Epistularum libri
Ex libro IX
Dig. 9,2,38Idem libro nono epistularum. Si eo tempore, quo tibi meus servus quem bona fide emisti serviebat, ipse a servo tuo vulneratus est, placuit omnimodo me tecum recte lege Aquilia experiri.
Dig. 33,3,4Iavolenus libro nono epistularum. Si is qui duas aedes habebat unas mihi, alteras tibi legavit et medius paries, qui utrasque aedes distinguat, intervenit, eo iure eum communem nobis esse existimo, quo, si paries tantum duobus nobis communiter esset legatus, ideoque neque me neque te agere posse ius non esse alteri ita immissas habere: nam quod communiter socius habet, et in iure eum habere constitit: itaque de ea re arbiter communi dividundo sumendus est.
Javolenus, Epistles, Book IX. Where a man who had two houses left one of them to me and the other to you, and there was a party-wall which separated the buildings, I think that the said wall will belong to us in common, just as if it had been left to us both jointly, and therefore neither you nor I will have any right to prevent the other from inserting a beam into said wall; for it has been established that whenever a joint-owner holds any property he is entitled to all the rights appurtenant to the same. Therefore, in a case of this kind an arbiter must be appointed for the purpose of dividing the common property, if this should become necessary.
Dig. 41,3,23Idem libro nono epistularum. Eum, qui aedes mercatus est, non puto aliud quam ipsas aedes possidere: nam si singulas res possidere intellegetur, ipsas non possidebit: separatis enim corporibus, ex quibus aedes constant, universitas aedium intellegi non poterit. accedit eo, quod, si quis singulas res possidere dixerit, necesse erit dicat possessione superficiei tempori de mobilibus statuto locum esse, solum se capturum esse ampliori: quod absurdum et minime iuri civili conveniens est, ut una res diversis temporibus capiatur, ut puta cum aedes ex duabus rebus constant, ex solo et superficie, et universitas earum possessionem temporis immobilium rerum omnium mutet. 1Si autem columna evicta fuerit, puto te ex empto cum venditore recte acturum et eo genere rem salvam habiturum. 2Si autem demolita domus est, ex integro res mobiles possidendae sunt, ut tempore, quod in usucapione rerum mobilium constitutum est, usucapiantur. et non potes recte uti eo tempore, quo in aedificio fuerunt: nam quemadmodum eas solas et separatas ab aedificio non possedisti, sic nec penes te singulae aut separatae fuerunt et cohaerentibus his in aedificio, depositis aedibus, quae hoc quoque ipsum continent. neque enim recipi potest, ut eadem res et ut res soli et tamquam mobilis sit possessa.
The Same, Epistles, Book IX. Ad Dig. 41,3,23 pr.Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 152, Note 3.I do not think that he who has purchased a house possesses anything but the house itself. For if he is considered to possess the different things of which the house is built, he does not possess the house itself; as, after the materials of which it is composed are separated, they cannot be understood to represent the entire house. Add to this, if anyone should say that the separate materials of which the house was composed are possessed, it will be necessary to hold that there will be ground for the prescription of the movable property composing the house, during the time fixed for that purpose, and that a longer time will be necessary to acquire by usucaption the soil on which it stands. This is absurd, and it is by no means in conformity to the Civil Law that the same thing should be obtained by usucaption at different times; as, for example, since a house is composed of two different things, the soil, and what is erected upon it, that they united should change the time established for the usucaption of all immovable property by long-continued possession. 1If you should be judicially deprived of a column forming part of your house, I think that you will be entitled to an action on purchase against the vendor, and, in that way, can hold the entire property. 2If, however, the house has been demolished, in order that the movable property may be entirely acquired by usucaption, where it has been in possession for the term prescribed for that purpose, the time during which it composed the building cannot be legally reckoned; for, as you were not in possession of the materials alone and apart from the building, so, the house having been demolished, you cannot separately and distinctly possess the materials of which it was constructed; nor can it be held that the same property was possessed at the same time as both real estate and personalty.
Dig. 47,10,21Iavolenus libro nono epistularum. Iniuriarum aestimatio non ad id tempus, quo iudicatur, sed ad id, quo facta est, referri debet.
Dig. 49,14,11Iavolenus libro nono epistularum. Non possunt ulla bona ad fiscum pertinere, nisi quae creditoribus superfutura sunt: id enim bonorum cuiusque esse intellegitur, quod aeri alieno superest.
Ad Dig. 49,14,11Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. III, § 622, Note 3.Javolenus, Epistles, Book IX. No property can be claimed by the Treasury, except that which remains after the creditors have been satisfied; for that only is considered to belong to anyone which remains after the indebtedness has been paid.
Dig. 50,16,117Idem libro nono epistularum. Non potest videri ‘minus solvisse’ is, in quem amplioris summae actio non competit.