[ULPIANUS libro sexagensimo nono ad edictum. ] §43.16.1.prPraetor ait: 'Unde tu illum ui deiecisti aut familia tua deiecit, de eo quaeque ille tunc ibi habuit tantummodo intra annum, post annum de eo, quod ad eum qui ui deiecit peruenerit, iudicium dabo'. §43.16.1.1Hoc interdictum proponitur ei, qui ui deiectus est: etenim fuit aequissimum ui deiecto subuenire: propter quod ad reciperandam possessionem interdictum hoc proponitur.
[ULPIANUS libro sexagensimo nono ad edictum.] The praetor says: "From where you have forcefully ejected him, or your household ejected him, concerning that thing and whatever things he then had there, I will grant an action only within a year; after a year, concerning that which has come to him who forcefully ejected." This interdict is offered to him who has been forcefully ejected; for it was extremely equitable to aid one forcefully ejected; because of which this interdict is offered for recovering possession.
§43.16.1.2Ne quid autem per uim admittatur, etiam legibus Iuliis prospicitur publicorum et priuatorum nec non et constitutionibus principum.
Moreover, that nothing be committed by force is provided for also by the Julia laws on public and private violence, as well as by the constitutions of the emperors.
§43.16.1.3Hoc interdictum non ad omnem uim pertinet, uerum ad eos, qui de possessione deiciuntur.
This interdict does not apply to every kind of force, but to those who are ejected from possession.
ad solam autem atrocem uim pertinet hoc interdictum, et ad eos tantum, qui de solo deiciuntur, ut puta de fundo siue aedificio: ad alium autem non pertinet.
Moreover, this interdict applies only to atrocious force, and only to those who are ejected from soil, such as from a farm or a building; it does not apply to any other.
§43.16.1.4Et si quis de area deiectus sit, sine dubio interdicto locus est: et generaliter ad omnes hoc pertinet interdictum, qui de re solo cohaerenti deiciuntur: qualisqualis enim fuerit locus, unde quis ui deiectus est, interdicto locus erit.
And if anyone has been ejected from an open space, without doubt there is room for the interdict; and generally this interdict applies to all who are ejected from a thing adhering to the soil; for whatever kind of place it may be from which one was forcefully ejected, there will be room for the interdict.
§43.16.1.5Proinde et si superficiaria insula fuerit, qua quis deiectus est, apparet interdicto fore locum.
Accordingly, even if it was a superficiary apartment building from which one was ejected, it is clear that there will be room for the interdict.
§43.16.1.6Illud utique in dubium non uenit interdictum hoc ad res mobiles non pertinere: nam ex causa furti uel ui bonorum raptorum actio competit: potest et ad exhibendum agi.
That indeed does not come into doubt, that this interdict does not apply to movable things; for an action lies on account of theft or robbery; or one can sue to produce.
plane si quae res sint in fundo uel in aedibus, unde quis deiectus est, etiam earum nomine interdictum competere non est ambigendum.
Clearly, if there are things in the farm or in the house from which someone was ejected, there is no doubt that the interdict lies also on their account.
§43.16.1.7Si quis de naue ui deiectus est, hoc interdicto locus non est, argumento eius, qui de uehiculo detractus est, quem nemo dixit interdicto hoc uti posse.
If anyone was forcefully ejected from a ship, there is no room for this interdict, by the analogy of one who has been dragged from a vehicle, whom no one has said can use this interdict.
§43.16.1.8Plane si quis de ligneis aedibus deiectus fuerit, nemo ambigit interdicto locum fore, quia qualequale sit quod solo cohaereat, inde qui ui deiectus est habet interdictum.
Clearly, if anyone has been ejected from wooden buildings, no one doubts that there will be room for the interdict, because whatever it is that adheres to the soil, he who is forcefully ejected therefrom has the interdict.
§43.16.1.9Deicitur is qui possidet, siue ciuiliter siue naturaliter possideat: nam et naturalis possessio ad hoc interdictum pertinet.
He is ejected who possesses, whether he possesses civilly or naturally; for even natural possession belongs to this interdict.
§43.16.1.10Denique et si maritus uxori donauit eaque deiecta sit, poterit interdicto uti: non tamen si colonus.
Finally, even if a husband made a gift to his wife, and she was ejected, she will be able to use the interdict; however, not so if it is a tenant-farmer.
§43.16.1.11Ait praetor: 'deiecisti aut familia deiecit'. merito familiae mentio habita: nam cum 'deiecisti' uerbum refertur ad personam eius qui deiecit nec pertineat ad eum, cuius familia deiecit (nec enim ego uideor deiecisse, si familia mea deiecerit), consequens fuit addere 'aut familia tua deiecit'. §43.16.1.12Deiecisse autem etiam is uidetur, qui mandauit uel iussit, ut aliquis deiceretur: parui enim referre uisum est, suis manibus quis deiciat an uero per alium: quare et si familia mea ex uoluntate mea deiecerit, ego uideor deiecisse.
The praetor says: "you ejected or [your] household ejected." With good reason mention was made of the household: for since the word "you ejected" refers to the person of him who ejected and does not apply to him whose household ejected (for I am not seen to have ejected if my household ejected), it was logical to add "or your household ejected." Moreover, he also is seen to have ejected who mandated or ordered that someone be ejected; for it seemed to matter little whether one ejects with his own hands or indeed through another; wherefore even if my household ejected in accordance with my will, I am seen to have ejected.
§43.16.1.13Quotiens uerus procurator deiecerit, cum utrolibet eorum, id est siue domino siue procuratore, agi posse Sabinus ait et alterius nomine alteri eximi, sic tamen, si ab altero eorum litis aestimatio fuerit praestita (non enim excusatus est, qui iussu alicuius deiecit, non magis quam si iussu alicuius occidit): cum autem falsus est procurator, cum ipso tantum procuratore interdici debere.
Whenever a true agent has ejected, Sabinus says that action can be brought against either of them, that is, either the principal or the agent, and by the name of one, liability is removed from the other, yet only on this condition, if the estimation of the suit has been paid by one of them (for he who ejected by another's order is not excused, no more than if he killed by another's order); but when he is a false agent, the interdict must be brought only against the agent himself.
§43.16.1.14Sabini sententia uera est.
Sabinus' opinion is true.
§43.16.1.15Sed et si quod alius deiecit, ratum habuero, sunt qui putent secundum Sabinum et Cassium, qui ratihabitionem mandato comparant, me uideri deiecisse interdictoque isto teneri, et hoc uerum est: rectius enim dicitur in maleficio ratihabitionem mandato comparari.
But even if I ratify what another has ejected, there are some who think, following Sabinus and Cassius, who compare ratification to a mandate, that I am seen to have ejected and am held by this interdict, and this is true; for it is more correctly said that in a wrongdoing, ratification is equated to a mandate.
§43.16.1.16Quod igitur additur 'aut familia tua deiecit', merito scriptum est in eum casum, in quem familia mea ui deiecit.
Therefore, that which is added, "or your household ejected", was rightly written for that case in which my household forcefully ejected.
ceterum si iussit, ipse deiecit, nec grauari debet dominus qui non iussit, si seruorum suorum factum praestaret, etsi non iussu eius deiecerunt: nam non grauabitur hoc nomine, quippe cum aut peruenit ad eum aliquid et restitueret, aut non peruenit et ipsos seruos maleficii causa noxae dedendo indemnis erit: quod enim noxae dedere compellitur, in damno non debet reputare, cum seruus hoc possit domini deteriorem condicionem facere.
For if he ordered it, he himself ejected; nor ought a master who did not order it be burdened, if he must answer for the deed of his slaves, even if they ejected without his order; for he will not be burdened on this account, since either something came to him and he would restore it, or nothing came to him and he will be free from liability by surrendering the slaves themselves for the wrongdoing as a noxal surrender; for he ought not to count it as a loss that he is compelled to surrender them noxally, since a slave can make the master's position worse in this way.