BOOK III.

Pt. I. Ch. I.

Cf. D. 41, 2, 18 pr.; 6, 1, 77,

supra.

Called Petitory' in Scottish Law.

Possession of a thing is lost 'animo,' not indeed in the case of mere absence-whether continuous or temporary-of the animus possidendi (e.g., with the furiosus and him whose mind is not set on the thing), but only when the possessor gives up the intention to possess, and so declares a positive animus non possidendi,' which supposes such person has capacity to

act."

In amittenda quoque possessione affectio eius, qui possidet, intuenda est. Itaque si in fundo sis, et tamen nolis eum possidere, protinus amittes possessionem. Igitur amitti et animo solo potest, quamvis adquiri non potest.—l. 3, § 6 eod.'

Proc.: Furiosus non potest desinere animo possidere.-1. 27 eod.

Ulp. Possessionem pupillum sine tutoris auctoritate amittere posse constat, non ut animo, sed ut corpore desinat possidere. Alia causa est, si forte animo possessionem velit amittere: hoc enim non potest.-1. 29 eod.3

LEGAL PROTECTION OF OWNERSHIP AND
POSSESSION.

$90. PROPRIETARY ACTIONS.

The legal means appointed for the protection of ownership are the 'rei vindicatio,' the actio negatoria,' the actio Publiciana'; and further, under the same.

runaway slave, because, as he cannot defraud his master of the possession of other things, not even can he of himself.

1 As to loss of possession besides, the inclination of the pos sessor must be looked to; therefore, if you are on the land, and yet do not wish to possess it, you will at once lose possession. Thus, although it cannot be acquired, possession can be lost even by animus alone.

2 A madman cannot cease to possess by his intent.

3 It is settled that a pupil can lose possession without his guardian's concurrence, not that he cease to possess by animus, but by corpus. The case is different if he happen to wish to lose possession by his will; for this he cannot do.

aspect may be treated the actio finium regundorum,' which is indeed a special, and not Real, action.

The rei vindicATIO (3. specialis in rem actio) is the action with which the proprietor (originally alone the Quiritarian) of a thing makes good his ownership against every one that withholds the possession of it against his will.

The following are the requisites of the action.

(1) In the person of the plaintiff, ownership, proof of which is incumbent upon him."

Paul. In rem actio competit ei, qui aut iure gentium aut iure civili dominium adquisivit.— 1. 23 pr., D. h. t. (= de R. V. 6, 1).'

BOOK III.
Pt. I.
Ch. I.

a Inst. 4, 15. 4.

(2) In the person of the defendant, Juristic or Natural possession. In the light of a possessor D. 44, 7, 25(fictus possessor) is accounted 'is qui liti se obtulit' (alleged possessor) as well as 'qui dolo desiit possidere' (he that has fraudulently divested himself of possession); false repudiation of possession, as a generally defective defensio on the part of the § 195. defendant, results in its transfer to the plaintiff.

Ulp. Officium autem iudicis in hac actione in hoc erit, ut iudex inspiciat, an reus possideat ; nec ad rem pertinebit, ex qua causa possideat: ubi rem probavi rem meam esse, necesse habebit possessor restituere, qui non obiecit aliquam exceptionem. Quidam tamen, ut Pegasus, eam solam possessionem putaverunt hanc actionem complecti, quae locum habet in interdicto 'uti possidetis' vel 'utrubi': denique ait ab eo, apud quem deposita est vel commodata vel qui conduxerit, . . . quia hi omnes non possident, vindicari non posse. Puto autem ab omnibus, qui tenent et habent restituendi facultatem, peti posse.-1. 9, h. t.2

1 A real action belongs to him who has acquired ownership either by the i. g. or by the i. c.

Now the duty of the iudex in this action consists in his

с

BOOK III.

Pt. 1. Ch. I.

As to which interdicts, see § 91.

Ei vero qui possidet non est actio prodita, per quam neget rem actoris esse: sane uno casu qui possidet nihilominus actoris partem obtinet.— § 2, I. de act. 4, 6.1

Paul. Sin autem, cum a Titio petere vellem, aliquis dixerit se possidere et ideo liti se obtulit, et hoc ipsum in re agenda testatione probavero, omnimodo condemnandus est.-Sed et is qui ante litem contestatam dolo desiit rem possidere, tenetur in rem actione.-1. 27 pr., § 3 eod.2

Ulp. inst. fgm. iv. (vi.): —tam adipiscendae quam reciperandae possessionis . . . sunt interdicta QVEM FVNDVM et QVAM HEREDITATEM ; nam si fundum vel hereditatem ab aliquo petam, nec lis defendatur, cogitur ad me transferre possessionem, sive numquam possedi sive ante possedi deinde amisi possessionem.3

ascertaining whether the defendant is in possession. The matter will not be affected by the title upon which he possesses: when I have proved that the thing belongs to me, the possessor will have to give it up, if he has not defended by way of plea. Some, however, as Pegasus, have supposed that this action merely concerns such possession as obtains in the interdict uti possidetis' or 'utrubi.'" Thus he says, the proprietary action cannot be brought against him who is a depositary, or a borrower, or hirer, . . . because none of them possess. But I am of opinion that a claim can be made against all who have the custody and have the means of restitution.

1 But to him that is in possession no action is given whereby he can deny that the thing belongs to the plaintiff; only in one case does the possessor none the less perform the part of plaintiff.

2 But if when I desire to bring an action against Tit., any one has stated he is possessor, and so has voluntarily intermeddled with the suit, and I in the course of the proceedings prove this very point by witnesses, he must at any rate be condemned.— But he also who before joinder of issue has craftily ceased to have possession of the property is liable to an action in rem.

3 There are, as well for the origination as for the restoration of possession, the interdicts Q.f. and Q. h. For if I sue a person for land or a heritage, and he does not defend the suit, he is obliged to transfer the possession to me, whether I never have

Fur. Anth. In rem actionem pati non compellimur, quia licet alicui dicere se non possidere: ita ut, si possit adversarius convincere, rem ab adversario possideri, transferat ad se possessionem per iudicem, licet suam esse non adprobaverit.1. ult. D. h. t.1

(3) The subject of the action is as a rule an individual corporeal thing, alone exceptionally a so-called 'universitas' of things."

Ulp. Per hanc autem actionem non solum singulae res vindicabuntur, sed posse etiam gregem vindicari Pomponius scribit. . . . Sed enim gregem sufficiet ipsum nostrum esse, licet singula capita nostra non sint.-1. 1, § 3, h. t.2

(4) If the thing by union with another have temporarily forfeited its independent character, the action can only lie after severance, to be enforced by actio ad exhibendum.'

The action is well founded if the plaintiff prove his ownership; but pleas are at the command of the defendant, by which he can avert the condemnation. These rest in general upon a right attaching to the defendant to possess or to detain the thing (e.g., right of pignus, ususfructus, hire). To such belongs especially the 'exceptio doli.'

(1) In respect of the obligation of the plaintiff to transfer the ownership (exceptio rei venditae et traditae). • Cf. § 75.

Ulp. Marcellus scribit, si alienum fundum

had possession, or previously had possession and afterwards lost it.

1 We are not obliged to put up with a real action, because a man can declare that he is not possessor; so that if one opponent can prove that the thing is possessed by the other, he by means of judicial relief procures the possession, although he have not proved that the thing belongs to him.

Now by this action there will be claimed not only individual things, but Pomp. writes that a flock even can be claimed. . . . But it will suffice if the flock itself is ours, although the separate heads of cattle are not ours.

BOOK III.

Pt. 1. Ch. 1.

a Connected with these are the analagous cases in § 84

(s. accessio). As to lien for meliorations, sce Story's Equity, $1239 (Grigsby, p. 862).

vendideris et tuum postea factum petas, hac exceptione recte te repellendum.-Sed et si dominus fundi heres venditori existat, idem erit dicendum.—D. 21, 3, I, I pr.'

(2) Because of the lien of the defendant for outlay upon the thing which he has incurred, to be recouped by the plaintiff." These are impensae necessariae which are in all cases refunded, and utiles disbursed by the bonae by the bonae fidei possessor. Impensae voluptariae are never refunded.

Paul. Impensae necessariae sunt, quae si factae non sint, res aut peritura aut deterior futura sit. Voluptariae sunt, quae speciem dumtaxat ornant, non etiam fructum augent, ut sunt viridaria et aquae salientes picturae.D. 50, 16, 79 pr., § 2.2

Ulp. vi. 16: Utiles sunt, quibus non factis quidem deterior (res) non fuerit, factis autem. fructuosior effecta est, veluti si vineta et oliveta. fecerit.3

Pap.: Sumptus in praedium, quod alienum esse apparuit, a bona fide possessore facti neque ab eo qui praedium donavit neque a domino peti possunt, verum exceptione doli posita per officium. iudicis aequitatis ratione servantur, scilicet si fructuum ante litem contestatam perceptorum

1 Marc. writes, if you have sold an estate belonging to another, and should claim it as having subsequently become yours, you are to be rightly defeated by this plea. But the same will have to be said even if the owner of the estate should become heir of the vendor.

2 Necessary outlays are those by the omission of which the property would either be ruined or dilapidated.-Ornamental outlays are such as only embellish the exterior of the property, and do not add to its productivity, such as pleasure-gardens and fountains, . . . paintings.

3 Useful outlays are those by the omission of which (the property) indeed will not suffer, but when they have been incurred, it has been rendered more profitable; as if the man have made vineyards and olive-gardens.