[ULPIANUS libro uicensimo quarto ad edictum. ] §10.4.9.prIulianus scribit: si quis hominem quem possidebat occiderit siue ad alium transtulerit possessionem siue ita rem corruperit ne haberi possit, ad exhibendum tenebitur, quia dolo fecit quo minus possideret.
[ULPIANUS libro uicensimo quarto ad edictum.] Julian writes: if anyone kills a slave whom he possessed, or transfers the possession to another, or so corrupts the thing that it cannot be had, he will be liable to the action for production, because he acted with malice to avoid possessing.
proinde et si uinum uel oleum uel quid aliud effuderit uel confregerit, ad exhibendum tenebitur.
Likewise, if he pours out wine or oil, or breaks anything else, he will be liable to the action for production.
§10.4.9.1Glans ex arbore tua in fundum meum decidit: eam ego immisso pecore depasco: qua actione possum teneri? Pomponius scribit competere actionem ad exhibendum, si dolo pecus immissi, ut glandem comederet: nam et si glans extaret nec patieris me tollere, ad exhibendum teneberis, quemadmodum si materiam meam delatam in agrum suum quis auferre non pateretur.
Acorns from your tree fell onto my land; I let my cattle in and they ate them. By what action can I be held liable? Pomponius writes that the action for production is available if I let the cattle in with malice so that they would eat the acorns. For even if the acorns were still there and you did not allow me to take them away, you would be liable to the action for production, just as if someone did not allow me to carry away my timber which had been carried onto his land.
et placet nobis Pomponii sententia, siue glans extet siue consumpta sit.
And we agree with Pomponius' opinion, whether the acorns still exist or have been consumed.
sed si extet, etiam interdicto de glande legenda, ut mihi tertio quoque die legendae glandis facultas esset, uti potero, si damni infecti cauero.
But if they still exist, I shall also be able to use the interdict concerning the gathering of acorns, so that I should have the opportunity to gather the acorns every third day, provided that I give security against threatened damage.
§10.4.9.2Si quis rem fecit ad alium peruenire, uidetur dolo fecisse quo minus possideat, si modo hoc dolose fecerit.
If anyone has caused a thing to come into the hands of another, he is deemed to have acted with malice to avoid possessing, provided that he did this maliciously.
§10.4.9.3Sed si quis rem deteriorem exhibuerit, aeque ad exhibendum eum teneri Sabinus ait.
But if anyone produces a thing in a worse condition, Sabinus says that he is equally liable to the action for production.
sed hoc ibi utique uerum est, si dolo malo in aliud corpus res sit translata, ueluti si ex scypho massa facta sit: quamquam enim massam exhibeat, ad exhibendum tenebitur, nam mutata forma prope interemit substantiam rei.
But this is certainly true only if the thing has been converted into another substance with malice, as for example if a mass of metal is made from a goblet; for although he produces the mass, he will be liable to the action for production, since the change of form has almost destroyed the substance of the thing.
§10.4.9.4Marcellus scribit, si tibi decem nomismata sint sub condicione legata et mihi decem usus fructus pure, deinde heres pendente condicione non exacta cautione decem fructuario soluerit, ad exhibendum eum actione teneri, quasi dolo fecerit quo minus possideret: dolus autem in eo est, quod cautionem exigere supersedit a fructuario effectumque, ut legatum tuum euanesceret, cum iam nummos uindicare non possis.
Marcellus writes that if ten coins are bequeathed to you under a condition, and a usufruct of ten coins is bequeathed to me unconditionally, and then the heir, while the condition is pending, pays the ten coins to the usufructuary without demanding security, the heir is liable to the action for production, as if he had acted with malice to avoid possessing. The malice consists in his neglecting to demand security from the usufructuary, thereby causing your legacy to vanish, since you can no longer claim the coins.
ita demum autem locum habebit ad exhibendum actio, si condicio extiterit legati.
However, the action for production will only lie if the condition of the legacy is fulfilled.
potuisti tamen tibi prospicere stipulatione legatorum et, si prospexisti, non erit tibi necessaria ad exhibendum actio.
Yet you could have protected yourself by a stipulation for legacies, and if you had done so, the action for production would not be necessary for you.
si tamen ignarus legati tui a fructuario satis non exegit, dicit Marcellus cessare ad exhibendum, scilicet quia nullus dolus est: succurrendum tamen legatario in factum aduersus fructuarium actione ait.
But if, being ignorant of your legacy, the heir did not demand sufficient security from the usufructuary, Marcellus says that the action for production does not lie, because of course there is no malice; however, he says that the legatee should be assisted by an action on the facts against the usufructuary.
§10.4.9.5Quantum autem ad hanc actionem attinet, exhibere est in eadem causa praestare, in qua fuit, cum iudicium acciperetur, ut quis copiam rei habens possit exsequi actione quam destinauit in nullo casu quam intendit laesa, quamuis non de restituendo, sed de exhibendo agatur.
As far as this action is concerned, to produce is to deliver the thing in the same legal condition in which it was when the joinder of issue took place, so that the person who has the availability of the thing may pursue the action he intended, without his claim being impaired in any case, although the action is not for restoration but for production.
§10.4.9.6Proinde si post litem contestatam usucaptum exhibeat, non uidetur exhibuisse, cum petitor intentionem suam perdiderit, et ideo absolui eum non oportere, nisi paratus sit repetita die intentionem suscipere, ita ut fructus secundum legem aestimentur.
Therefore, if after joinder of issue he produces a thing that has been acquired by usucapion, he is not deemed to have produced it, since the claimant has lost his claim, and for this reason he ought not to be acquitted, unless he is prepared to accept the claim on a retroactive date, so that the fruits may be valued according to the law.
§10.4.9.7Quia tamen causa petitori in hac actione restituitur, Sabinus putauit partum quoque restituendum, siue praegnas fuerit mulier siue postea conceperit: quam sententiam et Pomponius probat.
Since, however, the legal condition is restored to the claimant in this action, Sabinus thought that the offspring also must be restored, whether the woman was pregnant or conceived afterwards; Pomponius also approves of this opinion.
§10.4.9.8Praeterea utilitates, si quae amissae sunt ob hoc quod non exhibetur uel tardius quid exhibetur, aestimandae a iudice sunt: et ideo Neratius ait utilitatem actoris uenire in aestimationem, non quanti res sit, quae utilitas, inquit, interdum minoris erit quam res erit.
Moreover, any profits that have been lost because the thing is not produced or is produced too late must be estimated by the judge; and therefore Neratius says that it is the interest of the plaintiff that enters into the valuation, not the value of the thing itself, which interest, he says, will sometimes be less than the value of the thing.