- 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-lat1:6.1.62.pr-6.1.62.1
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-12
The passage discusses the assessment of fruits (freight) when a ship is claimed from a bad-faith possessor, contrasting it with deposited money, and establishes the general rule that fruit assessment is based on what the claimant could have gathered.
[PAPINIANUS libro sexto quaestionum.]
[PAPINIAN in the sixth book of Questions.]
Si nauis a malae fidei possessore petatur, et fructus aestimandi sunt, ut in taberna et area quae locari solent. quod non est1 ei contrarium, quod de pecunia deposita, quam heres non attingit, usuras praestare non cogitur: nam etsi maxime2 uectura sicut usura non natura peruenit, sed iure percipitur, tamen ideo uectura desiderari potest, quoniam periculum nauis possessor petitori praestare non debet, cum pecunia periculo dantis faeneretur.
If a ship is claimed from a possessor in bad faith, its fruits must also be assessed, as is the case with a tavern or a plot of land which are customarily let. This is not contrary to the fact that one is not compelled to pay interest on deposited money which the heir does not touch; for even though freight, like interest, does not arise naturally but is perceived by law, nevertheless freight can be demanded for this reason: that the possessor does not have to guarantee the risk of the ship to the claimant, whereas money is lent at interest at the risk of the lender.
Generaliter autem cum de fructibus aestimandis quaeritur, constat animaduerti debere, non an malae fidei possessor fruitus sit, sed an petitor frui potuerit,3 si ei possidere licuisset. quam sententiam Iulianus quoque probat.
Generally, however, when there is a question about assessing fruits, it is established that regard must be had, not to whether the possessor in bad faith gathered the fruits, but to whether the claimant could have gathered them if he had been allowed to possess. Julian also approves of this opinion.
- 6.1.62.prquod non est
The first quod is a demonstrative pronoun in the nominative referring to the preceding statement (that the freight of the ship must be assessed as fruits). The second quod introduces a noun clause in apposition to the first quod ("the fact that..."), resulting in the structure "the fact that... is not contrary to it (the former principle)." ei is a dative pronoun referring to the former.
- 6.1.62.pretsi maxime
Expresses a concession, meaning "even though it is highly true that..." Here, it concedes that "freight, like interest, is acquired by law rather than arising naturally (and thus differs in nature from natural fruits)," which then connects to tamen ("nevertheless") in the main clause.
- 6.1.62.1an petitor frui potuerit
The indirect question clauses an... are coordinated and serve as the object (or topic of attention) of the passive infinitive animaduerti in the subject clause of constat ("it is established that regard must be had to..."). This indicates that the standard for assessing the return of fruits is based not on the profit actually obtained by the defendant (possessor), but on the profit that the claimant (petitor) could have obtained.