Javolenus, Epistles, Book IV. I do not doubt that a servitude of land can be duly acquired through a slave belonging to a municipality.

Javolenus, Epistles, Book IV. A man whose wife was pregnant fell into the hands of the enemy. I ask where a son was born, at what time the will executed by the testator, who was there in the enjoyment of his civil rights, was broken, and if the son should die before the father, whether the testamentary heirs will be entitled to the estate. I answered that I did not think that there could be any doubt, in accordance with the Cornelian Law, which was enacted for the confirmation of the wills of those who died while in captivity, that, if a son was born, the will of a testator who was in the hands of the enemy would be broken. It follows, therefore, that the estate will belong to no one by this will.

Javolenus, Epistles, Book IV. If you have been appointed heir to one-sixth of an estate, under a certain condition, and Titius, to whom you were substituted, refuses to take his share, and you accept the estate by virtue of the substitution, and the condition under which you were entitled to a sixth is fulfilled, I ask whether it will be necessary for you to enter upon the estate in order to avoid losing your sixth. The answer was, that it makes no difference whether the estate is entered upon by reason of the substitution, or on account of the first appointment; since in either instance a single acceptance will be sufficient. Hence the sixth part which was granted to me under a condition belongs to me alone. 1Ad Dig. 29,2,76,1Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. III, § 597, Note 11.Moreover, if you fail to accept the sixth of the estate to which you were appointed the heir, do you think that by accepting under the substitution you will be entitled to a part of the share of Titius? I do not doubt that if I can become the heir by accepting under the first appointment, it will be in my power either to reject, or claim any part of the estate which may be desired.

The Same, Epistles, Book IV. A tract of land belonging to another was bequeathed to you. As the heir could not obtain it, except at an unreasonable price, he bought it for a sum far above its actual value, and the result of the purchase was that a reduction of the legacies was required under the Falcidian Law. I ask if the land had been bought for what it was really worth, and the legacies had not been subject to diminution, whether, in this instance, the heir would have the right to reserve a part due to the legatees, because, in compliance with the will of the deceased, he had purchased the land for more than its value. The answer was that the heir could not, under the Falcidian Law, charge the other legacies with what he had paid to the legatee over and above the true price of the land, because his negligence ought not to prejudice the legatee, any more than he could release himself from liability by tendering the actual value of the property.

The Same, Epistles, Book IV. The possession of a testator will profit the heir if, in the meantime, no one else had possession.

The Same, Epistles, Book IV. I possess, in good faith, a female slave who had been stolen, and whom I purchased for two aurei. Attius stole her from me, and her owner and myself brought suit against him for theft. I ask, what assessment of damages should be made for both parties? The answer was double the amount of his interest for the purchaser, and for the master double the value of the woman. The fact that the penalty for theft is paid to two persons should not cause any difficulty, because although this is done on account of the same property, it is paid to the purchaser by virtue of his possession, and to the owner on the ground of his ownership.

The Same, Epistles, Book IV. There is a question as to what difference exists between the possession of a tract of land or of a field. A tract of land includes everything belonging to the soil; a field is a kind of a tract which is adapted to the use of man. Possession, in law, is distinct from the ownership of land; for we call possession everything which we hold, without the ownership of the property belonging to us, or where there is no possibility of its becoming ours. Therefore possession indicates use, and a field means the ownership of the property. A tract of land is the common name for both the things above mentioned; for a tract of land and possession are different forms of the same expression.