- Source
- Digesta Iustiniani Augusti. Mommsen, Theodor & Krueger, Paul, editors. Berlin: Weidmann, 1870.
- Translation
- AI-generated (gemini-3.5-flash) — machine translation; may contain errors
- Languages
- 日本語 · English · 简体中文 · 한국어
- CTS URN
- urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:4.6.19.pr
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-09
Papinianus argues that if a buyer is captured by the enemy before completing acquisition by long-term use, the interrupted possession is not restored by the right of postliminium, because possession is a matter of fact.
[PAPINIANUS libro tertio quaestionum.]
[PAPINIANUS libro tertio quaestionum.]
Denique si emptor, priusquam per usum sibi adquireret, ab hostibus captus sit, placet interruptam possessionem postliminio non restitui, quia haec1 sine possessione non constitit, possessio autem plurimum facti habet: causa uero facti2 non continetur postliminio.
Furthermore, if a buyer, before acquiring for himself by long-term use, should be captured by the enemy, it is held that the interrupted possession is not restored by the right of postliminium, because the former does not exist without possession, while possession consists largely of fact; but a matter of fact is not included in the right of postliminium.
- 4.6.19.prhaec
The feminine singular demonstrative pronoun haec refers to usucapio (acquisition by long-term use, a feminine noun) implied by the preceding phrase per usum ... adquireret.
- 4.6.19.prcausa uero facti
"A matter of fact". This explains the fundamental principle of Roman law that possession (possessio), being essentially a state of "fact" (factum) rather than a legal right (ius), is excluded from the application of the "right of postliminium" (postliminium), which restores legal rights and status.