[ULPIANUS libro sexagensimo nono ad edictum. ] §43.16.1.17Familiae autem appellatio seruos continet: Sed quaeritur, quem numerum seruorum contineat, utrum plurium an uero et duum uel trium.
[ULPIANUS libro sexagensimo nono ad edictum.] Moreover, the term "household" includes slaves. But it is asked what number of slaves it includes, whether several, or indeed even two or three.
sed uerius est in hoc interdicto, etiamsi unus seruus ui deiecerit, familiam uideri deiecisse.
But it is more correct that in this interdict, even if a single slave has forcefully ejected, the household is seen to have ejected.
§43.16.1.18Familiae appellatione et eos, quos loco seruorum habemus, contineri oportere dicendum est.
It must be said that by the term "household", those also whom we hold in the position of slaves ought to be included.
§43.16.1.19Si quis tamen neget se seruum uel familiam defendere, cogendus est pati hoc interdictum, ad hoc scilicet, ut quod ad eum peruenit restituat.
If, however, anyone should deny that he defends a slave or the household, he must be compelled to submit to this interdict, namely to this end, that he restore what has come to him.
§43.16.1.20Si filius familias uel mercennarius ui deiecerit, utile interdictum competit.
If a son in power or a hireling has forcefully ejected, an analogous interdict lies.
§43.16.1.21Si aduersus eum, qui in libertatem ex seruitute uel contra petitur, post inchoatum liberale iudicium utar interdicto et liber iudicatus fuerit et apparuerit ignorante eo a seruis eius ui me deiectum, in possessionem restituar.
If against him who is claimed into freedom from slavery, or vice versa, I use the interdict after a status suit has begun, and he is judged to be free, and it appears that I was forcefully ejected by his slaves without his knowledge, I shall be restored to possession.
§43.16.1.22Quod seruus uel procurator uel colonus tenent, dominus uidetur possidere, et ideo his deiectis ipse deici de possessione uidetur, etiamsi ignoret eos deiectos, per quos possidebat.
What a slave or an agent or a tenant-farmer holds, the owner is seen to possess; and therefore, when these are ejected, he himself is seen to be ejected from possession, even if he is ignorant that those through whom he possessed have been ejected.
et si quis igitur alius, per quem possidebam, deiectus fuerit, mihi competere interdictum nemini dubium est.
And therefore, if anyone else through whom I possessed has been ejected, there is no doubt to anyone that the interdict lies for me.
§43.16.1.23Interdictum autem hoc nulli competit nisi ei, qui tunc cum deiceretur possidebat, nec alius deici uisus est quam qui possidet.
Moreover, this interdict lies for no one except him who possessed at the time when he was ejected, nor is anyone else seen to be ejected than he who possesses.
§43.16.1.24Siue autem corpore siue animo possidens quis deiectus est, palam est eum ui deiectum uideri.
But whether one possessing by body or by mind is ejected, it is clear that he is seen to have been forcefully ejected.
idcircoque si quis de agro suo uel de domo processisset nemine suorum relicto, mox reuertens prohibitus sit ingredi uel ipsum praedium, uel si quis eum in medio itinere detinuerit et ipse possederit, ui deiectus uidetur: ademisti enim ei possessionem, quam animo retinebat, etsi non corpore.
And therefore, if anyone had gone out of his field or from his house, leaving none of his people behind, and upon returning shortly after, was prohibited from entering the estate itself, or if anyone detained him on the way and possessed it himself, he is seen to be forcefully ejected: for you have taken away from him the possession which he was retaining by mind, even if not by body.
§43.16.1.25Quod uolgo dicitur aestiuorum hibernorumque saltuum nos possessiones animo retinere, id exempli causa didici Proculum dicere: nam ex omnibus praediis, ex quibus non hac mente recedemus, ut omisisse possessionem uellemus, idem est.
What is commonly said, that we retain by mind the possessions of summer and winter pastures, I have learned that Proculus says this by way of example; for it is the same with respect to all estates from which we depart not with this mind, that we wish to have abandoned possession.
§43.16.1.26Eum, qui neque animo neque corpore possidebat, ingredi autem et incipere possidere prohibeatur, non uideri deiectum uerius est: dicitur enim qui amittit possessionem, non qui non accipitur.
It is more correct that he who was possessing neither by mind nor by body, but is prohibited from entering and beginning to possess, is not seen to be ejected; for he is said to be ejected who loses possession, not he who is not admitted.
§43.16.1.27Uim ui repellere licere Cassius scribit idque ius natura comparatur: apparet autem, inquit, ex eo arma armis repellere licere.
Cassius writes that it is lawful to repel force by force, and this right is provided by nature; moreover, he says, it appears from this that it is lawful to repel arms by arms.
§43.16.1.28Ui possidere eum definiendum est, qui expulso uetere possessore adquisitam per uim possessionem optinet aut qui in hoc ipsum aptatus et praeparatus uenit ut contra bonos mores auxilio, ne prohiberi possit ingrediens in possessionem, facit.
He must be defined as possessing by force who, having expelled the old possessor, holds the possession acquired through force, or who comes adapted and prepared for this very purpose, to act against good morals with assistance so that he cannot be prohibited when entering into possession.
sed qui per uim possessionem suam retinuerit, Labeo ait non ui possidere.
But he who has retained his possession through force, Labeo says does not possess by force.
§43.16.1.29Idem Labeo ait eum, qui metu turbae perterritus fugerit, ui uideri deiectum.
The same Labeo says that he who, terrified by fear of a crowd, has fled, is seen to be forcefully ejected.
sed Pomponius ait uim sine corporali ui locum non habere, ergo etiam eum, qui fugatus est superuenientibus quibusdam, si illi ui occupauerunt possessionem, uideri ui deiectum.
But Pomponius says that force does not take place without corporal force; therefore, even he who has been put to flight by the arrival of certain persons, if they forcefully seized possession, is seen to be forcefully ejected.
§43.16.1.30Qui a me ui possidebat, si ab alio deiciatur, habet interdictum.
He who was possessing by force from me, if he is ejected by another, has the interdict.
§43.16.1.31Qui ui deiectus est, quidquid damni senserit ob hoc quod deiectus est, reciperare debet: pristina enim causa restitui debet, quam habiturus erat, si non fuisset deiectus.
He who has been forcefully ejected ought to recover whatever damage he has suffered on account of being ejected; for he ought to be restored to his former position, which he would have had if he had not been ejected.
§43.16.1.32Si fundus, a quo ui expulsus sim, mihi restitutus esset, ceterae uero res, quae ui ablatae sunt, non restituantur, hic dicendum est interdictum nihilo minus tenere, quia uerum est ui esse deiectum.
If the farm from which I was forcefully expelled has been restored to me, but the other things which were forcefully taken away are not restored, here it must be said that the interdict holds nonetheless, because it is true that he was forcefully ejected.
plane si quis uelit de possessione quidem rei soli per hoc interdictum experiri, de rebus uero mobilibus ad exhibendum actione, potest hoc suo arbitrio habere, et ita Iulianus scribit: idem scribit et si quis ui bonorum raptorum de huiusmodi rebus uelit experiri.
Clearly, if anyone should wish to sue concerning the possession of the soil by this interdict, but concerning the movable things by an action to produce, he can have this at his own choice, and so Julian writes; he writes the same also if anyone should wish to sue concerning such things by the action for robbery.