Interdictorum libri
Ex libro III
Dig. 43,26,7Venuleius libro tertio interdictorum. Sed et si eam rem, cuius possessionem per interdictum uti possidetis retinere possim, quamvis futurum esset, ut tenear de proprietate, precario tibi concesserim, teneberis hoc interdicto.
Venuleius, Interdicts, Book III. But if I am entitled to retain possession of property by means of the interdict Uti possidetis, although the question relating to the ownership of the same may not have been decided, and I grant you possession of it under a precarious tenure, you will be liable under this interdict.
Dig. 43,26,22Idem libro tertio interdictorum. Si is, qui pro possessore possideret, precario dominum rogaverit, ut sibi retinere rem liceret, vel is, qui alienam rem emisset, dominum rogaverit: apparet eos precario possidere. nec existimandos mutare sibi causam possessionis, quibus a domino concedatur precario possidere: nam et si id quod possideas alium precario rogaveris, videri te desinere ex prima causa possidere et incipere ex precario habere: et contra si possessorem precario rogaverit qui rem avocare ei posset, teneri eum precario, quoniam aliquid ad eum per hanc precarii rogationem pervenit, id est possessio, quae aliena sit. 1Si pupillus sine tutoris auctoritate precario rogaverit, Labeo ait habere eum precariam possessionem et hoc interdicto teneri. nam quo magis naturaliter possideretur, nullum locum esse tutoris auctoritati: recteque dici ‘quod precario habes’, quia quod possideat ex ea causa possideat, ex qua rogaverit: nihilque novi per praetorem constituendum, quoniam, sive habeat rem, officio iudicis teneretur, sive non habeat, non teneatur.
The Same, Interdicts, Book III. If anyone who is in possession merely as possessor should request the owner of the property to grant him permission to retain it under a precarious tenure, or if he who purchased property belonging to another should make this request to the owner of the same, it is evident that they will hold possession under a precarious tenure; and they should not be considered to have themselves changed their title to possession, as possession under a precarious tenure has been granted them by the owner of the land. For if you should ask another for property in your possession to be granted you under a precarious tenure, you will be considered to have ceased to possess it under the first title, and to begin to hold it under a precarious one. On the other hand, if a person who has the right to take the property away from the possessor should ask him to grant it to him by a precarious tenure, he will be liable under the interdict in question; as an advantage has been obtained by this request, that is to say, the possession which belongs to another. 1If a ward, without the authority of his guardian, should ask that property be granted him under a precarious tenure, Labeo says that he will hold precarious possession of it, and will be liable under this interdict; for where anyone has possession naturally, there is no ground for the exertion of the authority of a guardian. The words, “which you hold under a precarious tenure,” are perfectly applicable, because what he possesses he holds by the title under which he asked for the grant of the property. There is nothing new to be determined by the Prætor in this case; for if the ward holds the property, he will be required by the judge to surrender it, and if he does not hold it, he will not be liable.