[ULPIANUS libro septuagensimo primo ad edictum. ] §43.24.1.prPraetor ait: 'Quod ui aut clam factum est, qua de re agitur, id cum experiendi potestas est, restituas'. §43.24.1.1Hoc interdictum restitutorium est et per hoc occursum est calliditati eorum, qui ui aut clam quaedam moliuntur: iubentur enim ea restituere.
The praetor says: 'Whatever has been done by force or secretly, which is the matter in question, you must restore it when there is an opportunity of bringing an action.' This interdict is restorative, and by this means the craftiness of those who attempt anything by force or secretly is countered: for they are ordered to restore those things.
§43.24.1.2Et parui refert, utrum ius habuerit faciendo, an non: siue enim ius habuit siue non, tamen tenetur interdicto, propter quod ui aut clam fecit: tueri enim ius suum debuit, non iniuriam comminisci.
And it matters little whether one had the right to act or not; for whether they had the right or not, they are still bound by the interdict because of what they did by force or secretly: for they ought to protect their own right, not devise an injury.
§43.24.1.3Denique est quaesitum, an hoc interdicto utenti exceptionem possit obicere: 'quod non iure meo receperim'. et magis est, ne possit: nam aduersus uim uel quod clam factum est nulla iusta exceptione se tueri potest.
Finally, the question was raised whether a person who uses this interdict can be met with the exception: 'that I have not recovered it by my own right.' And the better opinion is that they cannot; for against force or what has been done secretly, one cannot defend themselves by any lawful exception.
§43.24.1.4Hoc interdictum ad ea sola opera pertinet, quaecumque in solo ui aut clam fiunt.
This interdict applies only to those works which are done on land by force or secretly.
§43.24.1.5Quid sit ui factum uel clam factum, uideamus. ui factum uideri Quintus Mucius scripsit, si quis contra quam prohiberetur fecerit: et mihi uidetur plena esse Quinti Mucii definitio.
Let us see what is meant by 'done by force' or 'done secretly.' Quintus Mucius wrote that a thing is deemed to have been done by force if anyone has acted contrary to a prohibition; and Quintus Mucius' definition seems to me to be complete.
§43.24.1.6Sed et si quis iactu uel minimi lapilli prohibitus facere perseuerauit facere, hunc quoque ui fecisse uideri Pedius et Pomponius scribunt, eoque iure utimur.
But even if someone, having been prohibited by the throwing of even the smallest pebble, has persisted in acting, Pedius and Pomponius write that this person also is deemed to have acted by force, and this is the law we follow.
§43.24.1.7Sed et si contra testationem denuntiationemque fecerit, idem esse Cascellius et Trebatius putant: quod uerum est.
But also if anyone has acted contrary to a formal protestation and denunciation, Cascellius and Trebatius think that the result is the same; and this is true.
§43.24.1.8Sed et Aristo ait eum quoque ui facere, qui, cum sciret se prohibitum iri, per uim molitus est, ne prohiberi possit.
Moreover, Aristo says that he also acts by force who, knowing that he would be prohibited, has contrived by force to prevent himself from being prohibited.
§43.24.1.9Item Labeo dicit, si quem facientem prohibuero isque destiterit in praesentiarum rursusque postea facere coeperit, ui eum uideri fecisse, nisi permissu meo facere coeperit uel qua alia iusta causa accedente.
Likewise, Labeo says that if I prohibit someone while they are acting, and they stop for the time being, but afterwards start acting again, they are deemed to have acted by force, unless they began to act with my permission or with some other just cause intervening.
§43.24.1.10Si quis tamen inbecillitate impeditur uel etiam, ne offenderet uel te uel eum, qui te magni faciebat, ideo non uenerit ad prohibendum, non uidebitur aduersarius ui fecisse: et ita Labeo scribit.
If, however, someone is prevented by infirmity, or even if they did not come to prohibit the act for the reason that they might not offend either you or someone who held you in high esteem, the adversary will not be deemed to have acted by force; and Labeo writes to this effect.
§43.24.1.11Idem ait et si te uolentem ad prohibendum uenire deterruerit aliquis (armis forte) sine ullo dolo malo meo ac propter hoc non ueneris, non uideri me uim fecisse,
He also says that if someone (perhaps by arms) has deterred you when you wished to come to prohibit the act, without any malicious intent on my part, and because of this you did not come, I am not deemed to have acted by force.