Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §43.26.6.pr-43.26.6.4

Requests via Agent and the Nature of Precarious Possession

Passage 7156 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

This chunk discusses the effects of the owner's death or insanity on the restoration of a precarium, the validity of requests made by a procurator, the distinction between possession and mere detention, the transition from possession by force to precarium, and the establishment of a precarium over pledged property.

[ULPIANUS libro septuagensimo primo ad edictum. ] §43.26.6.prCerte si interim dominus furere coeperit uel decesserit, fieri non posse Marcellus ait, ut precarium redintegretur, et hoc uerum est.
[ULPIANUS, On the Edict, book seventy-one.] Certainly, if in the meantime the owner has begun to be insane or has died, Marcellus says that it is impossible for the precarium to be restored, and this is true.
§43.26.6.1Si procurator meus me mandante uel ratum habente precario rogauerit, ego precario habere proprie dicor.
If my procurator, by my mandate or with my ratification, has requested a precarium, I am properly said to hold by precarium.
§43.26.6.2Is qui rogauit, ut precario in fundo moretur, non possidet, sed possessio apud eum qui concessit remanet: nam et fructuarius, inquit, et colonus et inquilinus sunt in praedio et tamen non possident.
He who has requested that he may remain on a land by precarium does not possess, but possession remains with him who granted it; for, he says, both the usufructuary and the tenant farmer and the lodger are on the estate and yet they do not possess.
§43.26.6.3Iulianus ait eum, qui ui alterum deiecit et ab eodem precario rogauit, desinere ui possidere et incipere precario, neque existimare sibi ipsum causam possessionis mutare, cum uoluntate eius quem deiecit coeperit precario possidere: nam si ab eodem emisset, incipere etiam pro emptore posse dominium capere.
Julian says that he who has dispossessed another by force and requested a precarium from the same person ceases to possess by force and begins by precarium, and one should not think that he himself changes the cause of possession for himself, since he has begun to possess by precarium with the consent of him whom he dispossessed; for if he had bought from the same person, he could also begin to acquire ownership as a buyer.
§43.26.6.4Quaesitum est, si quis rem suam pignori mihi dederit et precario rogauerit, an hoc interdictum locum habeat.
The question was raised whether, if someone has given me his own property as a pledge and requested a precarium, this interdict has application.
quaestio in eo est, ut precarium consistere rei suae possit.
The problem lies in whether a precarium can exist over one's own property.
mihi uidetur uerius precarium consistere in pignore, cum possessionis rogetur, non proprietatis, et est haec sententia etiam utilissima: cottidie enim precario rogantur creditores ab his, qui pignori dederunt, et debet consistere precarium.
It seems more correct to me that a precarium exists in the case of a pledge, since what is requested is possession, not ownership; and this opinion is also extremely useful, for daily creditors are requested for a precarium by those who have given pledges, and the precarium ought to be valid.

Notes

  1. §43.26.6.prfieri non posse ... ut precarium redintegretur — The `ut` clause functions as the subject noun clause of the accusative with infinitive phrase `fieri non posse`. It explains the legal principle that if the owner loses mental capacity (insanity) or dies before a new request is made after the expiration of the term, the restoration of the precarium is impossible because mutual consent cannot be established.
  2. §43.26.6.1me mandante uel ratum habente — An ablative absolute construction using present participles. It presents prior authorization (mandante) and subsequent ratification (ratum habente) in parallel as the alternative conditions under which the procurator's action is legally attributed to the principal (me).
  3. §43.26.6.3neque existimare sibi ipsum causam possessionis mutare — An accusative with infinitive clause where `eum` is the subject of `existimare`. It clarifies that the transition from possession by force to precarium does not violate the famous Roman law maxim 'no one can change the cause of possession for himself' (nemo sibi ipse causam possessionis mutare potest), because the change is initiated with the consent (uoluntate) of the other party rather than by the possessor's unilateral will.
  4. §43.26.6.4ut precarium consistere rei suae possit — The `ut` clause is a noun clause in apposition with `eo` in `quaestio in eo est`. `rei suae` is a genitive of reference/object dependent on `precarium` (or `consistere`). It addresses the problem of whether a precarium can exist over one's own property. The text concludes that since the pledgor retains ownership (proprietas) but transfers only possession (possessio), a precarium can indeed be established regarding that 'possession.'

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §43.26.6.pr-43.26.6.4. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:43.26.6.pr-43.26.6.4

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.