- 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-lat1:6.1.9.pr
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-12
Ulpian discusses the duty of the judge in the action for recovery of property, stating that only the fact of possession matters, and presents his view that any holder with the capacity to restore can be sued, opposing Pegasus's narrower view.
[ULPIANUS libro sexto decimo ad edictum.]
[ULPIAN, in the sixteenth book on the Edict.]
Officium autem iudicis in hac actione in hoc erit, ut iudex inspiciat, an reus possideat: nec ad rem pertinebit, ex qua causa possideat: ubi enim probaui rem meam esse, necesse habebit possessor restituere,1 qui non obiecit aliquam exceptionem. quidam tamen, ut Pegasus, eam solam possessionem putauerunt hanc actionem complecti, quae locum habet in interdicto uti possidetis uel utrubi. denique ait ab eo, apud quem deposita est uel commodata2 uel qui conduxerit aut qui legatorum seruandorum causa uel dotis uentrisue nomine in possessione esset uel cui damni infecti nomine non cauebatur, quia hi omnes non possident, uindicari non posse.3 puto autem ab omnibus, qui tenent et habent restituendi facultatem, peti posse.
Moreover, the duty of the judge in this action will consist in this, that the judge inspects whether the defendant possesses; nor will it be relevant by what cause he possesses; for when I have proved that the thing is mine, the possessor, who has not raised any exception, will have the necessity to restore it. Some, however, such as Pegasus, have thought that this action embraces only that possession which has a place in the interdict uti possidetis or utrubi. Accordingly, he says that a claim cannot be made against one with whom a thing has been deposited or lent, or who has hired it, or who is in possession for the purpose of preserving legacies, or on account of a dowry or an unborn child, or to whom security was not given on account of threatened damage, because all these do not possess. But I think that it can be claimed from all who hold the thing and have the capacity to restore it.
- 6.1.9.prnecesse habebit possessor restituere
The idiom necesse habere followed by an infinitive (restituere) expresses necessity or obligation ("will be bound to restore", "will have to restore").
- 6.1.9.prapud quem deposita est uel commodata
The feminine singular noun res (the thing), which serves as the subject of the passive verbs deposita and commodata, is omitted as it is clear from the context.
- 6.1.9.pruindicari non posse
An impersonal passive infinitive within the accusative-and-infinitive construction introduced by ait. It functions as "a claim cannot be made".