[ULPIANUS libro sexagensimo septimo ad edictum. ] §43.3.1.1Hoc interdictum uolgo 'quod legatorum' appellatur.
[ULPIANUS, on the Edict, book sixty-seven.] This interdict is commonly called "quod legatorum." It is itself also for acquiring possession and contains this purpose, namely, that what anyone has occupied under the name of legacy, not by the will of the heir, he shall restore to the heir.
§43.3.1.2Est autem et ipsum apiscendae possessionis et continet hanc causam, ut, quod quis legatorum nomine non ex uoluntate heredis occupauit, id restituat heredi. etenim aequissimum praetori uisum est unumquemque non sibi ipsum ius dicere occupatis legatis, sed ab herede petere: redigit igitur ad heredes per hoc interdictum ea, quae legatorum nomine possidentur, ut perinde legatarii possint eum conuenire.
For indeed it seemed most equitable to the praetor that each person should not declare the law for himself by seizing legacies, but should demand them from the heir: therefore, by this interdict he recovers for heirs those things which are possessed under the name of legacies, so that the legatees may likewise be able to sue him.
§43.3.1.3Hoc interdictum et heredem heredis bonorumque possessoris habere propter utilitatem huius dicendum est, nec non ceteros quoque successores.
It must be said that, on account of its utility, the heir of an heir and the possessor of goods have this interdict, and indeed all other successors as well.
§43.3.1.4Quia autem nonnumquam incertum est, utrum quis pro legato an pro herede uel pro possessore possideat, bellissime Arrianus scribit hereditatis petitionem instituendam et hoc interdictum reddendum, ut, siue quis pro herede uel pro possessore siue pro legato possideat, hoc interdicto teneatur, quemadmodum solemus facere, quotiens incertum est, quae potius actio teneat: nam duas dictamus protestati ex altera nos uelle consequi quod nos contingit.
But because it is sometimes uncertain whether a person possesses as a legatee, or as an heir, or as a possessor, Arrian writes most beautifully that a petition for the recovery of an inheritance should be instituted and this interdict granted, so that, whether he possesses as heir or as possessor, or as legatee, he may be bound by this interdict, just as we are accustomed to do whenever it is uncertain which action is more applicable: for we state both actions, declaring that we wish to obtain what belongs to us from the one or the other.
§43.3.1.5Si quis ex mortis causa donatione possideat, utique cessabit interdictum, quia portio legis Falcidiae apud heredem ipso iure remanet, etsi corporaliter res in solidum translatae sunt:
If anyone possesses by reason of a donation mortis causa, the interdict will certainly not apply, because the portion under the Falcidian law remains with the heir by operation of law, even though the physical things have been transferred in their entirety.
§43.3.1.6Qui uero ex causa praeceptionis, utique tenetur hoc interdicto, sed pro ea scilicet parte, quam iure legati habet, non etiam pro ea, quam quasi heres habet.
But he who possesses by reason of preception is certainly bound by this interdict, but of course only for that part which he holds by right of legacy, and not also for that which he holds, as it were, as heir.
idemque erit dicendum et si alio genere legati uni ex heredibus legatum sit: nam et hic dicendum est pro ea parte, qua heres est, cessare interdictum.
And the same must also be said if a legacy is bequeathed to one of the heirs by any other kind of legacy: for here too it must be said that the interdict does not apply to that part in which he is heir.
§43.3.1.7Quod ait praetor 'aut dolo desiit possidere', sic accipere debemus 'desiit facultatem habere restituendi'. §43.3.1.8Unde est quaesitum, si usus fructus uel usus fuerit alicui relictus eumque occupauerit, an hoc interdicto restituere sit compellendus.
When the praetor says, "or has ceased to possess by fraud," we ought to understand this as "has ceased to have the power of restoring." Hence it has been asked, if a usufruct or a use has been left to someone and he has occupied it, whether he is to be compelled to restore it by this interdict.
mouet, quod neque usus fructus neque usus possidetur, sed magis tenetur: potest tamen defendi competere interdictum.
The argument against this is that neither a usufruct nor a use is possessed, but rather held: nevertheless, it can be maintained that the interdict is applicable.
idem dicendum est et in seruitute relicta.
The same must be said also of a servitude that has been left.
§43.3.1.9Quaesitum est, si quis legatorum seruandorum causa missus sit in possessionem, an hoc interdicto teneatur ad restitutionem.
It has been asked, if someone has been put into possession for the purpose of preserving legacies, whether he is bound to restore by this interdict.
mouet illud primum, quod non possidet is qui missus est in possessionem legatorum causa, sed potius custodit, deinde quod praetorem habet huius rei auctorem.
The first argument against this is that he who has been put into possession for the sake of legacies does not possess, but rather guards it; secondly, that he has the praetor as the authorizer of this act.
tutius tamen erit dicendum hoc interdictum competere, maxime si satisdatum sit iam legatorum nomine nec recedat: tunc enim etiam possidere uidetur.
Nevertheless, it will be safer to say that this interdict applies, especially if security has already been given on account of the legacies and he does not withdraw; for then he is also deemed to possess.
§43.3.1.10Legatorum nomine non tantum ipsum possidere dicemus cui legatum est, uerum heredem quoque eius ceterosque successores.
We shall say that not only the person to whom the legacy was bequeathed possesses under the name of a legacy, but also his heir and other successors.
§43.3.1.11Quod ait praetor 'uoluntate eius, ad quem ea res pertinet', ita erit interpretandum, ut, si post aditam hereditatem uel bonorum possessionem adgnitam uoluntas accommodata est legatario, ut possideret, interdictum cesset: quod si ante aditam hereditatem bonorumue possessionem adgnitam hoc factum est, rectius dicetur eam uoluntatem non nocere debere.
When the praetor says "by the will of him to whom the thing belongs," it must be interpreted in this way: namely, that if, after the inheritance is entered upon or the possession of goods acknowledged, consent is given to the legatee to possess, the interdict ceases to apply; but if this was done before the inheritance is entered upon or the possession of goods acknowledged, it will be more correctly said that such consent ought not to be prejudicial.
§43.3.1.12Si duae res legatae sint, altera ex uoluntate occupata, altera non ex uoluntate eueniet, ut altera reuocari possit, altera non.
If two things are bequeathed, and one is occupied with consent, the other without consent, it will follow that one can be recalled, the other cannot.
idemque erit probandum et in una re, cuius pars ex uoluntate, altera pars non ex uoluntate occupata est: nam pars sola per interdictum auferetur.
And the same must be approved also in the case of a single thing, of which one part was occupied with consent, and another part without consent; for only that part will be taken away by the interdict.
§43.3.1.13Illud tenendum, siue a te siue ab eo, in cuius locum successisti, possideri aliquid coeptum est, interdicto huic locum fore.
This must be held: whether the possession of something was begun by you or by him whom you succeeded, there will be room for this interdict.
in locum successisse accipimus, siue per uniuersitatem siue in rem sit successum.
We understand "succeeded to the position" whether the succession was universal or to a particular thing.
§43.3.1.14Prodest autem possedisse, quotiens uoluntate eius, ad quem ea res pertinet, possideri coeptum est: sed et si postea uoluntas accessit eius, ad quem ea res pertinebat, tamen prodesse possessori debere.
Now, it is beneficial to have possessed whenever possession was begun by the will of him to whom the thing belongs: but even if consent was added afterwards by him to whom the thing belonged, it ought nevertheless to benefit the possessor.
unde si quis coepit quidem ex uoluntate eius, ad quem ea res pertinet, possidere, postea uero uoluntas non perseuerat, nihil nocet, quia semel possideri coepit ex uoluntate.
Hence, if anyone indeed began to possess by the will of him to whom the thing belongs, but afterwards the consent does not continue, it does no harm, because possession once began by consent.
§43.3.1.15Si alter ex heredibus iisue, ad quos ea res pertinet, uoluerit rem a legatario possideri, alter non, ei, qui noluit, interdictum competet: ei, qui uoluit, non competere palam est.
If one of the heirs or of those to whom the thing belongs wished the thing to be possessed by the legatee, and the other did not, the interdict will be competent to him who did not wish it; it is obvious that it is not competent to him who did wish it.
§43.3.1.16Quod ait praetor 'nisi satisdatum sit', accipere debemus 'si perseueret satisdatum', scilicet ut, si non perseueret cautum, mittatur in possessionem legatorum seruandorum causa.
When the praetor says "unless security has been given," we ought to understand this as "if the security continues," namely, that if the security does not continue, he may be put into possession for the purpose of preserving legacies.
§43.3.1.17Satisdatum sic arbitror, si sic satisdatum sit, ut legatario uel ipso iure adquisita sit idonea cautio uel per mandati actionem adquiri possit, et tunc interdicto locum fore.
I think security has been given in this way, if it is given so that either an adequate security is acquired by the legatee by operation of law, or can be acquired through an action on mandate; and then there will be room for the interdict.
§43.3.1.18Si quarundam rerum nomine satisdatum sit, quarundam non sit satisdatum, earum rerum nomine sine impedimento agi poterit, de quibus satisdatum est, ceterarum non poterit.
If security has been given on account of some things, but not of others, proceedings can be taken without impediment on account of those things for which security was given, but not for the others.