Membranarum libri
Ex libro V
Dig. 17,1,35Neratius libro quinto membranarum. Si fundum, qui ex parte tuus est, mandavi tibi ut emeres mihi, verum est mandatum posse ita consistere, ut mihi ceteris partibus redemptis etiam tuam partem praestare debeas. sed si quidem certo pretio emendas eas mandaverim, quanticumque aliorum partes redemeris, sic et tua pars coartabitur, ut non abundet mandati quantitatem, in quam tibi emendum totum mandavi: sin autem nullo certo pretio constituto emere tibi mandaverim tuque ex diversis pretiis partes ceterorum redemeris, et tuam partem viri boni arbitratu aestimato pretio dari oportet,
Neratius, Parchments, Book V. If I directed you to purchase for me a tract of land in which you have a share, it is true that, in compliance with this mandate, you are also required to deliver me your share, after the remaining shares have been purchased. If, however, I should direct you to purchase the said shares at a certain price, and you have bought some of them at any price whatsoever, your share of the proceeds will be subject to diminution, so that the total amount will not exceed that for which I directed the property to be purchased. But if I directed you to make the purchase without fixing any price, and you buy the shares of the other parties at different prices, you should also sell your shares for a sum which would be approved by the judgment of a good citizen.
Dig. 18,3,5Neratius libro quinto membranarum. Lege fundo vendito dicta, ut, si intra certum tempus pretium solutum non sit, res inempta sit, de fructibus, quos interim emptor percepisset, hoc agi intellegendum est, ut emptor interim eos sibi suo quoque iure perciperet: sed si fundus revenisset, Aristo existimabat venditori de his iudicium in emptorem dandum esse, quia nihil penes eum residere oporteret ex re, in qua fidem fefellisset.
Neratius, Parchments, Book V. Where it is stated in the contract for the sale of land that if the price is not paid within a certain time, the property will not be considered sold; it must be understood to be the intention that the purchaser shall, in the meantime, be entitled to the crops of said land, but if it is restored to the vendor, Aristo is of the opinion that an action for the recovery of the crops should be granted to him against the purchaser, because nothing derived from the property should remain in the hands of the party who has not complied with his contract.
Dig. 22,6,2Neratius libro quinto membranarum. In omni parte error in iure non eodem loco quo facti ignorantia haberi debebit, cum ius finitum et possit esse et debeat, facti interpretatio plerumque etiam prudentissimos fallat.
Neratius, Parchments, Book V. Error in law should not, in every instance, be considered to correspond with ignorance of the fact; since the law can, and should be definitely settled, but the interpretation of the fact very frequently deceives even the wisest men.
Dig. 24,1,44Neratius libro quinto membranarum. Si extraneus rem viri ignorans eius esse ignoranti uxori, ac ne viro quidem sciente eam suam esse, donaverit, mulier recte eam usucapiet. idemque iuris erit, si is, qui in potestate viri erat, credens se patrem familias esse uxori patris donaverit. sed si vir rescierit suam rem esse, priusquam usucapiatur, vindicareque eam poterit nec volet et hoc et mulier noverit, interrumpetur possessio, quia transiit in causam ab eo factae donationis. ipsius mulieris scientia propius est, ut nullum adquisitioni dominii eius adferat impedimentum: non enim omnimodo uxores ex bonis virorum, sed ex causa donationis ab ipsis factae adquirere prohibitae sunt.
Ad Dig. 24,1,44Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 365, Note 5.Neratius, Parchments, Book V. Where a stranger gives property belonging to a husband to the wife of the latter, both of them being ignorant of this fact, and where the husband also does not know that he has donated property belonging to himself, the woman can lawfully acquire said property by usucaption. The same rule of law will apply where anyone who is under the control of the husband, believing himself to be independent, makes a gift to his father’s wife. If, however, the husband should ascertain that the property was his before its title by usucaption vests, he can recover it, and her possession will be interrupted; even though the husband does not wish for this to be done, and the woman becomes aware that it is his; because this is an instance where the woman herself knows that the donation was made by her husband. It is more proper to hold that no impediment to the acquisition of the ownership of the property by her exists; for women are not absolutely prohibited from acquiring the property of their husbands, except where donations are made to them by the latter.
Dig. 30,124Neratius libro quinto membranarum. Si heredes nominatim enumerati dare quid damnati sunt, propius est, ut viriles partes debeant, quia personarum enumeratio hunc effectum habet, ut exaequentur in legato praestando, qui, si nominati non essent, hereditarias partes debituri essent.
Ad Dig. 30,124Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. III, § 626, Note 11.Neratius, Parchments, Book V. If heirs who are expressly mentioned are charged with the delivery of property, it is more reasonable to suppose that they are charged with equal portions, because the enumeration of the persons has the effect to make them all equally liable for the payment of the legacy, for, if they had not been expressly mentioned, they would be liable only for their respective shares in the estate.
Dig. 41,1,14Neratius libro quinto membranarum. Quod in litore quis aedificaverit, eius erit: nam litora publica non ita sunt, ut ea, quae in patrimonio sunt populi, sed ut ea, quae primum a natura prodita sunt et in nullius adhuc dominium pervenerunt: nec dissimilis condicio eorum est atque piscium et ferarum, quae simul atque adprehensae sunt, sine dubio eius, in cuius potestatem pervenerunt, dominii fiunt. 1Illud videndum est, sublato aedificio, quod in litore positum erat, cuius condicionis is locus sit, hoc est utrum maneat eius cuius fuit aedificium, an rursus in pristinam causam reccidit perindeque publicus sit, ac si numquam in eo aedificatum fuisset. quod propius est, ut existimari debeat, si modo recipit pristinam litoris speciem.
The Same, Parchments, Book V. Whatever anyone builds upon the shore of the sea will belong to him; for the shores of the sea are not public like the property which forms part of the patrimony of the people, but resembles that which was formed in the first place by Nature, and has not yet been subjected to the ownership of anyone. For their condition is not dissimilar to that of fish and wild animals, which, as soon as they are taken, undoubtedly become the property of him under whose control they have been brought. 1Where a building which has been erected upon the seashore is removed, it should be considered what the condition of the ground on which it was situated is, that is to say whether it will remain the property of him to whom the building belonged, or whether it will revert to its former condition and again become public; just as if it had never been built upon. The latter should be deemed the better opinion, provided it remains in its former condition as a part of the shore.
Dig. 41,10,5Neratius libro quinto membranarum. Usucapio rerum, etiam ex aliis causis concessa interim, propter ea, quae nostra existimantes possideremus, constituta est, ut aliquis litium finis esset. 1Sed id, quod quis, cum suum esse existimaret, possederit, usucapiet, etiamsi falsa fuerit eius existimatio. quod tamen ita interpretandum est, ut probabilis error possidentis usucapioni non obstet, veluti si ob id aliquid possideam, quod servum meum aut eius, cuius in locum hereditario iure successi, emisse id falso existimem, quia in alieni facti ignorantia tolerabilis error est.
Neratius, Parchments, Book V. The usucaption of property which we have obtained for other reasons than because we think that we are entitled to it as our own has been established in order to put an end to litigation. 1A person can acquire by usucaption the property of which he has possession, thinking that it belongs to him; even if this opinion is false. This, however, should be understood to mean that a plausible error of the party in possession does not interfere with his right to usucaption; for instance, if I possess some article because I erroneously think that my slave, or the slave of someone whom I have succeeded as heir at law, purchased it, as ignorance of the act of another is an excusable mistake.
Dig. 47,10,41Neratius libro quinto membranarum. Pater, cuius filio facta est iniuria, non est impediendus, quo minus duobus iudiciis et suam iniuriam persequatur et filii.
Neratius, Parchments, Book III. A father, against whose son an injury has been committed, should not be prevented from bringing suit for his own injury and that of his son, by two different proceedings.