Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §25.5.1.pr-25.5.1.5

Remedies for Unlawful Possession in Favor of an Unborn Child

Passage 3721 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

The passage discusses the legal actions, eviction procedures, and limits of liability under the praetor's edict when possession granted in favor of an unborn child is maliciously transferred to another.

[ULPIANUS libro trigesimo quarto ad edictum. ] §25.5.1.prHoc edicto rectissime praetor prospexit, ne, dum in fauorem partus possessionem polliceatur, aliis praedae occasionem praebeat: §25.5.1.1Idcirco constituit actionem in mulierem, quae in alium hanc possessionem dolo malo transtulit.
[ULPIAN, On the Edict, Book 34] By this edict, the praetor very properly provided that, while he promises possession in favor of the unborn child, he should not offer an opportunity for plunder to others: Therefore, he established an action against the woman who, with malicious intent, transferred this possession to another.
non solum mulierem praetor coercet, uerum eum quoque in cuius potestate ea fuerit, scilicet si dolo ipsorum alius in possessionem fuerit admissus, actionemque in tantum pollicetur in eos, quanti interfuerit eius qui experitur.
The praetor restrains not only the woman, but also the person under whose power she was, namely, if by their malicious intent another person was admitted into possession; and he promises an action against them for as much as it was of interest to the person who brings the action.
§25.5.1.2Necessario praetor adiecit, ut, qui per dolum uenit in possessionem, cogatur decedere: coget autem eum decedere non praetoria potestate uel manu ministrorum, sed melius et ciuilius faciet, si eum per interdictum ad ius ordinarium remiserit.
Out of necessity, the praetor added that anyone who entered into possession through malicious intent should be forced to withdraw. However, he will compel him to withdraw not by his praetorian power or by the hand of his attendants, but he will act more appropriately and in a more civil manner if he refers him to ordinary law by means of an interdict.
§25.5.1.3Interest autem eius qui experitur admissum alium in possessionem non fuisse, cum forte bona fide fructus perceptos consumpserit, aut si praedo uenerit in possessionem, a quo fructus consequi non possit, quia soluendo non est.
Moreover, it is of interest to the person who brings the action that another should not have been admitted into possession, since that person might, by chance, have consumed the gathered fruits in good faith, or if a plunderer should have entered into possession, from whom fruits cannot be recovered because he is insolvent.
§25.5.1.4Haec actio etiam post annum dabitur, quia rei habet persecutionem.
This action will also be granted after a year, because it has the character of a recovery of property.
§25.5.1.5Et si filia familias sit quae dolo fecit, in patrem dabitur actio, si quid ad eum peruenerit.
And if it is a daughter under paternal power who acted with malicious intent, the action will be granted against the father, to the extent that anything has come to him.

Notes

  1. §25.5.1.1quanti interfuerit eius qui experitur — The syntax of the impersonal verb `interest` ("it is of interest/importance to"). The person concerned is expressed in the genitive (`eius`), and the degree of interest or value is expressed in the genitive of price/value (`quanti`). `quanti interfuerit eius` means "for as much as it was of interest to the person who brings the action" (the amount of financial interest or damage).
  2. §25.5.1.3soluendo non est — An idiomatic expression consisting of `esse` with a dative. `soluendo` is the dative of the gerundive (or gerund) of `soluere` ("to pay"). The phrase `soluendo esse` means "to be solvent" (literally, "to be for paying"). With the negative `non`, `soluendo non est` means "he is insolvent" or "he is unable to pay."
  3. §25.5.1.4rei habet persecutionem — An expression regarding the nature of an action in Roman law (whether penal or restorative). `rei persecutio` refers to an action aimed at the recovery of lost property (pursuit of the thing itself), which explains why the action can still be brought after one year (as penal actions, *actiones poenales*, usually expired after one year).

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §25.5.1.pr-25.5.1.5. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:25.5.1.pr-25.5.1.5

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.