[ULPIANUS libro quinquagensimo nono ad edictum. ] §42.4.7.prFulcinius existimat creditores rei seruandae causa missos in possessionem ex his rebus ali non debere. §42.4.7.1Praetor ait: 'Qui fraudationis causa latitabit, si boni uiri arbitratu non defendetur, eius bona possideri uendique iubebo'. §42.4.7.2Cum hoc edictum locum habeat, non sufficit latitare, sed et necesse est fraudationis causa id fieri: neque quod fraudationis causa sine latitatione fit, satis est ad possessionem et uenditionem, sed oportet fraudationis causa latitare.
[ULPIANUS book fifty-nine on the edict.]\n\nFulcinius thinks that creditors put into possession for the purpose of preserving property ought not to be maintained from these goods.\n\nThe praetor says: 'He who hides for the purpose of fraud, if he is not defended according to the judgment of an upright man, I will order his goods to be possessed and sold.'\n\nSince this edict applies, it is not enough to hide, but it is also necessary that this be done for the purpose of fraud; nor is that which is done for the purpose of fraud without hiding sufficient for possession and sale, but it is necessary to hide for the purpose of fraud.
et est frequentissima haec causa possessionis: nam in usu latitantium bona possidentur. §42.4.7.3Si quis possederit bona alicuius quasi latitantis, qui non latitabat, et uendiderit, consequens erit dicere uenditionem bonorum secutam nullius momenti esse. §42.4.7.4Quid sit autem latitare, uideamus.
And this is the most frequent cause of possession; for in practice, the goods of those who hide are possessed.\n\nIf anyone has possessed and sold the goods of someone as if he were hiding, who was not hiding, it will follow to say that the subsequent sale of the goods is of no effect.\n\nLet us see, however, what it is to hide.
latitare est non, ut Cicero definit, turpis occultatio sui: potest enim quis latitare non turpi de causa, ueluti qui tyranni crudelitatem timet aut uim hostium aut domesticas seditiones. §42.4.7.5Sed is, qui fraudationis causa latitet, non tamen propter creditores, etsi haec latitatio creditores fraudet, in ea tamen erit causa, ne hinc possideri bona eius possint, quia non hoc animo latitet, ut fraudet creditores: animus enim latitantis quaeritur, quo animo latitet, ut fraudet creditores an alia ex causa.
To hide is not, as Cicero defines it, a shameful concealment of oneself; for one can hide for a reason that is not shameful, as for example one who fears the cruelty of a tyrant, or the violence of enemies, or domestic seditions.\n\nBut he who hides for the purpose of fraud, yet not on account of creditors, even if this hiding defrauds the creditors, will nevertheless be in such a position that his goods cannot be possessed on this ground, because he does not hide with this intention, to defraud creditors; for the intention of the one who hides is examined, with what intention he hides, whether to defraud creditors or for some other reason.\n\nWhat then, if he had two or more reasons for hiding, among which was also that of defrauding creditors?
§42.4.7.6Quid ergo, si duas causas latitandi habuit uel plures, inter quas etiam fraudandi creditores? an uenditio recte procedat? et puto probandum, si plures causae sint latitationis, inter quas est et fraudationis causa, nocere debere posseque hinc bona uendi. §42.4.7.7Quid si aduersus quosdam occultare se consilium non est, aduersus quosdam est, quid dicemus? et rectissime Pomponius scribit non aduersus omnes latitationem exigendam, sed aduersus eum, quem quis decipere et fraudare latitatione destinat.
Does the sale proceed rightly? And I think it should be approved that, if there are several reasons for hiding, among which is also the purpose of fraud, this ought to be prejudicial, and his goods can be sold on this ground.\n\nWhat if there is no intention to conceal oneself against certain persons, but there is against others, what shall we say? Pomponius writes most correctly that hiding is not required against everyone, but against him whom one intends to deceive and defraud by hiding.
utrum ergo omnes bona eius uendere possunt, quia latitat, hoc est etiam hi, aduersus quos non latitat, quia uerum est eum latitare, an uero is solus, aduersus quem latitat? et quidem uerum est eum latitare et fraudationis causa latitare, etsi non aduersus me latitet: sed illud spectandum Pomponius putat, an aduersus me, eumque solum posse hinc uenditionem impetrare, aduersus quem latitetur. §42.4.7.8Latitare autem est cum tractu aliquo latere, quemadmodum factitare frequenter facere. §42.4.7.9Adeo autem latitatio animum et affectum occultantis se desiderat, ut recte dictum sit furiosum hinc uenditionem pati non posse, quia non se occultat, qui suus non est. §42.4.7.10Plane si non defendatur furiosus, curatorem ei dandum, aut bona eius ut possideantur, nominatim permittendum est.
Whether, therefore, can everyone sell his goods because he hides—that is, even those against whom he does not hide, because it is true that he hides—or only he against whom he hides? And indeed it is true that he hides and hides for the purpose of fraud, even if he does not hide against me; but Pomponius thinks that this must be considered, whether he hides against me, and that only he against whom there is hiding can obtain a sale on this ground.\n\nTo hide, moreover, is to keep out of sight for some duration of time, just as to do repeatedly is to do frequently.\n\nMoreover, hiding requires the intention and state of mind of the one who conceals himself to such an extent that it has been correctly said that a madman cannot suffer a sale on this ground, because he who is not his own master does not conceal himself.\n\nClearly, if a madman is not defended, a curator must be given to him, or it must be specifically permitted that his goods be possessed.
Labeo autem scribit, si non inueniatur curator uel defensor furiosi, sed et si curator datus eum non defendat, tunc remouendum eum et oportere praetorem dare curatorem aliquem ex creditoribus, ut non amplius, quam necesse est, ex bonis furiosi ueneat: eaque seruanda Labeo ait, quae solent seruari, cum uenter in possessionem mittitur.
Labeo writes, however, that if a curator or defender of the madman is not found, or even if an appointed curator does not defend him, then he must be removed, and the praetor ought to appoint some curator from among the creditors, so that no more of the madman's goods are sold than is necessary; and Labeo says that those rules must be observed which are customarily observed when an unborn child is put into possession.