Expilatae hereditatis
(Concerning the Spoliation of Estates.)
1Marcianus, 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.
2Ulpianus, 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.
3Marcianus, 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.
5Hermogenianus, 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.
6Paulus, 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.