[IDEM libro uicesimo tertio quaestionum. ] §41.3.44.prIusto errore ductus Titium filium meum et in mea potestate esse existimaui, cum adrogatio non iure interuenisset: eum ex re mea quaerere mihi non existimo.
[THE SAME, Questions, book 23] Led by a justifiable error, I considered Titius to be my son and under my power, although the adrogation had not taken place lawfully; I do not consider that he acquires for me from my property.
non enim constitutum est in hoc, quod in homine libero qui bona fide seruit placuit: ibi propter adsiduam et cottidianam comparationem seruorum ita constitui publice interfuit, nam frequenter ignorantia liberos emimus, non autem tam facilis frequens adoptio uel adrogatio filiorum est.
For what was approved in the case of a free person who serves in good faith is not established in this case; in that former case, on account of the constant and daily acquisition of slaves, it was of public interest that it be so established, for we frequently purchase free persons through ignorance, whereas the adoption or adrogation of children is not so easy or frequent.
§41.3.44.1Constat, si rem alienam scienti mihi uendas, tradas autem eo tempore, quo dominus ratum habet, traditionis tempus inspiciendum remque meam fieri.
It is established that if you sell another's property to me while I know it, but deliver it at the time when the owner ratifies the sale, the time of delivery must be inspected and the property becomes mine.
§41.3.44.2Etsi possessionis, non contractus initium, quod ad usucapionem pertinet, inspici placet, nonnumquam tamen euenit, ut non initium praesentis possessionis, sed causam antiquiorem traditionis, quae bonam fidem habuit, inspiciamus, ueluti circa partum eius mulieris, quam bona fide coepit possidere: non enim ideo minus capietur usu puer, quod alienam matrem, priusquam eniteretur, esse cognouit.
Although it is approved that, as far as usucapion is concerned, the beginning of possession, not of the contract, must be inspected, it nevertheless sometimes happens that we inspect not the beginning of the present possession, but the older cause of delivery, which had good faith, as for example concerning the offspring of that woman whom one began to possess in good faith; for the child will not be acquired by usucapion any less because the possessor knew that the mother belonged to another before she gave birth.
idem in seruo postliminio reuerso dictum est.
The same was said in the case of a slave who returned by postliminium.
§41.3.44.3Nondum aditae hereditatis tempus usucapioni datum est, siue seruus hereditarius aliquid comparat, siue defunctus usucapere coeperat: sed haec iure singulari recepta sunt.
The period of an inheritance not yet accepted is granted to usucapion, whether a slave belonging to the inheritance acquires something, or the deceased had begun to acquire by usucapion; but these things have been accepted by singular law.
§41.3.44.4Filius familias emptor alienae rei, cum patrem familias se factum ignoret, coepit rem sibi traditam possidere: cur non capiat usu, cum bona fides initio possessionis adsit, quamuis eum se per errorem esse arbitretur, qui rem ex causa peculiari quaesitam nec possidere possit? idem dicendum erit et si ex patris hereditate ad se peruenisse rem emptam non leui praesumptione credat.
A son-in-power, the buyer of another's property, while ignorant that he has become a father-of-the-family, began to possess the property delivered to him; why should he not acquire it by usucapion, since good faith is present at the beginning of possession, even though he mistakenly thinks that he is one who cannot even possess property acquired from the cause of a peculium? The same must be said even if he believes, by no slight presumption, that the purchased property has come to him from his father's inheritance.
§41.3.44.5Non mutat usucapio superueniens pro emptore uel pro herede, quo minus pignoris persecutio salua sit: ut enim usus fructus usucapi non potest, ita persecutio pignoris, quae nulla societate dominii coniungitur, sed sola conuentione constituitur, usucapione rei non peremitur.
A supervening usucapion on behalf of a buyer or an heir does not change the fact that the pursuit of a pledge remains unimpaired; for just as a usufruct cannot be acquired by usucapion, so the pursuit of a pledge, which is connected by no association of ownership but is established by agreement alone, is not destroyed by the usucapion of the property.
§41.3.44.6Eum, qui postea quam usucapere coepit in furorem incidit, utilitate suadente relictum est, ne languor animi damnum etiam in bonis adferat, ex omni causa implere usucapionem.
With regard to one who fell into madness after he began to acquire by usucapion, it has been allowed, utility recommending it, so that infirmity of mind may not bring loss also in property, that he completes the usucapion from every cause.
§41.3.44.7Si, cum apud hostes dominus aut pater agat, seruus aut filius emat, an et tenere incipiat? si quidem ex causa peculii possedit, usucapionem inchoari nec impedimento domini captiuitatem esse, cuius scientia non esset in ciuitate necessaria.
If, while the owner or father is among the enemy, a slave or a son-in-power buys a thing, do they also begin to hold it? If indeed he possessed it from the cause of a peculium, usucapion is begun and the owner's captivity is no impediment, whose knowledge would not be necessary in the state.
si uero non ex causa peculii comparetur, usu non capi nec iure postliminii quaesitum intellegi, cum prius esset, ut, quod usucaptum diceretur, possessum foret.
But if it is acquired not from the cause of a peculium, it is not acquired by usucapion, nor is it understood to be acquired by the right of postliminium, since it was prior that what was said to be acquired by usucapion must have been possessed.
sin autem pater ibi decesserit, quia tempora captiuitatis ex die quo capitur morti iungerentur, potest filium dici et possedisse sibi et usucepisse intellegi.
But if the father died there, because the times of captivity would be joined to his death from the day he was captured, it can be said that the son both possessed for himself and is understood to have acquired by usucapion.