in the case where the property is returned under a condition; for it is just as if you had sold me the slave a second time, and, when the vendor afterwards obtained possession of him, the time which preceded the sale was added to that during which the slave was held by the party by whom he was returned.

7Marcianus, Institutes, Book III. Where anyone has fished for years in a certain place in a public river, he excludes another from enjoying the same right.

8Ulpianus, Rules, Book I. In computing the addition of the time of possession, it is true that the master is entitled to the benefit of the time during which the slave was in flight.

9Marcianus, Rules, Book V. It is provided by certain Rescripts of the Divine Antoninus that there is ground for prescription, where long-continued possession of movable property has existed.

10Pomponius, Opinions, Book XIII. An “informer, having notified the Treasury of certain property which had had no owner within the prescribed four years, desisted, after having given notice. After the four years had elapsed, a second informer having appeared, the first notice will not be available to prevent possession from being barred by lapse of time, unless the collusion of the first informer can be established, and this having been done, the prescription, as well as everything else relating to the affair, will be annulled. 1The term of four years which is fixed for notifying the Treasury of the existence of property without ownership is not computed according to mere opinion, but with reference to the character of the unoccupied property. The four years are reckoned from the time when a will is decided to be of no effect; or the possession of an intestate estate has been rejected by all those who had the right to claim it, in the regular order of succession; or where the time prescribed for each of them to do so had expired.

11The Same, Definitions, Book II. Where an heir succeeds to all the rights of the deceased, his ignorance does not affect any defective title of the latter; for example, if the deceased knew that the property belonged to another, he held possession of it by a precarious title. For, although such a title does not bind the heir who was not aware of it, and proceedings under the interdict cannot properly be brought against him, still, he cannot acquire the property by usucaption, as the deceased was unable to do so. The same rule of law applies where property is claimed on the ground of long-continued possession, for an action cannot legally be defended where, in the beginning, it was not founded on a bona fide title.

12Paulus, Opinions, Book XVI. A creditor, who could have been barred from the possession of his pledge by lapse of time, sold the pledge. I ask whether the possessor could legally avail himself of an exception against the purchaser. Paulus answered that this exception could also be pleaded against the purchaser.

13Hermogenianus, Epitomes of Law, Book VI. In all matters in which the Treasury is interested, prescription for twenty years is available, except in cases where a shorter time has been expressly provided by the Imperial Constitutions. 1Any accounts which have been duly assigned and cancelled cannot be produced against the person responsible for them, after twenty years, or against his heir after ten years have elapsed.

14Scævola, Questions Publicly Discussed, Book II. Ad Dig. 44,3,14 pr.Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 181, Note 10.We cannot lay down any rules of general or perpetual application with reference to the union of one possession to another, for this depends upon equity alone. 1Ad Dig. 44,3,14,1Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 181, Note 5.It is clear that such a union is granted to those who succeed to us, even by virtue of a contract, or under a will. The addition of the time when the property was possessed by a testator is granted to the heirs, and to those who occupy the place of his successors. 2Ad Dig. 44,3,14,2Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 181, Note 10.Therefore, if you sell me a slave, I can add the time during which he was in your possession. 3If you have given me an article in pledge, and I myself pledge it to someone else, my creditor will be entitled to the addition of the time during which you had possession of it, not only against a third party, but also against you yourself, so long as you did not pay me; for when anyone has the preference over me, as I have over you, there is much more reason to hold that he should be preferred to you. If, however, you should pay me the money, he cannot, under such circumstances, benefit by the time that the property remained in your hands. 4Ad Dig. 44,3,14,4Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 181, Note 10.Likewise, if, during your absence, someone who is considered to have charge of your business should sell me a slave, and you ratify his act after your return, I can certainly profit by the time during which he was in your possession. 5Ad Dig. 44,3,14,5Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 181, Note 10.Again, if you give me property in pledge, and it is agreed between us that, if you do not pay the money, I can sell the pledge under the contract, and I do sell it, the purchaser will be entitled to the addition of the time that the property was in your possession, even though the pledge was sold without your permission, for when you made the contract it is held that you consented to the sale, if you should not pay the money.

15Venuleius, Interdicts, Book V. In the case of usucaption, the rule is observed that if the property is in possession only for a moment during the last day, the usucaption is, nevertheless, completed; for the entire day is not required for the completion of the prescribed time. 1The addition of time of possession not only includes that during which the property remained in the hands of the vendor but also the time that the purchaser held it, where the latter also disposed of it. If, however, one of the vendors was not a bona fide possessor, the possession of those who preceded him will be of no advantage, because the possession is not continuous, just as the possession of a vendor cannot be added to that of someone who is not in possession. 2It must also be added that, if you purchased the property yourself, or ordered someone else to do so, and he also directed it to be sold to a third party, continuity of possession is necessary. If, however, he who is directed to sell the property, should direct another to sell it, Labeo says that the addition of possession of him who gave the second mandate should not be allowed, unless the owner consents for this to be done. 3But if I purchase property from a son under paternal control, or from a slave, the addition of the time during which it was in possession of the father, or the master, should be granted me, if the property was sold either with the consent of the father or the master, or as part of the peculium of the slave who was entrusted with its administration. 4The time of possession by a ward is also added to that of a person who purchased the property from his guardian. The same rule should be observed in the case of anyone who buys property from the curator of a minor or an insane person. If the sale has been made in behalf of an unborn child, or because possession of the property has been obtained for the purpose of its preservation, or it is diminished on account of a dowry, this addition of the time of possession will also be permitted. 5These rules relating to additions of the time of possession are not understood to be as comprehensive as their language indicates; for, even if the property remains in the hands of the vendor after its sale and delivery, the purchaser will only be entitled to the benefit of the time which preceded the sale, even though the vendor did not have the property in his possession when it was sold. 6Where an heir sells to anyone property belonging to the estate, the latter will be entitled to the benefit of the time it remained in the hands of the heir, as well as to that during which it was in the possession of the deceased.

16Paulus, On Sabinus, Book III. Any period of possession to which our own possession can not be added will be of no benefit whatever to us.