Expilatae hereditatis
(Concerning the Spoliation of Estates.)
1 Marcianus libro tertio institutionum. Si quis alienam hereditatem expilaverit, extra ordinem solet coerceri per accusationem expilatae hereditatis, sicut et oratione divi Marci cavetur.
1 Marcianus, Institutes, Book III. When anyone plunders the estate of another, it is customary for him to be punished arbitrarily, by means of the accusation of despoiling an estate, as is provided by a Rescript of the Divine Marcus.
2 Ulpianus libro nono de officio proconsulis. Si expilatae hereditatis crimen intendatur, praeses provinciae cognitionem suam accommodare debet: cum enim furti agi non potest, solum superest auxilium praesidis. 1Apparet autem expilatae hereditatis crimen eo casu intendi posse, quo casu furti agi non potest, scilicet ante aditam hereditatem, vel post aditam antequam res ab herede possessae sunt. nam in hunc casum furti actionem non competere palam est: quamvis ad exhibendum agi posse, si qui vindicaturus exhiberi desideret, palam sit.
2 Ulpianus, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book IX. In prosecuting the crime of plundering an estate, the Governor of the province should take judicial cognizance of the same; for when the action for theft cannot be brought, recourse to the Governor alone remains. 1It is evident that the offence of plundering an estate can only be prosecuted under circumstances where the action for theft is not available, that is to say, before the estate has been entered upon, or after it has been entered upon, but before the property has been taken possession of by the heir; for it is clear that, in this instance, the action of theft will not lie, although there is no doubt that one for the production of property can be brought, if anyone desires this to be done in order to enable him to claim it.
3 Marcianus libro secundo publicorum iudiciorum. Divus Severus et Antoninus rescripserunt electionem esse, utrum quis velit crimen expilatae hereditatis extra ordinem apud praefectum urbi vel apud praesides agere an hereditatem a possessoribus iure ordinario vindicare.
3 Marcianus, Public Prosecutions, Book II. The Divine Severus and Antoninus stated in a Rescript that anyone who desired to prosecute extraordinarily the crime of plundering an estate could do so either before the Prefect of the City or the Governor; or he could demand the estate from the possessors by the ordinary course of procedure.
4 Paulus libro tertio responsorum. Res hereditarias omnium heredum fuisse communes, et ideo eum, qui expilatae hereditatis crimen obicit et optinuit, etiam coheredi profuisse videri.
4 Paulus, Opinions, Book III. The property of an estate belongs in common to all the heirs, and therefore he who brings an accusation for the crime of plundering it, and gains his case, is also considered to have benefited his co-heir.
5 Hermogenianus libro secundo iuris epitomarum. Uxor expilatae hereditatis crimine idcirco non accusatur, quia nec furti cum ea agitur.
5 Hermogenianus, Epitomes of Law, Book II. A wife cannot be accused of the crime of plundering an estate, because the action of theft cannot be brought against her.
6 Paulus libro primo ad Neratium. Si rem hereditariam, ignorans in ea causa esse, subripuisti, furtum te facere respondit. Paulus: rei hereditariae furtum non fit sicut nec eius, quae sine domino est, et nihil mutat existimatio subripientis.
6 Paulus, On Neratius, Book I. If, not knowing that certain property belongs to an estate, you take it, Paulus says that you commit a theft. Theft of property belonging to an estate is not committed any more than that of property which has no owner, and the opinion of the person who steals it does not change the character of the action in any respect.