- 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-lat1:5.3.40.pr-5.3.40.3
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-11
Discusses the harshness of the obligation to restore the inheritance after the joinder of issue under Hadrian's speech, highlighting differences between bona fide and mala fide possessors regarding the risk of loss, ownership of fruits, acquired actions, security for threatened damage, and noxal actions.
[PAULUS libro uicesimo ad edictum.]
[PAULUS in his twentieth book on the Edict.]
Illud quoque quod in oratione diui Hadriani est, ut post acceptum iudicium id actori praestetur, quod habiturus esset, si eo tempore quo petit restituta esset hereditas,1 interdum durum est. quid enim, si post litem contestatam mancipia aut iumenta aut pecora deperierint? damnari debebit secundum uerba orationis, quia potuit petitor restituta hereditate distraxisse2 ea. et hoc iustum esse in specialibus petitionibus Proculo placet: Cassius contra sensit. in praedonis persona Proculus recte existimat, in bonae fidei possessoribus Cassius. nec enim debet possessor aut mortalitatem praestare, aut propter metum huius periculi temere indefensum ius suum relinquere.
That rule also which is found in the speech of the Divine Hadrian, that after the acceptance of the trial that which the plaintiff would have had, if the inheritance had been restored at the time he brought his action, should be paid to him, is sometimes harsh. For what if, after the joinder of issue, slaves or beasts of burden or cattle should perish? He will have to be condemned according to the words of the speech, because the claimant, if the inheritance had been restored, could have sold them. And Proculus is of the opinion that this is just in specific claims; Cassius was of the opposite opinion. Proculus thinks rightly in the case of a robber, Cassius in the case of bona fide possessors. For a possessor ought neither to answer for mortality, nor, through fear of this danger, rashly to abandon his own right undefended.
Praedo fructus suos non facit, sed augent hereditatem: ideoque eorum quoque fructus3 praestabit. in bonae fidei autem possessore hi tantum ueniunt in restitutione quasi augmenta hereditatis, per quos locupletior factus est.
A robber does not make the fruits his own, but they increase the inheritance; therefore, he shall also account for the fruits of those fruits. But in the case of a bona fide possessor, only those fruits enter into the restoration as quasi-accessions to the inheritance by which he has been made richer.
Actiones si quas possessor nanctus est, euicta hereditate restituere debet, ueluti si interdictum unde ui, aut quod precario concessit. contra quoque si possessor cauerit damni infecti, cauendum est possessori.4
If the possessor has acquired any actions, he must, when the inheritance is evicted, restore them, such as the interdict unde ui, or that which he granted on precarious tenure. Conversely, also, if the possessor has given security against threatened damage, security must be given to the possessor.
Ad officium iudicis pertinebunt et noxales actiones, ut, si paratus sit possessor noxae dedere seruum qui damnum dederit in re hereditaria uel furtum fecerit, absoluatur, sicut fit in interdicto quod ui aut clam.
Noxal actions will also belong to the office of the judge, so that, if the possessor is ready to surrender as noxa the slave who has caused damage to the inheritance or committed theft, he may be acquitted, as is done in the interdict quod ui aut clam.
- 5.3.40.prut post acceptum iudicium id actori praestetur, quod habiturus esset, si eo tempore quo petit restituta esset hereditas
The 'ut'-clause is an appositive clause explaining the demonstrative 'illud' at the beginning of the sentence. 'acceptum iudicium' refers to the joinder of issue (litis contestatio). 'habiturus esset' (subjunctive imperfect active) and 'restituta esset' (subjunctive pluperfect passive) form a past contrary-to-fact conditional sentence.
- 5.3.40.prpotuit petitor restituta hereditate distraxisse
The perfect infinitive 'distraxisse' (from 'distrahere', to sell) depends on 'potuit' (indicative perfect), expressing a past capability that did not realize ('could have sold'). 'restituta hereditate' is an ablative absolute phrase representing a condition ('if the inheritance had been restored').
- 5.3.40.1eorum quoque fructus
The genitive pronoun 'eorum' refers to the preceding 'fructus' (fruits), and the phrase as a whole means 'the fruits of those fruits' (secondary fruits, or interests accrued from fruits).
- 5.3.40.2cauendum est possessori
A passive periphrastic conjugation where the dative 'possessori' is interpreted not as the dative of agent ('the possessor must give security'), but as the dative of benefit/interest ('security must be given to the possessor'). It refers to the obligation of the adversary (the plaintiff) to provide security to the possessor.