Ad edictum praetoris libri
Ex libro LXIII
Dig. 41,2,5Paulus libro sexagensimo tertio ad edictum. Si ex stipulatione tibi Stichum debeam et non tradam eum, tu autem nanctus fueris possessionem, praedo es: aeque si vendidero nec tradidero rem, si non voluntate mea nanctus sis possessionem, non pro emptore possides, sed praedo es.
Paulus, On the Edict, Book LXIII. If I owe you Stichus under the terms of a stipulation, and I do not deliver him, and you obtain possession of him in some other way, you are a depredator. Likewise, if I should sell you any property and do not deliver it, and you obtain possession of the same without my consent, you will not do so as a purchaser, but as a depredator.
Dig. 43,1,2Paulus libro sexagensimo tertio ad edictum. Interdictorum quaedam duplicia sunt, quaedam simplicia. duplicia dicuntur, ut uti possidetis, simplicia sunt ea, veluti exhibitoria et restitutoria, item prohibitoria de arboribus caedendis et de itinere actuque. 1Interdicta autem competunt vel hominum causa vel divini iuris aut de religione, sicut est ‘ne quid in loco sacro fiat’ vel ‘quod factum est restituatur’ et de mortuo inferendo vel sepulchro aedificando. hominum causa competunt vel ad publicam utilitatem pertinentia vel sui iuris tuendi causa vel officii tuendi causa vel rei familiaris. publicae utilitatis causa competit interdictum ‘ut via publica uti liceat’ et ‘flumine publico’ et ‘ne quid fiat in via publica’: iuris sui tuendi causa de liberis exhibendis, item de liberto exhibendo: officii causa de homine libero exhibendo: reliqua interdicta rei familiaris causa dantur. 2Quaedam interdicta rei persecutionem continent, veluti de itinere actuque privato: nam proprietatis causam continet hoc interdictum. sed et illa interdicta, quae de locis sacris et de religiosis proponuntur, veluti proprietatis causam continent, item illa de liberis exhibendis, quae iuris tuendi causa diximus competere, ut non sit mirum, si, quae interdicta ad rem familiarem pertinent, proprietatis, non possessionis causam habeant. 3Haec autem interdicta, quae ad rem familiarem spectant, aut apiscendae sunt possessionis aut reciperandae aut retinendae. apiscendae possessionis sunt interdicta, quae competunt his, qui ante non sunt nancti possessionem. sunt autem interdicta apiscendae possessionis ‘quorum bonorum’: Salvianum quoque interdictum, quod est de pignoribus, ex hoc genere est: et ‘quo itinere venditor usus est, quo minus emptor utatur, vim fieri veto’. reciperandae possessionis causa proponuntur sub rubrica unde vi: aliqua enim sub hoc titulo interdicta sunt. retinendae possessionis sunt interdicta uti possidetis. sunt interdicta ut diximus, duplicia tam reciperandae quam apiscendae possessionis.
Paulus, On the Edict, Book LXIII. There are double and single interdicts. The interdict Uti possidetis is an instance of a double one. Exhibitory and restitutory interdicts are single, and there are also prohibitory interdicts, as for instance, those De arboribus cædendis and De itinere actuque. 1Moreover, interdicts will lie in favor either of persons, or for the purpose of upholding the Divine Law, and protecting places which are religious; for example, to prevent any act being committed in a sacred place, or to compel matters to be restored to their former condition, where anything has been done; which includes the interdict having reference to burials and the construction of tombs. Those which have been established in favor of persons either have reference to the common welfare, the maintenance of the rights of individuals, the discharge of official duty, or the preservation of private property. The interdict granting the use of public highways and public rivers, and prohibiting any obstruction from being placed upon a highway is an instance of one instituted for the common welfare; the interdicts to compel the production of children and freedmen in court are examples of those established for the protection of private rights. The interdict requiring the production of a freeman in court is an example of one to compel the performance of an official duty. Other interdicts are granted for the protection of property. 2Some interdicts include the pursuit of property, as, for instance, the one which has reference to private rights of way, for by proceedings under this interdict the title to property is involved. Interdicts which refer to sacred and religious places also embrace, to a certain extent, the title to property. That which has reference to the production of children in court, and which we have stated has for its object the maintenance of private rights, is also of this description, so that it is not strange that interdicts relating to private property include the title to it and not the right to its mere possession. 3Those interdicts which have reference to private property are instituted either for the purpose of acquiring, recovering, or retaining possession. Interdicts to obtain possession are such as are available by parties who have not hitherto acquired it; and an example of these is the interdict Quorum bonorum. The Salvian Edict which relates to pledges is one of this kind, and is as follows: “I forbid violence to be employed to prevent the purchaser from using a right of way which was used by the vendor.” Interdicts for the recovery of possession are mentioned under the title, “Unde vi,” for there are certain interdicts which are classed under this head. The interdict, “Uti possidetis,” is an instance of one of those issued for the purpose of retaining possession. As we have previously stated there are also interdicts which are double; these are for the purpose of both recovering and retaining possession.
Dig. 43,3,2Paulus libro sexagensimo tertio ad edictum. Diversum est, si postea pars legato adcreverit: nam hoc nomine tenentur fideiussores in totum. 1Quod ait praetor ‘si per bonorum possessorem non stat, ut satisdetur’, sic accipimus, si paratus sit satisdare: non ergo offerre debet satisdationem, sed petenti satis moram non facere. 2Ex hoc interdicto qui non restituit, in id quod interest debet condemnari. 3Si legatarius repromissione contentus fuit, dandum est interdictum. idem dicendum est, si legatarius pignoribus noluit sibi caveri. 4Si per legatarium factum sit, quo minus satisdetur, licet cautum non sit, tenetur interdicto. sed si forte factum sit per legatarium, quo minus satisdetur, eo autem tempore, quo editur interdictum, satis accipere paratus sit, non competit interdictum, nisi satisdatum sit. item si per bonorum possessorem stetit, quo minus satisdaret, sed modo paratus est cavere, tenet interdictum: illud enim tempus inspicitur, quo interdictum editur.
Paulus, On the Edict, Book LXIII. The case is different if anything has afterwards been added to the legacy, for, in this case, the sureties will be liable for the entire amount. 1Where the Prætor says, “if the prætorian possessor of the estate is not required to give security,” we must understand this to mean, if he is ready to give it. Hence, he should not offer to furnish security, but should not delay to do so if the legatee demands it. 2When anyone does not make restitution, judgment to the amount of his interest should be rendered against him under this interdict. 3If the legatee is satisfied with a mere promise, the interdict should be granted. The same must be said, if the legatee refused to be secured by pledges. 4If the legatee was to blame for security not having been given, even though none was furnished, he will be liable under the interdict. If, however, he was to blame for security not having been given, but, at the time that the interdict was issued, he was ready to accept security, the interdict will not lie, unless security was given. But if the possessor under the Prætorian Edict was responsible for security not having been given, but was afterwards ready to furnish it, the interdict will lie; for the time when it was issued is taken into consideration.