- 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-lat1:4.7.4.pr-4.7.4.6
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-09
Ulpian explains the application of the edict when a defendant maliciously transfers possession to change the trial, distinguishing it from legitimate transfers like those involving procurators, and outlines its application to servitudes and the basis of the plaintiff's financial interest.
[ULPIANUS libro tertio decimo ad edictum.]
[ULPIANUS, On the Edict, Book XIII]
Item si res fuerint usucaptae ab eo cui alienatae sint nec peti ab hoc possint, locum habet hoc edictum.
Likewise, if property has been acquired by usucapion by the person to whom it was alienated, and cannot be claimed from him, this edict applies.
Itemque fieri potest, ut sine dolo malo quidem possidere desierit, uerum iudicii mutandi causa id fiat. sunt et alia complura talia. potest autem aliquis dolo malo desinere possidere nec tamen iudicii mutandi causa fecisse nec hoc edicto teneri: neque enim alienat, qui dumtaxat omittit possessionem. non tamen eius factum improbat praetor, qui tanti habuit re carere,1 ne propter eam saepius litigaret (haec enim uerecunda cogitatio eius, qui lites exsecratur, non est uituperanda), sed eius dumtaxat, qui cum rem habere uult, litem ad alium transfert, ut molestum aduersarium pro se subiciat.
And likewise, it can happen that someone has ceased to possess indeed without malicious intent, but yet this is done for the purpose of changing the trial. There are also many other such cases. However, someone can cease to possess with malicious intent and yet not have done so for the purpose of changing the trial, and thus not be liable under this edict: for he who merely abandons possession does not alienate. Yet, the praetor does not disapprove of the act of one who thought so highly of being without the thing so that he would not have to litigate more often on account of it (for this modest thought of one who detests lawsuits is not to be blamed), but only of the act of one who, while wishing to keep the thing, transfers the lawsuit to another in order to substitute a troublesome adversary in his own place.
Pedius libro nono non solum ad dominii translationem hoc edictum pertinere ait, uerum ad possessionis quoque: alioquin cum quo in rem agebatur, inquit, si possessione cessit, non tenebitur.
Pedius, in his ninth book, says that this edict pertains not only to the transfer of ownership, but also to that of possession: otherwise, he says, the person against whom an action in rem was brought, if he surrendered possession, will not be liable.
Si quis autem ob ualetudinem aut aetatem aut occupationes necessarias litem in alium transtulerit, in ea causa non est, ut hoc edicto teneatur, cum in hoc edicto doli mali fiat mentio. ceterum erit interdictum et per procuratores litigare2 dominio in eos plerumque ex iusta causa translato.
But if anyone has transferred a lawsuit to another on account of ill health, age, or necessary occupations, he is not in such a position as to be liable under this edict, since mention of malicious intent is made in this edict. Otherwise, litigating through procurators would be forbidden, although ownership is usually transferred to them for a just cause.
Ad iura etiam praediorum hoc edictum pertinet, modo si dolo malo fiat alienatio.
This edict also pertains to the rights of estates, provided that the alienation is made with malicious intent.
Haec actio in id quod interest competit. proinde si res non fuit petitoris aut si is qui alienatus est sine culpa decessit, cessat iudicium, nisi si quid actoris praeterea interfuit.3
This action lies for the amount of one’s interest. Therefore, if the thing did not belong to the claimant, or if he who was alienated died without fault, the trial ceases, unless the plaintiff had some other interest besides.
Haec actio non est poenalis, sed rei persecutionem arbitrio iudicis continet, quare et heredi dabitur: in heredem autem
This action is not penal, but contains the pursuit of the thing at the discretion of the judge, wherefore it shall also be granted to an heir: but against an heir...
- 4.7.4.1tanti habuit re carere
The construction tanti habere followed by an infinitive means "to value something so much as to do..." or "to not mind doing...". Here, the infinitive is carere (which governs the ablative re, meaning "to lack or be without the thing"). It describes the state of mind of someone who preferred to lose the thing rather than litigate repeatedly.
- 4.7.4.3erit interdictum et per procuratores litigare
erit interdictum ("it will have been forbidden") is an impersonal passive construction, where the subject is the nominative infinitive litigare ("to litigate") that follows. et here means "even" or "also".
- 4.7.4.5si quid actoris praeterea interfuit
The construction of the impersonal verb interest ("it concerns/is of interest to"). The person concerned is expressed in the genitive (here, actoris, "of the plaintiff"), and the degree or thing concerned is expressed by a nominative (here, the neuter pronoun quid, "anything/something").