- 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-lat1:9.2.43.pr
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-15
The text explains that an heir can bring an action under the Lex Aquilia for damage done to the inheritance before acceptance based on the flexible concept of 'owner', and touches upon the protection of posthumous children and returned captives.
[POMPONIUS libro nono decimo ad Sabinum.]
[POMPONIUS, in the nineteenth book on Sabinus.]
Ob id, quod ante quam hereditatem adires damnum admissum in res hereditarias est, legis Aquiliae actionem habes, quod post mortem eius, cui heres sis, acciderit: dominum enim lex Aquilia appellat non utique eum, qui tunc fuerit, cum damnum daretur:1 nam isto modo ne ab eo quidem, cui heres quis erit, transire ad eum ea actio poterit: neque ob id, quod tum commissum fuerit, cum in hostium potestate esses, agere postliminio reuersus poteris: et hoc aliter constitui sine magna captione postumorum liberorum, qui parentibus heredes erunt, non poterit. eadem dicemus et de arboribus eodem tempore furtim caesis. puto eadem dici posse etiam de hac actione quod ui aut clam, si modo quis aut prohibitus fecerit, aut apparuerit eum intellegere debuisse ab eis, ad quos ea hereditas pertineret, si rescissent, prohibitum iri.2
You have an action under the Lex Aquilia on the ground that, before you entered upon the inheritance, damage was committed to the hereditary property, which occurred after the death of the person to whom you are heir: for the Lex Aquilia does not by any means call “owner” the person who was such at the time when the damage was done; for in that way, the action could not even pass to the heir from the person to whom he is heir; nor could you, having returned by postliminium, bring an action for what was committed when you were in the power of the enemy; and this could not be decided otherwise without great disadvantage to posthumous children, who will be heirs to their parents. We shall say the same also of trees secretly cut down during the same period. I think that the same can also be said of the action “on account of force or stealth” (quod vi aut clam), provided only that someone has done it although forbidden, or it appears that he ought to have understood that he would be forbidden by those to whom the inheritance belonged, if they had known of it.
- 9.2.43.prdominum enim lex Aquilia appellat non utique eum, qui tunc fuerit, cum damnum daretur
On the flexibility of the term 'owner' (dominus). The text explains that 'owner' under the Lex Aquilia is not restricted to the person who held the title at the exact moment the damage was done, which justifies the heir's standing to sue for damage occurring to the estate before acceptance.
- 9.2.43.prprohibitum iri
Future passive infinitive of the verb prohibeo (to forbid), forming an accusative-with-infinitive construction (with the pronoun eum implied as subject). It serves as the object of intellegere debuisse (ought to have understood), meaning 'that he would be forbidden [by them].'