Ad edictum praetoris libri
Ex libro LXX
Dig. 44,1,17Paulus libro septuagensimo ad edictum. Sed si ante viam, deinde fundum Titianum petat, quia et diversa corpora sunt et causae restitutionum dispares, non nocebit exceptio.
Paulus, On the Edict, Book LXX. If, however, I bring an action to recover the right of way, and afterwards one to recover the Titian Estate, as the objects of the litigation are distinct, and the reasons for restitution different, the exception will cause no injury.
Dig. 44,2,6Paulus libro septuagensimo ad edictum. Singulis controversiis singulas actiones unumque iudicati finem sufficere probabili ratione placuit, ne aliter modus litium multiplicatus summam atque inexplicabilem faciat difficultatem, maxime si diversa pronuntiarentur. parere ergo exceptionem rei iudicatae frequens est.
Paulus, On the Edict, Book LXX. It has very reasonably been held that one action is sufficient for the settlement of a single controversy, and one judgment for the termination of a case; otherwise, litigation would be enormously increased, and would be productive of insurmountable difficulties, especially where conflicting decisions have been rendered. It is therefore very common to introduce an exception on the ground of res judicata.
Dig. 44,2,12Paulus libro septuagesimo ad edictum. Cum quaeritur, haec exceptio noceat nec ne, inspiciendum est, an idem corpus sit,
Paulus, On the Edict, Book LXX. When the question is asked whether or not this exception will operate as a bar, it should be ascertained whether the same property is involved;
Dig. 44,2,14Paulus libro septuagensimo ad edictum. et an eadem causa petendi et eadem condicio personarum: quae nisi omnia concurrunt, alia res est. idem corpus in hac exceptione non utique omni pristina qualitate vel quantitate servata, nulla adiectione deminutioneve facta, sed pinguius pro communi utilitate accipitur. 1Qui, cum partem usus fructus haberet, totum petit, si postea partem adcrescentem petat, non summovetur exceptione, quia usus fructus non portioni, sed homini adcrescit. 2Actiones in personam ab actionibus in rem hoc differunt, quod, cum eadem res ab eodem mihi debeatur, singulas obligationes singulae causae sequuntur nec ulla earum alterius petitione vitiatur: at cum in rem ago non expressa causa, ex qua rem meam esse dico, omnes causae una petitione adprehenduntur. neque enim amplius quam semel res mea esse potest, saepius autem deberi potest. 3Si quis interdicto egerit de possessione, postea in rem agens non repellitur per exceptionem, quoniam in interdicto possessio, in actione proprietas vertitur.
Paulus, On the Edict, Book LXX. It should also be ascertained if the same cause of action exists, or the persons are of the same rank, and if these things do not coincide, the case is different. Where this exception is pleaded, the same property is understood to be that which was the subject of the first action, even though its quality or quantity may not have been absolutely preserved, and no addition to, or deduction from it has been made, as the term should be accepted in its broadest significance, on account of the welfare of the parties interested. 1Where anyone enjoys the usufruct of a portion of the property, and brings suit to recover the entire usufruct, and loses his case, and he then brings an action for the other half of the usufruct, which has subsequently accrued to him, he will not be barred by an exception, for the reason that the usufruct does not accrue to a portion of the estate, but to the person himself. 2Ad Dig. 44,2,14,2Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 130, Noten 4, 6.In cases of this kind, personal actions differ from real ones, for where the same property is due to me from the same individual, each cause of action is based on a separate obligation; and a judicial proceeding having reference to one of them is not annulled by a similar demand for another. But when I bring a real action without mentioning on what ground I allege the property to be mine, all titles to it are included in the claim for one portion, because, although the property cannot be mine more than once, it may be due to me several times. 3Where anyone institutes proceedings under the interdict to recover possession of property, and afterwards brings a real action, he will not be barred by an exception, because proceedings to obtain possession under an interdict, and a suit to determine the ownership of the property, are different.
Dig. 50,17,159Paulus libro septuagensimo ad edictum. Non ut ex pluribus causis deberi nobis idem potest, ita ex pluribus causis idem possit nostrum esse.
Paulus, On the Edict, Book VII. We may be entitled to property by virtue of different obligations, but it cannot belong to us by different titles.
Dig. 50,17,162Paulus libro septuagensimo ad edictum. Quae propter necessitatem recepta sunt, non debent in argumentum trahi.
Paulus, On the Edict, Book LXX. Any act performed through necessity should not be cited as a precedent.