Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §43.24.9.pr-43.24.9.3

Scope of the Interdict: Fixtures and Alterations to Land

Passage 7135 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Ulpian details the specific cases where the interdict on what is done by force or stealth applies (such as removing tree branches, tiles, or fixed objects from a building, or entering a field and digging a ditch) and where it does not (such as removing loose objects or destroying crops not for the use of the land).

[ULPIANUS libro septuagensimo primo ad edictum. ] §43.24.9.prNam et si ramos quis de arboribus abstulerit, adhuc interdictum hoc admittimus.
[ULPIAN, from the seventy-first book on the edict.] For even if someone has taken branches from trees, we still allow this interdict.
haec ita, si de aedificio tegulas sustulerit: ceterum si non de aedificio, sed seorsum positas, cessat hoc interdictum.
This is so, if he has removed tiles from a building; but if not from a building, but rather those placed separately, this interdict does not apply.
§43.24.9.1Si tamen sera uel clauis uel cancellus uel specularium sit ablatum, quod ui aut clam agi non poterit.
If, however, a bar, a key, a grate, or a window-pane has been taken away, this cannot be sued under the interdict for what is done by force or stealth.
§43.24.9.2Sed si quis aliquid aedibus adfixum euellerit, statuam forte uel quid aliud, quod ui aut clam interdicto tenebitur.
But if anyone has torn away something fixed to a house, for example a statue or something else, he will be liable under the interdict for what is done by force or stealth in respect of this.
§43.24.9.3Si quis clam aut ui agrum intrauerit uel fossam fecerit, hoc interdicto tenebitur.
If anyone has entered a field secretly or by force, or has dug a ditch, he will be liable under this interdict.
et si aceruum succenderit uel disperserit sic, ut non ad usum agri conuertat, interdicto locus non erit,
And if he has set fire to a heap or scattered it in such a way that he does not convert it to the use of the field, there will be no room for the interdict.

Notes

  1. §43.24.9.prNam et si — The conjunction of cause 'nam' is combined with the concessive 'et si' (even if), representing a concessive reasoning: 'For even if... (we still allow the interdict)'.
  2. §43.24.9.prseorsum positas — A perfect participle modifying the feminine plural noun 'tegulas' from the preceding clause. The verb 'sustulerit' is understood as omitted within the conditional clause.
  3. §43.24.9.1quod ui aut clam agi non poterit — The relative pronoun 'quod' is neuter singular, referring to the entire preceding situation of taking away the bar, key, etc. 'agi' is used passively to mean 'to be sued' or 'to be brought as an action'.
  4. §43.24.9.2quod ui aut clam interdicto tenebitur — The subject of 'tenebitur' (will be liable) is 'quis' from the preceding clause. 'quod', as an accusative of the relative pronoun, functions here adverbially as 'as to which' or 'in respect of this'.
  5. §43.24.9.3ut non ad usum agri conuertat — A consecutive clause with the subjunctive ('sic, ut...'). It highlights the legal principle that if the destruction of a heap (of crops) is done in a way unrelated to the agricultural use of the land, it falls outside this interdict because it does not constitute a physical alteration of the real property.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §43.24.9.pr-43.24.9.3. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:43.24.9.pr-43.24.9.3

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.