[IULIANUS libro quadragensimo quarto digestorum. ] §41.3.33.prNon solum bonae fidei emptores, sed et omnes, qui possident ex ea causa, quam usucapio sequi solet, partum ancillae furtiuae usu suum faciunt, idque ratione iuris introductum arbitror: nam ex qua causa quis ancillam usucaperet, nisi lex duodecim tabularum uel Atinia obstaret, ex ea causa necesse est partum usucapi, si apud eum conceptus et editus eo tempore fuerit, quo furtiuam esse matrem eius ignorabat.
[JULIAN, Digest, book 44] Not only good faith purchasers, but also all who possess on a ground which usucapion is accustomed to follow, make the offspring of a stolen female slave their own by usucapion, and I think that this was introduced by the reason of the law. For on whatever ground anyone would acquire a female slave by usucapion, if the Law of the Twelve Tables or the Lex Atinia did not stand in the way, on that same ground it is necessary that her offspring be acquired by usucapion, provided that the offspring was conceived and born in his possession at a time when he was ignorant that its mother was stolen.
§41.3.33.1Quod uulgo respondetur ipsum sibi causam possessionis mutare non posse, totiens uerum est, quotiens quis sciret se bona fide non possidere et lucri faciendi causa inciperet possidere: idque per haec probari posse.
The common answer that a person cannot change the ground of his possession for himself is true only so often as someone knows that he does not possess in good faith and begins to possess for the sake of making a gain. And this can be proved by the following examples.
si quis emerit fundum sciens ab eo, cuius non erat, possidebit pro possessore: sed si eundem a domino emerit, incipiet pro emptore possidere, nec uidebitur sibi ipse causam possessionis mutasse.
If anyone knowingly purchases land from one to whom it did not belong, he will possess as possessor. But if he purchases the same land from its owner, he will begin to possess as purchaser, and he will not be deemed to have changed the ground of possession for himself.
idemque iuris erit etiam, si a non domino emerit, cum existimaret eum dominum esse.
And the same rule of law will apply even if he purchases from a non-owner, while believing him to be the owner.
idem hic si a domino heres institutus fuerit uel bonorum eius possessionem acceperit, incipiet fundum pro herede possidere.
If this same person is appointed heir by the owner or receives possession of his estate, he will begin to possess the land as heir.
hoc amplius si iustam causam habuerit existimandi se heredem uel bonorum possessorem domino extitisse, fundum pro herede possidebit nec causam possessionis sibi mutare uidebitur.
Furthermore, if he has a just cause to believe that he has become the heir or estate possessor of the owner, he will possess the land as heir, and will not be deemed to have changed the ground of possession for himself.
cum haec igitur recipiantur in eius persona, qui possessionem habet, quanto magis in colono recipienda sunt, qui nec uiuo nec mortuo domino ullam possessionem habet? et certe si colonus mortuo domino emerit fundum ab eo, qui existimabat se heredem eius uel bonorum possessorem esse, incipiet pro emptore possidere.
Since, therefore, these rules are admitted in the person of one who has possession, how much more should they be admitted in the case of a tenant farmer, who has no possession either during the lifetime or after the death of the owner? And certainly, if a tenant farmer, after the death of the owner, purchases the land from someone who believed himself to be his heir or estate possessor, he will begin to possess as purchaser.
§41.3.33.2Si dominus fundi homines armatos uenientes existimauerit atque ita profugerit, quamuis nemo eorum fundum ingressus fuerit, ui deiectus uidetur: sed nihilo minus id praedium, etiam antequam in potestate domini redeat, a bonae fidei possessore usucapitur, quia lex Plautia et Iulia ea demum uetuit longa possessione capi, quae ui possessa fuissent, non etiam ex quibus ui quis deiectus fuisset.
If the owner of a piece of land thinks that armed men are coming and flees for that reason, although none of them has entered the land, he is deemed to have been ejected by force. But nevertheless, that estate is acquired by usucapion by a good faith possessor, even before it returns to the control of the owner, because the Lex Plautia and Lex Julia prohibited the acquisition by long possession only of those things which had been possessed by force, and not also of those from which someone had been ejected by force.
§41.3.33.3Si mihi Titius, a quo fundum petere uolebam, possessione cesserit, usucapionis causam iustam habebo.
If Titius, from whom I wished to claim a piece of land, yields possession to me, I shall have a just cause for usucapion.
sed et is, a quo ex stipulatu fundum petere uolebam, cedendo mihi possessione, si soluendi causa id fecerit, eo ipso efficiet, ut fundum longo tempore capiam.
But also he from whom I wished to claim land on the basis of a stipulation, by yielding possession to me, if he did so for the purpose of discharging his obligation, will by that very act bring it about that I acquire the land by length of time.
§41.3.33.4Qui pignori rem dat, usucapit, quamdiu res apud creditorem est: si creditor eius possessionem alii tradiderit, interpellabitur usucapio: et quantum ad usucapionem attinet, similis est ei qui quid deposuit uel commodauit, quos palam est desinere usucapere, si commodata uel deposita res alii tradita fuerit ab eo, qui commodatum uel depositum accepit.
He who gives a thing in pledge continues to acquire it by usucapion as long as the thing is with the creditor. If the creditor delivers possession of it to another, the usucapion will be interrupted. And as far as usucapion is concerned, he is similar to one who has deposited or lent something, who, as is clear, cease to acquire by usucapion if the lent or deposited thing is delivered to another by the person who received the loan or deposit.
plane si creditor nuda conuentione hypothecam contraxerit, usucapere debitor perseuerabit.
Obviously, if the creditor has contracted a mortgage by a bare agreement, the debtor will continue to acquire by usucapion.
§41.3.33.5Si rem tuam, cum bona fide possiderem, pignori tibi dem ignoranti tuam esse, desino usucapere, quia non intellegitur quis suae rei pignus contrahere.
If, while I possess your thing in good faith, I give it to you in pledge, you being ignorant that it is yours, I cease to acquire by usucapion, because it is not understood that anyone can contract a pledge over his own thing.
at si nuda conuentione pignus contractum fuerit, nihilo minus usucapiam, quia hoc quoque modo nullum pignus contractum uidetur.
But if the pledge was contracted by a bare agreement, I shall nevertheless continue to acquire by usucapion, because in this way also it is deemed that no pledge was contracted.
§41.3.33.6Si rem pignori datam creditoris seruus subripuerit, cum eam creditor possideret, non interpellabitur usucapio debitoris, quia seruus dominum suum possessione non subuertit.
If a slave of the creditor steals a thing given in pledge while the creditor is possessing it, the debtor's usucapion will not be interrupted, because a slave does not deprive his master of possession.
sed et si debitoris seruus subripuerit, quamuis creditor possidere desinat, tamen debitori usucapio durat, non secus ac si eam creditor debitori tradidisset: nam quantum ad usucapiones attinet, serui subtrahendo res non faciunt deteriorem dominorum condicionem.
But also if a slave of the debtor steals it, although the creditor ceases to possess, the debtor's usucapion nevertheless continues, just as if the creditor had delivered it to the debtor. For as far as usucapions are concerned, slaves, by taking things away, do not make the condition of their masters worse.
facilius optinebitur, si precario possidente debitore seruus eius subripuerit.
This will be more easily held if, while the debtor possesses precariously, his slave steals it.
nam conductio idem praestat, quod si apud creditorem res esset: possidet enim hoc casu creditor.
For a lease produces the same effect as if the thing were with the creditor; for in this case, the creditor possesses.
sed et si utrumque intercesserit et precarii rogatio et conductio, intellegitur creditor possidere et precarii rogatio non in hoc interponitur, ut debitor possessionem habeat, sed ut ei tenere rem liceat.
But even if both have intervened—namely, a request for a precarious loan and a lease—the creditor is understood to possess, and the request for a precarious loan is interposed not so that the debtor may have possession, but so that he may be permitted to hold the thing.