- 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-lat1:5.3.38.pr
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-11
Discusses the distinction between bona fide possessors and robbers regarding the recovery of necessary and useful expenses in an inheritance petition, showing that even a robber's expenses are considered to prevent unjust enrichment, though under stricter conditions.
[PAULUS libro uicesimo ad edictum.]
[PAULUS in his twentieth book on the Edict.]
Plane in ceteris necessariis et utilibus impensis posse separari,1 ut bonae fidei quidem possessores has quoque imputent, praedo2 autem de se queri debeat, qui sciens in rem alienam impendit. sed benignius est in huius quoque persona haberi rationem impensarum (non enim debet petitor ex aliena iactura lucrum facere) et id ipsum officio iudicis continebitur: nam nec exceptio doli mali desideratur. plane potest in eo differentia esse, ut bonae fidei quidem possessor omnimodo impensas deducat, licet res non exstet in quam fecit, sicut tutor uel curator consequuntur, praedo autem non aliter, quam si3 res melior sit.
Clearly, in the case of other necessary and useful expenses, a distinction can be made, so that bona fide possessors may charge these as well, whereas a robber ought to complain of himself, since he made the expenditure knowing it to be another’s property. But it is more benign that in his case too account should be taken of expenses (for the plaintiff ought not to profit from another’s loss), and this very matter will be included in the office of the judge: for not even a plea of fraud is required. Clearly, there can be a difference in this respect: that a bona fide possessor may deduct his expenses in any event, even if the thing on which he incurred them no longer exists, just as a tutor or curator recovers them, whereas a robber may do so only if the thing has been made better.
- 5.3.38.prposse separari
The infinitive 'posse' is understood here either as an independent statement representing 'it is clear that a distinction can be made' or as part of an accusative with infinitive construction governed by an implied impersonal expression carried over from the context.
- 5.3.38.prpraedo
Although literally meaning 'robber' or 'plunderer', in the context of Roman inheritance petitions (hereditatis petitio) this term is used as a technical legal expression denoting a 'mala fide possessor' who is fully aware that they have no legal title to the property.
- 5.3.38.prnon aliter, quam si
A conditional construction combined with a negative meaning 'not otherwise than if...', i.e., 'only if'. It emphasizes that the deduction of expenses by a robber (praedo) is strictly conditional upon the fact that the property itself has actually been improved and remains in a better state.