Corpus iurisprudentiae Romanae

Repertorium zu den Quellen des römischen Rechts

Digesta Iustiniani Augusti

Recognovit Mommsen (1870) et retractavit Krüger (1928)
Convertit in Anglica lingua Scott (1932)
Dig. XLII4,
Quibus ex causis in possessionem eatur
Liber quadragesimus secundus
IV.

Quibus ex causis in possessionem eatur

(Concerning the Reasons for Possession Being Granted.)

1Ulpianus libro duodecimo ad edictum. Tres fere causae sunt, ex quibus in possessionem mitti solet: rei servandae causa, item legatorum servandorum gratia et ventris nomine. damni enim infecti nomine si non caveatur, non in universorum nomine fit missio, sed rei tantum, de qua damnum timetur.

1Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XII. There are about three causes for which it is customary to place a creditor in possession of the property of his debtor: first, in order to protect it; second, to preserve a legacy; and third, in behalf of an unborn child. When possession is granted for the prevention of threatened injury, if security is not furnished, alj the property is not included, but only that from whose fall damage is expected to result.

2Idem libro quinto ad edictum. Praetor ait: ‘in bona eius, qui iudicio sistendi causa fideiussorem dedit, si neque potestatem sui faciet neque defenderetur, iri iubebo’. 1Potestatem autem sui non facit, qui id agit, ne adversarius eius copiam sui habeat: ergo latitantis bona iubet possideri. 2Quid si non latitet, sed absens non defendatur? nonne videtur potestatem sui non facere? 3Defendi autem videtur, qui per absentiam suam in nullo deteriorem causam adversarii faciat. 4Haec verba ‘defenderetur’ παρατατικῶς scripta sunt, ut neque sufficiat umquam defendisse, si non duret defensio, neque obsit, si nunc offeratur.

2The Same, On the Edict, Book V. The Prætor says: “I will order possession to be taken of the property of him who gave a surety for his appearance in court, if he does not permit access to himself, and is not defended.” 1He does not give access to himself who acts in such a way as to prevent his adversary from approaching him. Hence, if the Prætor orders possession to be taken of the property of a person who conceals himself. 2But what if he does not conceal himself, but, being absent, is not defended? Can it be held that he does not permit access to himself? 3He is considered to be in a position to defend himself who does not render the condition of his adversary any worse by his absence. 4The words, “If he is not defended,” are capable of a broader and more extensive interpretation, so that it is not sufficient if the party has begun to defend himself, and his defence does not continue; and it is no disadvantage to him if, at present, he offers to defend himself for the first time.

3Idem libro quinquagensimo nono ad edictum. Apud Iulianum quaeritur, si communem rem cum Titio pater pupilli habuerit et communi dividundo iudicio pupillus non defendatur nihilque erit, cuius nomine propter personam patris condemnatio fieri debeat: utrum venire bona patris oporteat an vero rei servandae causa possideantur. et ait Iulianus, si quidem pater aliquos fructus percepit aut fecerit rem deteriorem, bona eius venire possunt: si vero nihil sit, propter quod patris bona veneant, pupilli possideri. Marcellus autem notat perquam iniquum esse eum, qui nihil cum pupillo contraxit, expectare eius pubertatem. quae sententia habet rationem: ideoque cum contractus ex persona patris descendat, dicendum erit non esse exspectandam pupilli pubertatem. 1Contractum cum pupillo potest dici et si cum servo eius contractum sit: competit enim adversus eum de peculio actio. unde probandum est ex omnibus causis, ex quibus adversus pupillum actio datur, hoc idem servandum. et facilius erit hoc probandum in servo, qui in rem domini vertit aut iussu eius aut si institoria cum eo agi possit. 2Ego puto: et si cum tutore eius contractum est, ex qua causa actio in pupillum datur, magis est, ut edicto locus sit, quasi cum eo contractum sit. 3Si pupillus heres extiterit alicui exque ea causa legata debeat, videndum est, an huic edicto locus sit: magisque est, ut Marcellus scribit, etiam pupilli posse bona possideri esseque in arbitrio hereditariorum creditorum, quid potius eligant: etenim videtur impubes contrahere, cum adiit hereditatem.

3The Same, On the Edict, Book LIX. The following question is raised by Julianus. If the father of a minor holds property in joint ownership with Titius, and an action in partition is brought against the minor, but is not defended, there will be no reason, on this account, for judgment to be rendered against the father; but must the property of the father be sold, or can it be taken possession of for its preservation, in behalf of the plaintiff? Julianus says that if the father has collected any of the crops, or caused the property in question to deteriorate, his own property can be sold. If, however, there is no reason why the property of the father should be sold, possession of that of the minor can be taken. Marcellus, however, observes that it would be unjust for him who had not made any contract with the minor to be compelled to wait till he arrives at puberty; which opinion is reasonable. Therefore, as the contract is derived from the father, it must be held that it is not necessary to wait until the minor reaches the age of puberty. 1It can be said that there is a contract with a minor, where one has been entered into with a slave, for, in this case an action De peculio will lie against him; hence the rule should be adopted that an action must be granted in every case where one can be brought against the ward; and there is much more reason for doing this in the case of a slave, who was acting for the benefit of his master, or by his order, or has been appointed to represent him in some transaction. 2I think that where a contract has been made with his guardian, on account of which an action is granted against the ward, the better opinion is that there will be ground for the application of the Edict, just as if the contract had been made directly with the ward. 3If a minor becomes the heir of anyone, and, for this reason, is charged with the payment of a legacy, let us see whether there is ground for the application of this Edict. The better opinion is, as Marcellus says, that possession can be taken of the property of a minor, and that the creditors of the estate have the right to choose what course they prefer to adopt; for a minor under the age of puberty is held to make a contract when he accepts an estate.

4Paulus libro quinquagensimo octavo ad edictum. Sed et is, qui miscuit se, contrahere videtur.

4Paulus, On the Edict, Book LVIII. He, likewise, who interferes with matters connected with the estate, is considered to enter into a contract.

5Ulpianus libro quinquagensimo nono ad edictum. Haec autem locum habent, quotiens pupillus non defendatur a quocumque, sive a tutore vel curatore, sive habeat tutorem pupillus sive non habeat: ceterum si existat aliquis, qui defendere sit paratus, cessabit rei servandae causa possessio. 1Non defendi pupillum constare debet liquereque praetori, ut sic permittat bonorum possessionem. hoc autem constare debet sic: evocandi sunt ad praetorem tutores pupilli, ut defendant: si autem non habet tutores, requirendi cognati vel adfines et si qui alii forte sunt, quos verisimile est defensionem pupilli pupillae non omissuros vel propter necessitudinem vel propter caritatem vel qua alia ratione: liberti etiam si qui sunt idonei, evocandi exquirendaque defensio. si aut negent se defendere aut non negent, sed taceant, tunc praetor possessionem dabit, tamdiu scilicet, quoad non defendatur: si defendi coeperit pupillus vel pupilla, desinet possideri. idem est et in furioso. 2Ait praetor: ‘si is pupillus in suam tutelam venerit eave pupilla viripotens fuerit et recte defendetur: eos, qui bona possident, de possessione decedere iubebo’. 3Recte defendi quid sit, videamus, utrum tantum copiam sui facere et ad suscipiendum iudicium paratum esse an vero et satisdare omnimodo. et quidem non solum ipsis se defendere volentibus hoc edictum scriptum est, sed in rem: et ‘recte defendetur’ hoc est vel a se vel ab alio quocumque. sed si alius defendat, erit necessaria satisdatio, si ipse, non puto necessariam satisdationem. ergo oblata defensione deici poterit interdicto reddito.

5Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LIX. These things also occur whenever a minor is not defended by anyone, nor by a guardian or a curator, whether he has a guardian or not. If, however, someone appears who is ready to defend him, possession for the purpose of preserving the property will not take place. 1It should be known that the minor is not defended, and the Prætor must ascertain this fact, in order to permit possession to be taken of the property. This can be effected in the following manner. The guardians of the ward should be summoned before the Prætor, in order to undertake his defence. If he has no guardian, his relatives, or those connected with him by affijiity, or any other whom it is probable will not fail to conduct the defence of the male or female minor, either on account of their near relationship, or because of the affection they may entertain towards him, or her, or for any other reason, shall be called upon for this purpose. Even freedmen, if they “are qualified, can be summoned and required to conduct the defence. Where, however, they refuse to do so, or while not absolutely refusing, keep silent, the Prætor shall then grant possession, so long as the minor is not defended. As soon, however, as the defence of the minor is undertaken, the property will cease to be possessed under the order of the Prætor. The same rule applies in the case of insane persons. 2The Prætor says: “If the male or female minor should reach the age of puberty and is properly defended, I shall order those who are in the possession of his or her property to relinquish it.” 3Let us see what the words, “Properly defended,” mean: whether it is sufficient for the party to appear and be ready to comply with the judgment, or whether security must be given under all circumstances. The terms of the Edict do not merely refer to the persons of the parties desiring to defend themselves, but it also has reference to the property itself. And the words, “Properly defended,” mean to be defended by themselves, or by any other person whomsoever. If the defence is undertaken by another, security must be furnished, but if the minor defends himself, I do not think that this is requisite; therefore, if a defence is offered, the Prætor can eject the party in possession by means of an interdict.

6Paulus libro quinquagensimo septimo ad edictum. In possessionem mitti solet creditor et si sub condicione ei pecunia promissa sit. 1Cum dicitur: ‘et eius, cuius bona possessa sunt a creditoribus, veneant, praeterquam pupilli et eius, qui rei publicae causa sine dolo malo afuit’, intellegimus eius, qui dolo malo afuerit, posse venire. 2Si ab hostibus quis captus sit, creditores eius in possessionem mittendi sunt, ut tamen non statim bonorum venditio permittatur, sed interim bonis curator detur.

6Paulus, On the Edict, Book LVII. A creditor is usually placed in possession, even where the money is promised conditionally. 1Where it is stated, “And let his property which is in possession of the creditors be sold, unless he is a minor, or absent on public business, without fraud,” we must understand that the property of anyone who is absent with fraudulent intent can be sold. 2When anyone is captured by the enemy, his creditors should be placed in possession of his property, in such a way, however, that it shall not be sold immediately, but that, in the meantime, a curator may be appointed.

7Ulpianus libro quinquagensimo nono ad edictum. Fulcinius existimat creditores rei servandae causa missos in possessionem ex his rebus ali non debere. 1Praetor ait: ‘Qui fraudationis causa latitabit, si boni viri arbitratu non defendetur, eius bona possideri vendique iubebo’. 2Cum hoc edictum locum habeat, non sufficit latitare, sed et necesse est fraudationis causa id fieri: neque quod fraudationis causa sine latitatione fit, satis est ad possessionem et venditionem, sed oportet fraudationis causa latitare. et est frequentissima haec causa possessionis: nam in usu latitantium bona possidentur. 3Si quis possederit bona alicuius quasi latitantis, qui non latitabat, et vendiderit, consequens erit dicere venditionem bonorum secutam nullius momenti esse. 4Quid sit autem latitare, videamus. latitare est non, ut Cicero definit, turpis occultatio sui: potest enim quis latitare non turpi de causa, veluti qui tyranni crudelitatem timet aut vim hostium aut domesticas seditiones. 5Sed is, qui fraudationis causa latitet, non tamen propter creditores, etsi haec latitatio creditores fraudet, in ea tamen erit causa, ne hinc possideri bona eius possint, quia non hoc animo latitet, ut fraudet creditores: animus enim latitantis quaeritur, quo animo latitet, ut fraudet creditores an alia ex causa. 6Quid ergo, si duas causas latitandi habuit vel plures, inter quas etiam fraudandi creditores? an venditio recte procedat? et puto probandum, si plures causae sint latitationis, inter quas est et fraudationis causa, nocere debere posseque hinc bona vendi. 7Quid si adversus quosdam occultare se consilium non est, adversus quosdam est, quid dicemus? et rectissime Pomponius scribit non adversus omnes latitationem exigendam, sed adversus eum, quem quis decipere et fraudare latitatione destinat. utrum ergo omnes bona eius vendere possunt, quia latitat, hoc est etiam hi, adversus quos non latitat, quia verum est eum latitare, an vero is solus, adversus quem latitat? et quidem verum est eum latitare et fraudationis causa latitare, etsi non adversus me latitet: sed illud spectandum Pomponius putat, an adversus me, eumque solum posse hinc venditionem impetrare, adversus quem latitetur. 8Latitare autem est cum tractu aliquo latere, quemadmodum factitare frequenter facere. 9Adeo autem latitatio animum et affectum occultantis se desiderat, ut recte dictum sit furiosum hinc venditionem pati non posse, quia non se occultat, qui suus non est. 10Plane si non defendatur furiosus, curatorem ei dandum, aut bona eius ut possideantur, nominatim permittendum est. Labeo autem scribit, si non inveniatur curator vel defensor furiosi, sed et si curator datus eum non defendat, tunc removendum eum et oportere praetorem dare curatorem aliquem ex creditoribus, ut non amplius, quam necesse est, ex bonis furiosi veneat: eaque servanda Labeo ait, quae solent servari, cum venter in possessionem mittitur. 11Plane interdum bona eius causa cognita vendenda erunt, si urgueat aes alienum et dilatio damnum sit allatura creditoribus, ita autem vendenda, ut quod supersit, furioso detur, quia dominis eius status et habitus a pupilli condicione non multum abhorret: quod quidem non est sine ratione. 12Idemque et in prodigo dicendum est ceterisque, qui curatorem ope iuvantur: nec enim quisquam proprie latitare eos dixerit. 13Illud sciendum est posse quem in eadem civitate esse et latitare, et in alia civitate et non latitare. etenim qui in alia civitate sit copiamque sui faciat in publico ibique pareat, an latitet, videamus. et hodie hoc iure utimur, ut sive quis eodem loci agat sive peregre agat, si tamen occursum creditoris evitet, latitare videatur. denique eum quoque, qui in foro eodem agat, si circa columnas aut stationes se occultet, videri latitare veteres responderunt, et posse quem adversus alterum latitare, adversus alterum non. constat autem, ut ipse eius possit bona vendere, adversus quem latitat. 14Si in diem vel sub condicione debitor latitet, antequam dies vel condicio veniat, non possunt bona eius venire: quid enim interest, debitor quis non sit an nondum conveniri possit? nam et si non sit debitor, idem dicemus. idem erit dicendum et si quis habeat quidem actionem, sed talem, quae per exceptionem repellitur. 15Si quis actione de peculio filii vel servi nomine conveniri possit, si latitet, eo iure utimur, ut possint bona eius possideri et venire, tametsi nihil fuerit in peculio, quia esse potest et rei iudicatae tempus spectamus, utrum sit an non sit, et quod teneat actio, etiam si nihil in peculio fuerit. 16Item videamus, si quis adversus in rem actionem latitet, an bona eius possideri venumque dari possint. extat Neratii sententia existimantis bona esse vendenda: et hoc rescripto Hadriani continetur, quo iure utimur. 17Celsus autem Sexto respondit, si fundum, quem petere volo, Titius possideat neque absens defendatur, commodius se existimare in fundi possessionem mittendum quam bona eius possideri. hoc adnotandum est Celsum consultum non de latitante, sed de absente. 18Idem Celsus existimat, si is, a quo hereditatem petere velim, latitat, commodissime fieri posse, ut in possessionem mittar rerum, quas pro herede vel pro possessore possidet: sed si dolo fecit, quo minus possideret, bona eius possidenda et vendenda sunt. 19Divus quoque Pius in persona eius, qui hereditatem possidens copiam sui non faciebat, rescripsit in possessionem rerum hereditariarum adversarium inducendum: in quo rescripto et fructum percipere iussit eum, qui per nimiam contumaciam possessoris hereditatis, ut lucro eius cedat, in possessionem inductus est rerum hereditariarum.

7Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LIX. Fulcinius thinks that creditors placed in possession of property for its preservation should not be supported by means of the said property. 1The Prætor says: “I will order the property of anyone who fraudulently conceals himself to be taken possession of and sold, if he is not defended in such a way as to be approved by a good citizen.” 2For this Edict to become applicable, it will not be sufficient for the party to conceal himself, but this must be done with fraudulent intent. Nor in order to authorize possession and sale of the property, will it be sufficient for him to be guilty of fraud without concealment, but he must conceal himself for the purpose of committing fraud. This is the most frequent cause for granting possession, as it is customary for the property of debtors who conceal themselves to be seized. 3If anyone should obtain possession of the property of another on the ground that he is concealing himself, when in fact he has not done so, and sells it, the result will be that the sale will be held to be of no force or effect. 4But let us see what is understood by concealment. Concealment is not (as Cicero defines it) a dishonorable seclusion of one’s self, for anyone can conceal himself for some reason which is not dishonorable; as for instance, if he fears the cruelty of a tyrant, the violence of enemies, or domestic sedition. 5He, however, who conceals himself fraudulently, but not on account of his creditors (although concealment of this kind defrauds his creditors), is still not in such a position that possession can be taken of his property on this ground, because he does not conceal himself with a view to defraud his creditors. Hence, the intention of the person in concealing himself must be ascertained, whether it is for the purpose of defrauding his creditors, or for some other reason. 6But what if he had two or more motives for concealment, and among them that of defrauding his creditors; could the sale of his property legally take place? I think the opinion should be adopted that, if there were several reasons for his concealment, and the intent to defraud his creditors was one of them, this would be prejudicial, and his property could be sold on this account. 7If, however, he intended to conceal himself from some of his creditors, and not from others; what shall we say in this instance? Pomponius very properly holds that it is not necessary to require that the debtor should conceal himself from all his creditors, but that, if he only conceals himself from one of them, with the intention of deceiving and defrauding him by means of his seclusion, this will be sufficient. Then will all his creditors have a right to take and sell his property, because he remains concealed, that is to say, even those from whom he does not hide, merely because it is a fact that he is concealed; or can only that creditor whom he is avoiding do so? And indeed, it is a fact that he is hidden for the sake of committing fraud, even though he may not hide himself from me. If he is only concealing himself from me, Pomponius thinks that it should be considered whether I alone will have the right to sell his property for this reason. 8The term “conceal himself” refers to concealment during a considerable time; just as the word factitare signifies to do anything frequently. 9Moreover, to such an extent does concealment demand the existence of fraudulent intent and desire of the party secluding himself, that it has been very properly held that an insane person cannot render himself liable to have his property sold on this ground, because a man who is not of sound mind cannot conceal himself. 10If it is evident that an insane person is not defended, a curator should be appointed for him, or permission to take possession of his property should expressly be granted. Moreover, Labeo says that if no curator or defender can be found for an insane person, or if the curator who has been appointed does not undertake his defence, he should then be removed, and the Prætor must appoint another curator, in order that no more property of the said insane person may be sold than is necessary. Labeo holds that the same formalities should be observed as where an unborn child is placed in possession. 11It is clear that sometimes his property should be sold, after proper cause is shown, if the payment of his debts is urgent, and delay may injure his creditors. The sale, however, should be made in such a way that any surplus may be returned to the insane person; because the condition of a man of this kind does not differ greatly from that of a minor. This opinion is not unreasonable. 12The same rule must be said to apply to the case of a spendthrift, and to others who require the services of a guardian, but no one can properly say that they are trying to conceal themselves. 13It should be noted that anyone can stay in the same city and remain concealed, or in another city, and not be concealed. For, let us see whether one who is in another city, and shows himself in public, and appears everywhere, can be considered as lying concealed. Our practice at present is, that a person is held to conceal himself if he avoids meeting his creditors in any place where he may be, whether in the same town where they are, or in another, or in a distant country. In short, the ancient authorities were of the opinion that a person was to be considered as concealing himself, even if he was in the Public Forum, and hid behind columns of buildings, for the purpose of avoiding his creditors. Anyone can conceal himself from one creditor and not from another. Moreover, it was established that the creditor from whom the debtor conceals himself is the one who can sell his property. 14If a man who owes a debt payable after a certain time, or under some condition, conceals himself, his property cannot be sold before the time arrives, or the condition is complied with. For what difference is there between a person who is not a debtor, and one who cannot yet be sued? The same rule must be adopted if there is no debtor; and it also applies where a creditor is entitled to an action which can be barred by an exception. 15If anyone who is liable to an action De peculia, on account of his son or his slave, conceals himself, it is our practice to permit his property to be seized and sold, even though nothing may be found in the peculium, because something might eventually be found there; and, at the time that the judgment is rendered, we ascertain whether there is anything in the peculium or not, for the reason that the action will lie even when there is nothing in the peculium. 16Let us see whether the property of a man who conceals himself to avoid appearing in a real action can be taken in execution and sold. An opinion of Neratius is extant in which he says that his property can be sold. This is also stated in a Rescript of Hadrian, and is our practice at present. 17Celsus, in reply to Sextus, gave it as his opinion that, if Titius is in possession of a tract of land which I intend to bring suit to recover and he, being absent, is not defended, it would be better for me to be placed in possession of the said land than to levy on all his property. It must, however, be noted that Celsus was consulted with reference to a person who was absent, and not with reference to one who purposely concealed himself. 18Celsus also thinks that if a person from whom I intend to claim an estate conceals himself, the best plan would be to place me in possession of the property, which is held in the capacity of either heir or possessor. If, however, he was guilty of fraud in order to avoid remaining in possession, all his property should be levied on and sold. 19The Divine Pius stated in a Rescript, with reference to a man who, being in possession of an estate, secluded himself, that his adversary should be placed in possession of the property of the estate. In the same Rescript he also directed that he who is placed in possession of the property of an estate on account of the contumacy of a former possessor of the same shall be entitled to the income from said property.

8Idem libro sexagensimo ad edictum. Si diu incertum sit, heres extaturus nec ne sit, causa cognita permitti oportebit bona rei servandae causa possidere, et, si ita res urgueat vel condicio bonorum, etiam hoc erit concedendum, ut curator constituatur

8The Same, On the Edict, Book LX. If it remains uncertain for a long time whether there is any heir to an estate or not, after proper cause has been shown, permission should be granted for possession to be taken of the property for the purpose of preserving it. If the matter is urgent, or a condition must be complied with, it would, be well to obtain permission to appoint a curator.

9Paulus libro quinquagensimo septimo ad edictum. unus ex creditoribus. 1Si alter ex heredibus intra tempora sibi praestituta deliberet adire hereditatem, alter vero neget se aditurum, videndum est, quid creditoribus agendum sit. et placet interim eos in possessionem mittendos custodiae causa, donec appareat, is qui deliberat utrum adgnoscat partem suam an non adgnoscat.

9Paulus, On the Edict, Book LVII. He shall be one of the creditors. 1If one of two heirs deliberates as to whether he will accept an estate within the time prescribed by law, and the other refuses to accept it, let us see what step should be taken by the creditors. It is established that, in the meantime, they shall be placed in possession of the estate, for the purpose of taking care of it, until the heir who is deliberating determines whether he will accept or reject his share.

10Ulpianus libro octagensimo primo ad edictum. Si pupillus praesens sit, tutorem autem non habeat, pro absente habendus est.

10Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXXXI. If a ward is present, but has no guardian, he should be considered as being absent.

11Paulus libro octavo ad Plautium. Si filio familias legatum vel fideicommissum sub condicione relictum sit, dicendum est tam ipsum quam patrem in possessionem mittendos esse, quia ambo spem commodi habent.

11Paulus, On Plautius, Book VIII. Where a legacy or a trust has been conditionally bequeathed to a son under paternal control, it must be said that he himself, as well as his father, ought to be placed in possession, for the reason that both of them anticipate a benefit.

12Pomponius libro vicensimo tertio ad Quintum Mucium. Cum legatorum vel fideicommissi servandi causa, vel quia damni infecti nobis non caveatur, bona possidere praetor permittit, vel ventris nomine in possessionem nos mittit, non possidemus, sed magis custodiam rerum et observationem nobis concedit.

12Pomponius, On Quintus Mucius, Book XXIII. When, for the purpose of preserving a legacy or a trust, or because security is not furnished us against threatened injury, we are permitted by the Prætor to take possession of property or he places us in possession in the name of an unborn child, we do not actually hold possession, but he merely grants us power to guard and watch over the property.

13Papinianus libro quarto decimo responsorum. Ad cognitionem imperatorum a praeside provinciae remissus etsi in ceteris litibus Romae defendere se non cogitur, tamen in provincia defendendus est: nam et exilio temporario puniti, si defensor non existat, bona veneunt.

13Papinianus, Opinions, Book XIV. A man who is sent by the Governor of a province before the Tribunal of the Emperor is not compelled to defend any other action at Rome, and he still should be defended in the province; for the property of a person who is punished by temporary exile can be sold if a defender does not appear for him in court.

14Paulus libro secundo quaestionum. Si quis creditorem prohibuerit bona debitoris ingredi, datur in eum actio, quanti ea res sit. 1Sed et si quis legatorum servandorum causa missus in possessionem admissus non est, si legati condicio pendeat, licet possit deficere, aestimatur tamen id quod legatum est, quia interest eius cautum habere. 2Creditor autem condicionalis in possessionem non mittitur, quia is mittitur, qui potest bona ex edicto vendere.

14Paulus, Questions, Book II. If anyone should prevent a creditor from obtaining possession of the property of his debtor, an action for the amount of the value of the property shall be granted against him in favor of the creditor. 1Where anyone is placed in possession of property for the purpose of preserving his legacy, he will not be permitted to take possession, if the condition on which the legacy is dependent is in suspense; and although it may fail to be fulfilled, still, the property bequeathed should be appraised, because it is to the interest of the legatee to have security. 2Moreover, a creditor, the payment of whose claim is conditional, is not placed in possession; because he only is given possession who has a right to sell the property under the Edict.

15Ulpianus libro sexto fideicommissorum. Is, qui rem permutatam accepit, emptori similis est: item is, qui rem in solutum accepit vel qui lite aestimata retinuit vel ex causa stipulationis non ob liberalitatem est consecutus.

15Ad Dig. 42,4,15Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 342, Note 6b.Ulpianus, Trusts, Book VI. He who has received property in exchange resembles a purchaser, and he also who receives property in payment, and one who accepts the amount of its appraisement in court, as well as he who acquires anything by virtue of a stipulation, and not through liberality, occupy the same legal position.