Pro derelicto
(Concerning Possession on the Ground of Abandonment.)
1Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XII. Where property is considered to be abandoned, it immediately ceases to be ours, and belongs to the first occupant, because it ceases to belong to us under the same circumstances that it is acquired by others.
2Paulus, On the Edict, Book LIV. Ad Dig. 41,7,2 pr.Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 184, Note 1.We can acquire property on the ground of abandonment, if we know that it is considered as relinquished by its owner. 1Proculus holds that the property does not cease to belong to the owner, unless possession of it is acquired by someone else. Julianus, however, thinks that it ceases to belong to the owner when he abandons it, but that it does not become the property of another, unless he obtains possession of it. This is correct.
3Ad Dig. 41,7,3Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 169a, Note 5.Modestinus, Differences, Book VII. An inquiry is sometimes made whether a portion of anything can be considered to have been abandoned. And, indeed, if a joint-owner gives up his share of the common property, it ceases to belong to him, so that the same rule is applicable to a portion that is to all. The sole owner of property, however, cannot retain a part of the same and abandon the remainder.
4Paulus, On Sabinus, Book XV. We can acquire by usucaption property which is considered to be abandoned, when we think that this is the case, even if we do not know by whom it has been abandoned.
5Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XXXII. Ad Dig. 41,7,5 pr.Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 176, Note 6.If you possess any article which is considered to have been abandoned, and I, knowing this to be the case, purchase it from you, it is established that I can acquire it by usucaption, and the objection that it is not included in your property cannot be raised. For if I knowingly purchase property given to you by your wife, for the reason that you have done this, as it were, with the consent and permission of the owner, the same rule will apply. 1Whatever anyone considers to have been abandoned by himself immediately becomes mine, if I take it. Hence, if anyone throws away money, or releases birds, although he intends that they shall belong to anyone who may seize them, they, nevertheless, become the property of him whom chance may favor; for where anyone relinquishes the ownership of property, he is understood to have intended it to belong to anyone else whomsoever.
6Julianus, On Urseius Ferox, Book III. No one can acquire property by usucaption on the ground of abandonment who erroneously thinks that it has been abandoned.
7The Same, On Minicius, Book II. When anyone finds merchandise which has been thrown overboard from a ship, the question arises whether he cannot acquire it by usucaption, for the reason that it should be considered as abandoned. The better opinion is that he cannot acquire it by usucaption on the ground of abandonment.
8Paulus, Opinions, Book XVIII. Sempronius attempted to raise a question as to the condition of a certain Thetis, alleging that she was the daughter of one of his female slaves. He, however, having been sued by Procula, the nurse of Thetis, in an action to compel him to reimburse her for Thetis’s support, answered that he did not have the means to make payment, but that the nurse should restore the child to her father, Lucius Titius. The nurse then instituted proceedings to prevent any question from being raised afterwards by the said Sempronius. Lucius Titius, after having paid Seia Procula her claim for support, publicly manumitted the child. I ask whether the freedom granted to Thetis can be revoked. Paulus answered that, as the owner of the female slave to whom Thetis was born was considered to have abandoned the latter, she could obtain her freedom at the hands of Lucius Titius.