[ULPIANUS libro sexagensimo nono ad edictum. ] §43.17.3.prSi duo possideant in solidum, uideamus, quid sit dicendum.
[ULPIAN, in the sixty-ninth book on the Edict.] If two people possess as a whole, let us see what should be said.
quod qualiter procedat, tractemus, si quis proponeret possessionem iustam et iniustam.
Let us examine how this may arise, if someone were to propose a case of lawful and unlawful possession.
ego possideo ex iusta causa, tu ui aut clam: si a me possides, superior sum interdicto, si uero non a me, neuter nostrum uincetur: nam et tu possides et ego.
I possess on a lawful ground, you by force or secretly; if you possess from me, I am superior under the interdict; but if not from me, neither of us will be defeated, for both you and I possess.
§43.17.3.1Hoc interdictum duplex est et hi, quibus competit, et actores et rei sunt.
This interdict is double, and those to whom it is available are both plaintiffs and defendants.
§43.17.3.2Hoc interdictum sufficit ei, qui aedificare in suo prohibetur: etenim uideris mihi possessionis controuersiam facere, qui prohibes me uti mea possessione.
This interdict is sufficient for one who is prohibited from building on his own land; for indeed you seem to me to raise a dispute over possession when you prohibit me from using my possession.
§43.17.3.3Cum inquilinus dominum aedes reficere uolentem prohiberet, aeque competere interdictum uti possidetis placuit testarique dominum non prohibere inquilinum, ne habitaret, sed ne possideret.
When a tenant prohibited the owner who wished to repair the building, it was held that the interdict *uti possidetis* was equally available, and that the owner should declare that he was not prohibiting the tenant from living there, but from possessing.
§43.17.3.4Item uideamus, si auctor uicini tui ex fundo tuo uites in suas arbores transduxit, quid iuris sit.
Likewise, let us see, if your neighbor's predecessor trained vines from your estate onto his own trees, what the law is.
et ait Pomponius posse te ei denuntiare et uites praecidere, idque et Labeo scribit, aut uti eum debere interdicto uti possidetis de eo loco, quo radices continentur uitium: nam si tibi uim fecerit, quo minus eas uites uel praecidas uel transducas, uim tibi facere uidetur, quo minus possideas: etenim qui colere fundum prohibetur, possidere prohibetur, inquit Pomponius.
And Pomponius says that you can give him notice and cut back the vines, and Labeo also writes this, or else he must use the interdict *uti possidetis* regarding that place where the roots of the vines are contained; for if he uses force against you to prevent you from either cutting back or removing those vines, he is deemed to use force against you to prevent you from possessing; for he who is prohibited from cultivating land is prohibited from possessing it, says Pomponius.
§43.17.3.5Item uideamus, si proiectio supra uicini solum non iure haberi dicatur, an interdictum uti possidetis sit utile alteri aduersus alterum.
Likewise, let us see, if a projection over a neighbor's ground is said to be held unlawfully, whether the interdict *uti possidetis* is of use to one against the other.
et est apud Cassium relatum utrique esse inutile, quia alter solum possidet, alter cum aedibus superficiem.
And it is reported in Cassius that it is of no use to either, because one possesses the ground, and the other the superstructure along with the building.
§43.17.3.6Labeo quoque scribit: ex aedibus meis in aedes tuas proiectum habeo: interdicis mecum, si eum locum possideamus, qui proiecto tegetur.
Labeo also writes: I have a projection from my house over yours; you seek an interdict against me, if we possess that place which is covered by the projection.
an, quo facilius possim retinere possessionem eius proiectionis, interdico tecum sic 'uti nunc possidetis eas aedes, ex quibus proiectus est'?
Or, in order that I may more easily retain the possession of that projection, do I seek an interdict against you in this form: "as you now possess the house from which the projection extends"?
§43.17.3.7Sed si supra aedes, quas possideo, cenaculum sit, in quo alius quasi dominus moretur, interdicto uti possidetis me uti posse Labeo ait, non eum qui in cenaculo moretur: semper enim superficiem solo cedere.
But if above the house which I possess there is an upper room in which another stays as if he were the owner, Labeo says that I can use the interdict *uti possidetis*, and not the one who stays in the upper room; for the superstructure always accedes to the ground.
plane si cenaculum ex publico aditum habeat, ait Labeo uideri non ab eo aedes possideri, qui κρύπτας possideret, sed ab eo, cuius aedes supra κρύπτας essent.
Clearly, if the upper room has an entrance from the public street, Labeo says that the house seems to be possessed not by him who possesses the vaults (κρύπτας), but by him whose house is above the vaults.
uerum est hoc in eo, qui aditum ex publico habuit: ceterum superficiarii proprio interdicto et actionibus a praetore utetur.
This is true in the case of one who had an entrance from the public street; however, a superficiary will use a specific interdict and actions granted by the praetor.
dominus autem soli tam aduersus alium quam aduersus superficiarium potior erit interdicto uti possidetis: sed praetor superficiarium tuebitur secundum legem locationis: et ita Pomponius quoque probat.
The owner of the ground, however, will be superior in the interdict *uti possidetis* both against another person and against the superficiary; but the praetor will protect the superficiary according to the law of the lease; and Pomponius also approves of this.
§43.17.3.8Creditores missos in possessionem rei seruandae causa interdicto uti possidetis uti non posse, et merito, quia non possident: idemque et in ceteris omnibus, qui custodiae causa missi sunt in possessionem, dicendum est.
Creditors put into possession for the purpose of preserving property cannot use the interdict *uti possidetis*, and rightly so, because they do not possess; and the same must be said of all others who have been put into possession for the purpose of custody.
§43.17.3.9Si uicinus meus in parte in pariete meo tectoria habeat et in parte sua, 'uti possidetis' mihi efficax est ut ea tollere compellatur.
If my neighbor has plastering partly on my wall and partly on his own, *uti possidetis* is effective for me to compel him to remove it.
§43.17.3.10Non uideor ui possidere, qui ab eo, quem scirem ui in possessionem esse, fundum accipiam.
I am not deemed to possess by force, if I receive an estate from one whom I knew to be in possession by force.
§43.17.3.11In hoc interdicto condemnationis summa refertur ad rei ipsius aestimationem.
In this interdict, the sum of the condemnation relates to the valuation of the thing itself.
'quanti res est' sic accipimus 'quanti uniuscuiusque interest possessionem retinere'. Seruii autem sententia est existimantis tanti possessionem aestimandam, quanti ipsa res est: sed hoc nequaquam opinandum est: longe enim aliud est rei pretium, aliud possessionis.
We understand "what the thing is worth" as "how much it is in the interest of each person to retain possession." However, the opinion of Servius is of one who thinks that possession should be valued at as much as the thing itself; but this must by no means be thought, for the price of a thing is far different from that of possession.