[MARCELLUS libro nono decimo digestorum. ] §43.16.12.prColonus eum, cui locator fundum uendiderat, cum is in possessionem missus esset, non admisit: deinde colonus ui ab alio deiectus est: quaerebatur, quis haberet interdictum unde ui.
[MARCELLUS, in the nineteenth book of the Digests.] A tenant did not admit the person to whom the lessor had sold the land, when that person had been authorized to take possession; thereafter, the tenant was violently ejected by another person. The question was raised, who would have the interdict *unde ui*.
dixi nihil interesse, colonus dominum ingredi uolentem prohibuisset an emptorem, cui iussisset dominus tradi possessionem, non admisit.
I replied that it made no difference whether the tenant had excluded the owner who wished to enter, or had not admitted the buyer to whom the owner had ordered possession to be delivered.
igitur interdictum unde ui colono competiturum ipsumque simili interdicto locatori obstrictum fore, quem deiecisse tunc uideretur, cum emptori possessionem non tradidit, nisi forte propter iustam et probabilem causam id fecisset.
Therefore, the interdict *unde ui* would be available to the tenant, and he himself would be bound to the lessor by a similar interdict, since he would be deemed to have ejected the lessor at the moment when he did not deliver possession to the buyer, unless perchance he had done so for a just and probable cause.