[ULPIANUS libro tertio decimo ad edictum. ] §4.7.4.prItem si res fuerint usucaptae ab eo cui alienatae sint nec peti ab hoc possint, locum habet hoc edictum.
[ULPIANUS, On the Edict, Book XIII] Likewise, if property has been acquired by usucapion by the person to whom it was alienated, and cannot be claimed from him, this edict applies.
§4.7.4.1Itemque fieri potest, ut sine dolo malo quidem possidere desierit, uerum iudicii mutandi causa id fiat.
And likewise, it can happen that someone has ceased to possess indeed without malicious intent, but yet this is done for the purpose of changing the trial.
sunt et alia complura talia.
There are also many other such cases.
potest autem aliquis dolo malo desinere possidere nec tamen iudicii mutandi causa fecisse nec hoc edicto teneri: neque enim alienat, qui dumtaxat omittit possessionem.
However, someone can cease to possess with malicious intent and yet not have done so for the purpose of changing the trial, and thus not be liable under this edict: for he who merely abandons possession does not alienate.
non tamen eius factum improbat praetor, qui tanti habuit re carere, ne propter eam saepius litigaret (haec enim uerecunda cogitatio eius, qui lites exsecratur, non est uituperanda), sed eius dumtaxat, qui cum rem habere uult, litem ad alium transfert, ut molestum aduersarium pro se subiciat.
Yet, the praetor does not disapprove of the act of one who thought so highly of being without the thing so that he would not have to litigate more often on account of it (for this modest thought of one who detests lawsuits is not to be blamed), but only of the act of one who, while wishing to keep the thing, transfers the lawsuit to another in order to substitute a troublesome adversary in his own place.
§4.7.4.2Pedius libro nono non solum ad dominii translationem hoc edictum pertinere ait, uerum ad possessionis quoque: alioquin cum quo in rem agebatur, inquit, si possessione cessit, non tenebitur.
Pedius, in his ninth book, says that this edict pertains not only to the transfer of ownership, but also to that of possession: otherwise, he says, the person against whom an action in rem was brought, if he surrendered possession, will not be liable.
§4.7.4.3Si quis autem ob ualetudinem aut aetatem aut occupationes necessarias litem in alium transtulerit, in ea causa non est, ut hoc edicto teneatur, cum in hoc edicto doli mali fiat mentio.
But if anyone has transferred a lawsuit to another on account of ill health, age, or necessary occupations, he is not in such a position as to be liable under this edict, since mention of malicious intent is made in this edict.
ceterum erit interdictum et per procuratores litigare dominio in eos plerumque ex iusta causa translato.
Otherwise, litigating through procurators would be forbidden, although ownership is usually transferred to them for a just cause.
§4.7.4.4Ad iura etiam praediorum hoc edictum pertinet, modo si dolo malo fiat alienatio.
This edict also pertains to the rights of estates, provided that the alienation is made with malicious intent.
§4.7.4.5Haec actio in id quod interest competit.
This action lies for the amount of one's interest.
proinde si res non fuit petitoris aut si is qui alienatus est sine culpa decessit, cessat iudicium, nisi si quid actoris praeterea interfuit.
Therefore, if the thing did not belong to the claimant, or if he who was alienated died without fault, the trial ceases, unless the plaintiff had some other interest besides.
§4.7.4.6Haec actio non est poenalis, sed rei persecutionem arbitrio iudicis continet, quare et heredi dabitur: in heredem autem
This action is not penal, but contains the pursuit of the thing at the discretion of the judge, wherefore it shall also be granted to an heir: but against an heir...