[ULPIANUS libro tertio disputationum. ] §44.3.5.prAn uitium auctoris uel donatoris eiusue qui mihi rem legauit mihi noceat, si forte auctor meus iustum initium possidendi non habuit, uidendum est.
[ULPIAN, Disputations, book three] It must be considered whether a defect in the title of a predecessor, or of a donor, or of someone who bequeathed a thing to me, is prejudicial to me, if, for example, my predecessor did not have a lawful beginning of possession.
et puto neque nocere neque prodesse: nam denique et usucapere possum, quod auctor meus usucapere non potuit.
And I think that it is neither prejudicial nor beneficial; for indeed, I can even acquire by usucapion what my predecessor could not acquire by usucapion.
§44.3.5.1Ex facto propositum est quendam, cum rem pignori dedisset, eandem distraxisse heredemque eius redemisse: quaeritur, an heres aduersus pignoris persecutionem exceptione longae possessionis uti possit.
The following case was proposed from actual facts: a certain person, having given a thing in pledge, sold the same, and his heir bought it back. The question is whether the heir, against the pursuit of the pledge, can avail himself of the defense of long possession.
dicebam hunc heredem, qui pignus ab extraneo redemit, posse exceptione uti, quia in extranei locum successit, non in eius qui pignori dederat, quemadmodum si ante redemisset, sic deinde heres exstitisset.
I was of the opinion that this heir, who bought back the pledged property from a third party, could use the defense, because he succeeded to the position of the third party, not to the position of the one who had given it in pledge; just as if he had bought it back beforehand and had only subsequently become the heir.