[ULPIANUS libro sexagensimo nono ad edictum. ] §43.16.1.33Quod autem ait praetor: 'quaeque ibi habuit', sic accipimus, ut omnes res contineantur, non solum quae propriae ipsius fuerunt, uerum etiam si quae apud eum depositae uel ei commodatae uel pigneratae, quarumque usum uel usum fructum uel custodiam habuit, uel si quae ei locatae sunt: cum enim dicat praetor 'habuit', omnia haec habendi uerbo continentur.
[ULPIANUS libro sexagensimo nono ad edictum.] But what the praetor says: 'and whatever he had there', we understand in such a way that all things are included, not only those which were his own property, but also if any were deposited with him, or lent to him, or pledged to him, and of which he had the use or usufruct or custody, or if any were leased to him; for when the praetor says 'he had', all these things are contained in the verb 'to have'.
§43.16.1.34Rectissime autem praetor addidit 'tunc ibi habuit'.
But most correctly the praetor added 'then had there'.
'tunc' sic accipimus 'cum deiceretur': et ideo et si quid postea desiit illic esse, dicendum erit in interdictum uenire.
'Then' we understand as 'when he was being ejected'; and therefore, even if anything afterwards ceased to be there, it must be said that it comes into the interdict.
sic fit, ut, etiamsi homines uel pecora demortua sint post deiectionem, interdicto locus sit.
Thus it happens that, even if slaves or cattle have died after the ejection, there is place for the interdict.
§43.16.1.35Denique scribit Iulianus eum, qui ui deiecit ex eo praedio, in quo homines fuerant, propius esse, ut etiam sine culpa eius mortuis hominibus aestimationem eorum per interdictum restituere debeat, sicuti fur hominis etiam mortuo eo tenetur.
Finally, Julian writes that he who has forcefully ejected from that estate in which there were slaves, is closer to the view that, even if the slaves died without his fault, he ought to restore their valuation through the interdict, just as the thief of a slave is held liable even if he has died.
huic consequens esse ait, ut uillae quoque et aedium incendio consumptarum pretium restituere cogatur: ubi enim quis, inquit, deiecit, per eum stetisse uidetur, quo minus restitueret.
He says it is consequent to this that he is also compelled to restore the price of a villa and buildings consumed by fire; for where anyone, he says, has ejected, it is seen to have been due to him that he did not restore.
§43.16.1.36Idcirco constare ait eum, qui ui deiecit quique ui sine dolo malo desierit possidere, interdicto teneri.
Therefore, he says it is established that he who has forcefully ejected, and he who has ceased to possess by force without fraud, is held by the interdict.
§43.16.1.37'Ibi' autem ait praetor, ut ne quis et quae illic non habuit, complectatur.
Moreover, the praetor says 'there' so that no one may include also what he did not have there.
§43.16.1.38Sane quod ait praetor 'ibi', quomodo accipimus? utrum in eo loco, unde quis ui deiectus est, an uero in omni possessione? et melius dicetur non ad angulum referendum uel locum, in quo fuerit, uerum etiam ad omnem partem possessionis, qua quis caruit, cum deicitur.
To be sure, how do we understand what the praetor says, namely 'there'? Whether in that very place from which one was forcefully ejected, or indeed in the whole possession? And it will be better said that it should not be referred to a corner or the place in which he was, but also to every part of the possession which he lacked when he was ejected.
§43.16.1.39Annus in hoc interdicto utilis est.
A useful year is allowed in this interdict.
§43.16.1.40Ex die, quo quis deiectus est, fructuum ratio habetur, quamuis in ceteris interdictis ex quo edita sunt, non retro, computantur.
From the day on which one was ejected, account is taken of the fruits, although in other interdicts they are computed from the time they were issued, and not retroactively.
idem est et in rebus mobilibus, quae ibi erant: nam et earum fructus computandi sunt, ex quo quis ui deiectus est.
The same is true also regarding the movable things which were there; for their fruits also must be computed from the time when one was forcefully ejected.
§43.16.1.41Non solum autem fructuum ratio in hoc interdicto habetur, uerum ceterarum etiam utilitatium habenda est: nam et Uiuianus refert in hoc interdicto omnia, quaecumque habiturus uel adsecuturus erat is qui deiectus est, si ui deiectus non esset, restitui aut eorum litem a iudice aestimari debere eumque tantum consecuturum, quanti sua interesset se ui deiectum non esse.
Moreover, not only is account taken of the fruits in this interdict, but it must also be taken of all other utilities; for Vivianus also reports that in this interdict, everything whatsoever that the person who was ejected would have had or obtained, if he had not been forcefully ejected, ought to be restored or their litigation valued by the judge, and he will obtain as much as his interest was in not being forcefully ejected.
§43.16.1.42Ex interdicto unde ui etiam is, qui non possidet, restituere cogetur.
On the basis of the interdict 'unde ui', even he who does not possess will be compelled to restore.
§43.16.1.43Interdictum hoc quia atrocitatem facinoris in se habet, quaesitum est, an liberto in patronum uel liberis aduersus parentes competit.
Since this interdict has in itself the atrocity of a misdeed, it was questioned whether it lies for a freedman against his patron, or for children against their parents.
et uerius est nec liberto in patronum nec in parentes liberis dandum esse meliusque erit in factum actionem his competere. aliter atque si ui armata usus sit aduersus libertum patronus uel aduersus liberos parens: nam hic interdictum competit.
And it is more correct that it should be given neither to a freedman against his patron, nor to children against their parents, and it will be better that an action on the facts lies for them; otherwise than if the patron has used armed force against the freedman, or the parent against the children, for here the interdict lies.
§43.16.1.44Hoc interdictum et heredi et ceteris successoribus competit.
This interdict lies both for the heir and for other successors.
§43.16.1.45Non alii autem, quam ei qui possidet, interdictum unde ui competere argumentum praebet, quod apud Uiuianum relatum est, si quis me ui deiecerit, meos non deiecerit, non posse me hoc interdicto experiri, quia per eos retineo possessionem, qui deiecti non sunt.
But that the interdict 'unde ui' lies for no other than him who possesses is proved by the argument reported in Vivianus, that if anyone has forcefully ejected me, but has not ejected my people, I cannot sue by this interdict, because I retain possession through those who have not been ejected.
§43.16.1.46Idem Uiuianus refert: seruos quosdam ui depulit, alios retinuit et uinxit aut etiam eis imperauit: ui te deiectum intellegi: desisse enim possidere, cum serui ab alio possideantur.
The same Vivianus reports: if he has forcefully driven away some slaves, and retained others and bound them or even commanded them, you are understood to have been forcefully ejected; for you have ceased to possess, since the slaves are possessed by another.
et quod in parte seruorum dictum est, idem in omnibus dici ait, si forte nemo depulsus esset, sed possideri ab eo coepissent, qui ingressus in possessionem esset.
And what has been said in the case of a part of the slaves, he says must be said in the case of all, if by chance no one had been driven away, but they had begun to be possessed by him who had entered into possession.
§43.16.1.47Quid dicturi essemus, tractat, si aliquo possidente ego quoque ingressus sum in possessionem et non deiciam possessorem, sed uinctum opus facere cogam: quatenus res, inquit, esset? ego uerius puto eum quoque deiectum uideri, qui illic uinctus est.
He discusses what we should say if, while someone is possessing, I also have entered into possession, and do not eject the possessor, but compel him, bound, to do work: how far would the matter go, he says? I think it more correct that he also who was bound there is seen to be ejected.
§43.16.1.48Ex causa huius interdicti in heredem et bonorum possessorem ceterosque successores in factum actio competit in id quod ad eos peruenit.
On the cause of this interdict, an action on the facts lies against the heir, the possessor of goods, and other successors, for that which has come to them.