1Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XVI. After actions which are open for the recovery of an entire amount, there is added the action for the recovery of certain specific property. 1This action in rem for the recovery of specific property is applicable to all movables, both animals and to such things as are destitute of life, as well as to those where land is involved. 2By means of this action, however, no claim can be asserted for persons who are free but over whom we have some control, as for instance, children who are subject to paternal authority; hence proceedings instituted on their account are either investigations by a magistrate, or interdicts, or suits brought before the Prætor; and as Pomponius says in the Thirty-seventh Book: “Unless the party states the nature of his claim”; as where he claims his son as belonging to him, or being under his control, in accordance with the law of Rome. In this instance it seems to me, as well as to Pomponius, that his method of procedure is proper, for he says that a party can, under the law governing Roman citizenship bring an action for recovery where he states the basis of his claim. 3Ad Dig. 6,1,1,3Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 137, Note 6.By means of this action not only can specific property be recovered, but, Pomponius, in the Twenty-fifth Book of Passages, says that an action may be brought for a flock, and also for a herd of cattle, and for a stud of horses, as well, and it may be said for all other animals which are kept together in droves. It is sufficient if the flock itself belongs to us, even though individual heads of the same may not be ours, for it is the flock which is claimed, and not the individuals constituting the same.

2Ad Dig. 6,1,2Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 137, Note 6.Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXI. Where equal numbers of a flock belong to two parties, neither of them has a right to bring an action for the entire flock, nor even for half of it. Where, however, one has a larger number than the other, so that if those that do not belong to him are removed, he can still claim the flock, those which are not his will not be included among those to be surrendered.

3Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XVI. Ad Dig. 6,1,3 pr.Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 137, Note 6.Marcellus states in the Fourth Book of the Digest, that a man had a flock of three hundred head of which he lost one hundred, and purchased an equal number of others from a person who owned them, or was the bona fide possessor, although they belonged to some one else; these animals also he says will be included in the suit for recovery; and even where there are no others remaining, except such as have been purchased, he can still include them in his suit to recover the flock. 1The objects which compose the equipment of a vessel must be sued for separately, and suit for the boat belonging to the ship also must be brought in the same manner. 2Pomponius says that where articles of the same description are so confused and mingled that they cannot be detached and separated, an action must be brought to recover, not all of them, but a portion of the same; as for instance, where my silver and yours is melted into a single mass it will be our common property; and either of us can bring an action for the recovery of an amount proportionate to the weight which we own in said mass, even though it may be uncertain to what weight each one of us is entitled.

4Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXI. In this instance an action can also be brought for the division of common property, but a party will be liable to an action for theft as well as to one for the production of property in court, if he fraudulently manages to have the silver commingled; as in an action for the production of property the amount of the value must be taken into consideration, and, in one for the division of property in common or in one for recovery, the party whose silver was greater in value will obtain the most.

5Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XVI. Pomponius also says that where grain belonging to two persons was mixed without their consent, each one of them will be entitled to an action in rem for such an amount of the heap as appears to belong to him; but, where the grain was mingled with their consent, it will then be held to be in common, and an action for the division of property owned in common will lie. 1He also says that if a mixture should be made of my honey and your wine, some authorities think that this also becomes common property; but I maintain the better opinion to be, (and he himself mentioned it) that the mixture belongs to the party who made it; as it does not retain its original character. Where, however, lead is mixed with silver, for the reason that it can be separated it will not become common property, nor can an action for the division of common property be brought; but an action in rem will lie because the metals can be separated. But he says that, where they cannot be separated, as for instance, where bronze and gold are mixed, suit for recovery must be brought in proportion to the amount involved; and what was stated with reference to the mixture of honey and wine will not apply, because though both materials are mingled, they still remain. 2He also states that where your stallion impregnated my mare, the colt will not be yours but mine. 3With reference to a tree which was transplanted into the field of another and threw out roots, Varus and Nerva granted an equitable action in rem; for if it had not yet taken root, it would not cease to be mine. 4Where proceedings in rem are instituted, and the parties agree with reference to the property sued for, but a mistake is made in the name of the latter, it is held that the action is properly brought. 5Where there are several slaves of the same name, for instance, several called Eros, and it is not apparent to which one the action refers, Pomponius says that no decision can be rendered.

6Paulus, On the Edict, Book VI. Where anyone brings an action in rem, he is obliged to designate the thing, and also to state that he brings suit for all, or for a portion of the same; for the word “thing” does not mean something in kind, but a specific article. Octavenus says with reference to this, that a party must state the weight of raw material, and where the property is stamped, the number, and where goods have been manufactured, the nature of the same. The dimensions must also be given when the article can be measured. If we bring suit claiming that certain clothing is ours, or that it should be delivered to us, are we obliged to state the number of the articles and the color also? The better opinion is that both those things should be done; for it would be a hardship to compel us to say whether our clothes are worn or new. A difficulty arises occasionally with reference to household utensils, namely, whether it is only necessary to mention a dish, or whether we must add whether it is square or round, plain or ornamented, for it is difficult to insert these additions in the complaint; nor should the requirements be so rigid, although in an action to recover a slave his name should be mentioned, and also whether he is a boy or a grown man, and, by all means, this should be done if there is more than one. But, if I am ignorant of his name, I must make use of some description of him; as for example, that he is a portion of a certain estate, or the son of a certain woman. In like manner, where a man brings an action for land, he must state its name and where it is situated.

7The Same, On the Edict, Book XI. Where a man who offers to conduct the defence of an action for the recovery of land, loses his case, he has, nevertheless, a well grounded right of action to recover it from the possessor, so Pedius says.

8Ad Dig. 6,1,8Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 142, Note 4.The Same, On the Edict, Book XII. Pomponius adopts the following opinion in the Thirty-sixth Book. If you and I own a tract of land together, and you and Lucius Titius have possession of it, I should not bring an action against you for both of the quarters, but against Titius, who is not the owner, for the entire half. It would be otherwise if both of you had possession of different parts of the said tract; for then, undoubtedly, I would be compelled to bring suit against you and Titius for your respective shares of the entire tract; for, as parts of the land were severally held, a certain portion of them must necessarily be mine; and therefore you yourself must bring an action against Titius for a quarter of the same. This distinction does not apply to movable property nor to a suit for the recovery of an estate; for in these instances possession of property for a divided part cannot exist.

9Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XVI. In this action, the duty of the judge would be to learn whether the defendant is in possession or not; but it is not important under what title he holds possession; for where I have proved the property to be mine, the possessor will be required to surrender it unless he pleads some exception. Certain authorities, however, and Pegasus among them, hold that the only kind of possession involved in this action, is that which applies where an interdict Uti possidetis or Utrubi is applied for; as he says that where property is deposited with anyone, or loaned to him; or where he hired it; or is in possession of the same to insure the payment of legacies or of a dowry; or in behalf of an unborn child; or where security was not given for the prevention of threatened injury; since none of these instances admit of possession, an action for recovery cannot be brought. I think, however, that suit can be brought against anyone who holds property and has the power to surrender it.

10Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXI. When suit is brought for movable property, where is it to be delivered, that is, if it is not actually in the hands of the possessor? It is not a bad regulation where a possessor in good faith is the party sued, for the property to be delivered either where it is situated, or where the action to recover it is brought; but this must be done at the expense of the plaintiff, which has been incurred through travel by land and sea, in addition to the cost of maintenance,

11Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XVI. Unless the plaintiff prefers that the property should be delivered at his own expense and risk, where judgment is rendered; for then provision will be made, with security, for delivery.

12Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXI. Where, indeed, the defendant is a possessor in bad faith who obtained the property in some other place, the same rule applies; but if he removed it from the place where issue was joined and took it elsewhere, he should, at his own expense, deliver it at the place whence he removed it.

13Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XVI. Not only must the property be delivered, but the judge must take into account any deterioration which it may have sustained. Suppose, for instance, that a slave is delivered who has been weakened, or scourged, or wounded; the judge must then consider to what extent he may have been diminished in value, although the possessor can be sued in an action under the Lex Aquilia. Wherefore the question arises whether the judge ought not to estimate the amount of damage caused, unless the right of action under the Lex Aquilia is relinquished? Labeo thinks that the plaintiff is obliged to give security that he will not bring suit under the Lex Aquilia; and this opinion is the correct one.

14Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXI. If, however, the plaintiff should prefer to make use of the action under the Lex Aquilia, the possessor must be released from liability. Therefore the choice is given the plaintiff of obtaining not triple, but double damages.

15Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XVI. Again, if the defendant delivers the slave after he has been scourged, Labeo says that the plaintiff is also entitled to an action for injury. 1Where anyone sells property through necessity, perhaps it will be the duty of the judge to relieve him so that he will only be compelled to deliver the purchase-money; for if he has gathered the crops and sold them to avoid their being spoiled; in this instance he will not be compelled to deliver anything more than the price. 2Moreover, if there was a field for which suit was brought, and it was assigned to soldiers, in consideration of a small sum paid to the possessor, must the latter deliver this also? It is my opinion that he must do so. 3Where suit is brought for a slave, or for some animal which died without its death being caused by the malice or negligence of the possessor, several authorities hold that the price should not be paid. The better opinion, however, is that where the plaintiff would have sold the property if he had obtained it, then the value ought to be paid if the party was in default, for if he had delivered it, the other might have sold it and have profited by the price.

16Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXI. Undoubtedly, however, even where a slave dies, some decision must be rendered with reference to profits and the offspring of a female slave, and a stipulation entered into to provide for eviction; for the possessor, after issue has been joined, is certainly not liable for misfortune. 1It is not understood to be a case of negligence where the possessor dispatched a ship, which is the subject of litigation, across the sea at a suitable time, even though she may have been lost; unless he committed her to the care of incompetent persons.

17Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XVI. Ad Dig. 6,1,17 pr.Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 327, Note 12.Julianus says in the Sixth Book of the Digest, that if I purchase a slave from Titius, who belonged to Mævius, and afterwards, when Mævius brings an action against me to recover him, I sell him, and the purchaser kills him, it is but just that I should pay the price received for him to Mævius. 1Julianus also states in the same Book, that if the possessor is in default in delivering a slave, and the latter dies, an account of the profits which accrued up to the time when the case was decided must be taken into consideration. Julianus also says that not only the profits must be surrendered, but everything connected with the property itself; and therefore the offspring of a female slave, as well as the profits derived from the latter. So far does this principle extend, that Julian states in the Seventh Book, that if the possessor should acquire the right of action through the slave under the Lex Aquilia, he should be compelled to assign it. But if the possessor should fraudulently have relinquished possession, and someone has wrongfully killed the slave, he can be compelled either to pay the value of the slave, or to assign his own right of action, whichever the plaintiff may prefer. He must also surrender any profits which he may have obtained from another possessor, as he cannot realize anything through a slave the title of whom is in litigation. He is not, however, obliged to surrender any profits which have accrued during the time when the slave was in possession of the party who recovered him in a suit. What Julianus states concerning an action under the Lex Aquilia is applicable where the possessor has acquired a right to the slave by usucaption, after issue has been joined, because he then begins to have a perfect title.

18Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book VII. Where the possessor has obtained a right to a slave through usucaption, after issue has been joined, he must give him up and furnish security to indemnify the plaintiff against fraud, so far as he is concerned; for there is danger that he may have either pledged him or manumitted him.

19Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XVI. Labeo says that security must also be given by the defendant that everything has been properly transacted with reference to the property in question; for example, where he has furnished security for the prevention of threatened injury.

20Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book VII. Again, the possessor must also deliver anything he may have obtained through the slave after issue has been joined, but not what he acquired by means of his own property, in which inheritances and legacies obtained by him through the slave are included; for it is not sufficient for his body alone to be delivered, but it is necessary that everything connected with the property should also be given up; that is to say, that the plaintiff should have everything he would have come into possession of if the slave had been delivered to him at the time when issue was joined. Therefore, the offspring of a female slave must be surrendered, even though they may have been born after the possessor acquired ownership of the mother by usucaption; that is to say, after issue was joined, in which instance delivery and the provision of security against fraud must take place with reference to the offspring as well as the mother.

21Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXI. Where a slave runs away from a bona fide possessor, we may ask whether the slave was such a one as ought to have been guarded? For if he seemed to have been of good reputation so that he should not have been kept in custody, the possessor must be released from liability; but if, in the meantime, he has obtained ownership of him by usucaption, he must assign his rights of action to the plaintiff, and surrender the profits obtained while he was in possession of the slave. If, however, he had not yet obtained ownership of him by usucaption, he must be released without giving security, so that he need not bind himself to the plaintiff to pursue the slave; as the plaintiff himself can do so; but, in the meantime, while the slave is in flight, can he become his owner through usucaption? Pomponius says in the Thirty-ninth Book of the Edict, that this is not unjust. If, however, the slave should have been guarded, the possessor will be liable for the slave; so that, even if he had not acquired ownership of him by usucaption, the plaintiff must assign to him his rights of action. Julianus, however, thinks in instances of this kind, that where the possessor of the slave is released from liability on account of his flight, although he is not compelled to furnish security to pursue him, he must give a bond that if he should secure him, he will give him up. Pomponius approves this opinion in the Thirty-fourth Book of Various Passages, and it is the better one.

22Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XVI. Where the slave escapes through the fraud of the possessor, judgment shall be rendered against him as if he was in possession.

23Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXI. A person is entitled to an action in rem where he has become the owner of property either by the Law of Nations, or by the Civil Law. 1Sacred and religious places cannot be sued for by actions in rem, as if they were the property of individuals. 2Where anyone attaches to his own property something which belongs to another, so that it becomes a part of it; as for instance, where anyone adds to a statue of his own an arm or a foot which belongs to another, or a handle or a bottom to a cup, or a figure in relief to a candlestick, or a foot to a table, the greater number of authorities very properly state that he becomes the owner of the whole, and that he truthfully can say that the statue or the cup is his. 3Moreover, anything which is written on my paper or painted on my board, immediately becomes mine; although certain authorities have thought differently on account of the value of the painting; but where one thing can not exist without the other, it must necessarily be given with it. 4Wherefore, in all these cases in which my property draws the property of another to itself by superiority, it becomes mine; and if I bring suit to recover it, I can be compelled by an exception on the ground of fraud, to pay the increased value of the article. 5Ad Dig. 6,1,23,5Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 137, Note 6; Bd. I, § 189, Note 1.Again, whatever is joined or added to anything else forms part of it through accession, and the owner cannot bring suit to recover it so long as the two articles remain attached; but he can institute proceedings for them to be produced in court, in order that they may be separated, and the suit for recovery be brought, except of course, in the case stated by Cassius, where articles are welded together; for he says that if an arm is welded to the statue to which it belongs, it is absorbed by the unity of the greater part, and that anything which has once become the property of another cannot revert to its former owner, even if it should be broken off. The same rule does not apply to anything that is soldered with lead; because welding causes a mingling of the same material, but soldering does not do this. Therefore, in all these instances, an action in factum is necessary; that is where one for production, or in rem does not lie. But with reference to articles which consist of distinct objects, it is evident that the separate parts retain their peculiar character; as for instance, separate slaves and separate sheep; and therefore I can bring suit for the recovery of a flock of sheep, as such, even though your ram may be among them, and you yourself can bring suit to recover your ram. The rule is not the same where an article consists of coherent parts, for if you attach the arm of some other person’s statue to a statue of mine, it cannot be said that the arm is yours, because the entire statue is embraced in one conception. 6Where the building materials of one person have been used in the house of another, an action will not lie to recover them on account of the Law of the Twelve Tables; nor can suit be brought for the production, except against the party who knowingly used the materials of another in the construction of his own house; but recourse must be had to the ancient action entitled de tigno juncto, which is for double damages, and is derived from the Law of the Twelve Tables. 7Ad Dig. 6,1,23,7Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 175a, Note 2; Bd. I, § 182, Note 13.Moreover, where anyone builds a house on his own ground with stone belonging to another, he can indeed bring suit to recover the house; but the former owner can also bring an action to recover the stone, if it is taken out, even though the house may have been demolished after the time necessary for usucaption has elapsed, subsequent to the date when the house comes into the possession of a bona fide purchaser; for the individual stones are not acquired by usucaption, even if the building becomes the property of another through lapse of time.

24Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book VII. A party who intends to bring an action for the recovery of property should consider whether he can obtain possession of it by means of some interdict; because it is far more convenient for he himself to be in possession, and to compel his adversary to assume the burden of plaintiff, than to bring suit himself while the latter is in possession.

25Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXX. Where a person undertakes the defence of a case without any good reason, as he is not in possession and has not acted fraudulently to avoid being in possession, Marcellus says he cannot have the case dismissed, if the plaintiff is not informed of the facts, and this opinion is the correct one; this, however, is on the presumption that issue has been joined. But where a party, before issue is joined, avers that he is not in possession when in fact he is not, and does not deceive the plaintiff and departs, he cannot be held to have undertaken to defend the case.

26Paulus, On Plautius, Book II. For if the plaintiff is aware of the facts, then he is not deceived by another, but by himself; and therefore the defendant will be discharged.

27The Same, On the Edict, Book XXI. But if, when I wish to sue Titius, anyone should state that he is in possession, and thereupon volunteers in defence of the case, and I prove this by testimony during the trial, judgment must unquestionably be rendered against the other party. 1A party should be in possession not only when issue is joined, but also when the decision is rendered. If he was in possession at the time that issue was joined, but lost it without fraud on his part when the case was decided, he should be released from liability. Again, if he was not in possession at the time issue was joined, but had possession when the case was decided, the opinion of Proculus must be accepted, namely: that, by all means, a decision must be rendered against him, and hence all profits from the time he acquired possession will be included in the judgment. 2Ad Dig. 6,1,27,2Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 258, Note 15.Where a slave for whom suit is brought has become depreciated in value through the malice of the possessor, and afterwards dies, not through the fault of the former, but from some other cause; no estimate shall be made of the amount of his diminution of value, because it makes no difference to the plaintiff. This, however, has reference only to the action in rem; for the right of action under the Lex Aquilia continues. 3A party who, before issue was joined, has fraudulently relinquished the possession of property, is liable to an action in rem; and this may be inferred from a decree of the Senate by which it is provided, as we have already stated, that fraud previously committed is included in the suit for the recovery of an estate; for if fraud which has been committed is embraced in such an action, which itself is one in rem, hence it is absurd for fraud already committed to be included in an action in rem for the recovery of some specific article. 4Where a father or the owner of a slave is in possession through his son or through the slave, and either of the latter should be absent at the time when judgment is rendered, without the fault of the said father or owner; time should either be granted, or security be furnished for the delivery of possession. 5When the possessor incurs any expense with reference to the property for which an action is brought, before issue is joined, an account should be taken of said expense by means of an exception on the ground of fraudulent intent; if the plaintiff perseveres in the action to recover his property, without refunding the expenses. The same rule will apply where the possessor defends a slave in a noxal action, and having lost the case, pays the damages; or, by mistake, builds a house on unoccupied land which belongs to the plaintiff, unless the latter will permit him to remove the building. Certain authorities have stated that this also should be done by the Court that hears a case for the recovery of a dowry which involves land given to the wife. But if you give instruction to your slave while he is in your possession, Proculus thinks that this rule should not be observed; because I ought not to be deprived of my slave, and the same remedy cannot be applied which we have referred to above in the case of the land.

28Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book VII. Suppose, for example, that you have taught him to be an artist, or a copyist; it is held that no estimate can be obtained by application to the Court:

29Pomponius, On Quintus Mucius, Book XXI. Unless you are holding the slave for sale, and would get a better price for him on account of his profession;

30Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book VII. Or the plaintiff has been previously notified to pay the expense, and he, seeking to avoid this, an exception on the ground of fraud has been interposed by the defendant.

31Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXI. But where a demand is made for profits in the case of a slave for whose recovery an action is brought, the puberty of the slave must not only be considered, but also what services he could render, even if he had not arrived at that age. It would, however, be dishonorable for the plaintiff to demand an accounting for the profits which might have been obtained through the skill of the slave, because he obtained this at the expense of the possessor.

32Modestinus, Differences, Book VIII. If, however, he taught the slave some trade, then, after the latter has reached the age of twenty-five years, the expenses incurred in doing so may be set off.

33Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXI. Not only the profits which have been collected, but also those which could honestly have been collected, must be estimated; and therefore, if the property which is the subject of litigation should be lost either through the fraud or negligence of the possessor, Pomponius thinks that the opinion of Trebatius is the better one, namely, that an account must be taken of the profits to the extent they would have existed if the property had not been destroyed, that is to say, until the time the decision was rendered; and this view is also accepted by Julianus. Under this rule, if the owner of the mere property brings an action and the usufruct is lost through delay, an account of the profits must be calculated from the time when the usufruct was separated from the mere ownership.

34Julianus, Digest, Book VII. The same rule applies where land is added to other land by alluvion.

35Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXI. And, on the other hand, if the plaintiff should bequeath the usufruct of certain property, after issue has been joined, some authorities very properly are of the opinion that no account of the profits should be taken after the time when the usufruct was separated from the property. 1Where I bring an action for land which does not belong to me, and the judge states in his decision that it is mine, he should also render judgment against the possessor for the profits; for he must be ordered to deliver the profits by the same mistake, as the plaintiff should not relinquish the profits for the benefit of the possessor, who has lost the case; otherwise, as Mauricianus says, the judge cannot decide that delivery must be made of the property; and why should the possessor hold what he could not have held if he had relinquished possession at once? 2A plaintiff who has accepted the estimate of property is not compelled to secure the possessor against eviction; for the possessor must blame himself if he did not surrender the property. 3Where property cannot be divided without being ruined, it is established that one can bring an action for a share of the same.

36Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book VII. When a person institutes proceedings in an action for recovery, in order that he may not do so in vain, he ought to inquire whether the defendant against whom he brings the action, is the possessor or has fraudulently relinquished possession. 1A party who is sued in rem, may also have judgment rendered against him on the ground of negligence; and the possessor of a slave against whom an action has been brought for his recovery, is guilty of negligence if he permits him to appear in the arena, and he is killed; and also where the slave was a fugitive, and he did not secure him, and he escaped; or where suit is brought for a vessel, and he dispatched it in bad weather, and it was lost by shipwreck.

37Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XVII. Julianus says in the Eighth Book of the Digest, that if I build on the land of another of which I am the bona fide purchaser, but do so at a time when I knew that the land belonged to another, we should see whether I am not entitled to an exception; unless someone may say that I am entitled to an exception on the ground that I anticipated a loss. I think, however, that such a party has no right to an exception; for, as soon as he was certain that the land belonged to another he should not have erected the building; but permission should be granted him to remove the building which he erected, if he does so without loss to the owner of the land.

38Celsus, Digest, Book III. Upon the land of another, which you purchased without investigation, you built or planted, and you were then evicted. In this instance, a good judge will decide in different ways in accordance with the legal condition of the parties, and the circumstances of the case. Suppose the owner to have done the same thing, then, in order to recover his land, he must reimburse you for your expenses, but only to the amount by which it is rendered more valuable; and if what was added to it amounts to more than the purchase-money, he will be required to pay only what was expended. Suppose that the party is poor, and if he is compelled to pay this he must sacrifice his household goods and the tombs of his ancestors; it will then be sufficient for you to be permitted to remove as much as you can of what you have built, provided that the land will not be rendered worse than it would have been if no building had been erected upon it in the first place. We, however, decided that if the owner is ready to pay you a sum equal to what the possessor would have had if these things were removed, he shall have power to do so. But you are not to be permitted to act maliciously, as, for instance, to scrape off plaster which you have put on, or to deface paintings, which would have no effect except to cause annoyance. Suppose that the owner is a party who expects to sell the property as soon as he recovers it; then, unless he delivers the amount which we have already stated he must deliver in the first example, the damages for which judgment has been rendered against you must be paid after this is deducted.

39Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XVII. Contractors who build with their own materials immediately transfer the ownership of the same to those who own the land on which they erect the building. 1Julianus very properly says in the Twelfth Book of the Digest, that a woman who gives land in pledge as security for the debt of another, can recover the same by an action in rem, even though the land has been sold by the creditor:

40Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book VII. Because the creditor is held to have sold a pledge which was void.

41Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XVII. Where anyone buys property under the condition that if some other party offers more, he will relinquish the purchase, as soon as the condition is fulfilled he can no longer avail himself of an action in rem; but where land has been transferred to a party under such a condition, he can make use of an action in rem to recover it before an increased price is offered, but he cannot do so afterwards. 1Where a slave or the son of a family sells and delivers a tract of land to me, I am entitled to an action in rem to recover the same, if he had the free administration of his peculium. The same rule applies where a slave delivers the property of his master with the consent of the latter; just as where an agent makes a sale of, or delivers, property with the consent of his principal, I will be entitled to an action in rem.

42Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXVI. Where a suit in rem is brought, the heir of the possessor—if he himself is not in possession—will be released; still, if any personal liability of the deceased has been incurred, this must, by all means, be included in the judgment.

43The Same, On the Edict, Book XXVII. Whatever is attached to religious objects is itself religious; and therefore stones which have formed part of a religious structure cannot be recovered, even after they have been removed; the plaintiff, however, will be entitled to extraordinary relief by an action in factum, and he who removed the stones will be compelled to restore them. But where, stones belonging to another have been employed for building a monument without the consent of the owner, and before the monument has been used they are detached and removed to be employed elsewhere, they can be recovered by the owner. And even if they have been removed to be replaced in the same structure, it is established that the owner of the same can, in like manner, recover them.

44Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XXIX. Fruit hanging on a tree is considered to be part of the soil.

45Ad Dig. 6,1,45Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 193, Note 13.Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXVIII. Where a slave is restored to the plaintiff after an action has been brought for his recovery, and this was done by a bona fide possessor, I think that he should give security against malice alone, but other possessors should give security against negligence as well; and a bona fide possessor must be included among them, after issue has been joined.

46Paulus, On Sabinus, Book X. Where property for which suit is brought by an action in rem is estimated at the amount that the plaintiff makes oath to in court, the ownership of the same at once passes to the possessor; for I am considered to have compromised and arranged the matter with him, on the basis which he himself established.

47The Same, On Plautius, Book XVII. This is the case where the property is at hand, if it is elsewhere, it passes, when the possessor obtains it by the consent of the plaintiff; and therefore it is not contrary to the rule that the estimate of the judge should only be made where the plaintiff gives security, “that nothing will be done by him to prevent possession of the property being delivered”.

48Papinianus, Opinions, Book II. Where expenses have been incurred by a bona fide possessor with reference to a tract of land which it is apparent belongs to another; he cannot bring an action to recover said expenses from anyone who presented him with the land, or from the owner of the same; but, through the aid of an exception on the ground of fraud, he can be reimbursed for said expenses, by order of Court, on equitable considerations; that is to say, where the expenses exceed the amount of the profits collected before issue was joined, for where a set-off is permitted, the owner will be required to return the amount to which the expenses exceed the profits, if the land has been benefited.

49Celsus, Digest, Book XVIII. I am of the opinion that the land on which a house stands is a portion of the same; and not merely a support, as the sea is to ships. 1Whatever remains of my property, which I have the right to recover at law is mine.

50Callistratus, Monitory Edict, Book II. Where a field belongs to anyone by the right of purchase, proceedings cannot properly be instituted by an action of this kind before the field has been delivered, and possession of the same lost. 1An heir may properly bring suit for what is due to the estate, even though he may not yet have obtained possession of it.

51Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XVI. Where an action in rem is brought and a decision is rendered against the heir of the possessor, the negligence and fraud of the heir in the matter must be taken into consideration in rendering judgment.

52Julianus, Digest, Book LV. Where the possessor of a tract of land fraudulently relinquished possession of the same before issue was joined, his heirs cannot be compelled to undertake the defence of the action in rem; but an action in factum should be granted against them by which they may be forced to surrender the amount to which they have profited by means of the property.

53Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XXXI. Where the possessor of land has cultivated or planted it, and the land is subsequently recovered by a suit, he cannot remove what he planted.

54Ulpianus, Opinions, Book VI. There is a great difference between the duties of an advocate and the defence of one’s own case; and where a party subsequently ascertains that certain property belongs to him, he will not lose his ownership of the same, because, while ignorant of the fact, he aided another who was bringing suit to recover it.

55Julianus, Digest, Book LV. Where the possessor of land dies before issue is joined, leaving two heirs, and an action to recover the entire estate is brought against one of them, who was in possession, there is no doubt that judgment must be rendered against him for all of it.

56The Same, Digest, Book LXXVIII. A suit for the recovery of a peculium will not be allowed, as it is in the case of a flock; but a party to whom a peculium was bequeathed must bring an action for the separate articles composing the same.

57Alfenus, Digest, Book VI. A party against whom a suit was brought for the recovery of land, was again sued by another for the same land; and the question arose if he should deliver the land to either of the plaintiffs by order of court, and afterwards judgment should be rendered in favor of the other plaintiff, how would he avoid sustaining a double loss? I answered that whichever judge decided the case first must order the land to be delivered to the plaintiff under the condition that he would execute a bond or give security to the possessor that if the other party recovered the land, he would deliver the same.

58Paulus, Epitomes of The Digest of Alfenus, Book III. Where a man was sued for the recovery of a slave and also for a theft committed by the said slave; the question arose what it would be necessary for him to do if judgment was rendered against him in both cases, if the slave was recovered from him in the first place? The answer was that the judge should not compel him to deliver the slave, unless security was previously furnished that where any damages were paid by him he should be fully reimbursed for them, because he had joined issue in a case involving the same slave. Where, however, judgment was first rendered in the case involving the theft, and he surrendered the slave by way of indemnity, and then another judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the action for the recovery of the slave; the judge should not make an estimate of damages because the slave was not surrendered, since no negligence or malice could be attributed to the party in failing to deliver the slave.

59Ad Dig. 6,1,59Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 188, Note 21.Julianus, On Minicius, Book VI. A man living in a house belonging to another placed windows and doors therein, and these the owner of the building removed after a year had elapsed. I ask whether the party who put them there can bring an action for the recovery of those doors and windows? The answer was that he can, for whatever is attached to the building of another forms a part of the same as long as it continues so, but as soon as it is removed, it immediately reverts to its former condition.

60Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XXIX. Where a possessor who is a child or an insane person destroys or spoils anything, he cannot be punished.

61Julianus, On Minicius, Book VI. Minicius, where a man had used materials belonging to another to repair his own ship, having been asked whether the ship would still remain the property of the same man, answered that it would; but if he did this while building the ship, it would not be the case. Julianus states in a note that the property in the entire ship follows the position of the keel.

62Papinianus, Questions, Book VI. Where suit is brought for a ship against a possessor in bad faith, an estimate of the profits must be made, just as in the case of shops and ground which is ordinarily leased. This is not contrary to the rule that an heir is not forced to pay interest upon money which has been deposited but which he does not handle; for although it is true that freight, like interest, is not derived from nature but is collectible by law; still, freight can be demanded in this instance, because the possessor of the ship is not required to be liable to the plaintiff for risk, but money is loaned at interest at the risk of the lender. 1Generally speaking, however, where a question arises concerning the estimation of profits, it is established that it must be considered, not whether the possessor in bad faith has enjoyed them, but whether the plaintiff would have been able to enjoy them, if he had been permitted to be in possession of the property. Julianus also adopted this opinion.

63Ad Dig. 6,1,63Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 337, Noten 2, 5.The Same, Questions, Book XII. Where anyone loses possession through negligence, but not on account of fraud, since he must allow an estimate to be made, he will be entitled to be heard by the court, if he asks that his adversary should be ordered to assign his right of action; and as the Prætor will grant him aid at any time where some one else is in possession, he will not be taken advantage of in any way. He should be granted relief, even if the party who received the sum assessed is in possession; and the latter will not readily be heard if he desires to refund the money after he has once received it under the decision of the judge at the risk of the defendant.

64The Same, Questions, Book XX. When an action in rem is brought, it is certain that the profits must be delivered even with reference to those things which are merely kept for use and not for enjoyment.

65The Same, Opinions, Book II. If anyone who purchased land from someone who was not its owner interposes an exception on the ground of fraud, he will not be required to surrender the land to the owner, unless the money which was paid to a creditor who held the land in pledge for debts, together with the interest for the intermediate time is recovered by him, that is, provided the interest amounts to more than the profits which he recovered before the suit was brought, for they can only be set off against interest recently due on the principal; since it is only just that expenses should be allowed as in the case of improvements of land. 1Where a man gave his daughter, who was a female slave, not by way of dowry but as a portion of her peculium; then, if he does not bequeath her anything as peculium, the slave must be included among the assets of the estate. Where, however, a father disinherited his daughter in consideration of her dowry and peculium; and for that reason either left her nothing by his will, or left her that much less; a defence based upon the intention of her father will protect the daughter.

66Paulus, Questions, Book II. We have no less right to bring suit to recover something which is our own, because it is expected that we will lose the ownership of the same, if the condition upon which a legacy or a grant of freedom depends should be complied with.

67Scævola, Opinions, Book I. A man who bought a house from the guardian of a minor sent a carpenter to repair it, and he found some money therein. The question arises to whom does that money belong? I answered that if it was not money concealed, but some which had been lost, or which the party to whom it belonged had by mistake failed to remove, it should, nevertheless, continue to be his to whom it originally belonged.

68Ad Dig. 6,1,68Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 193, Note 2.Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LI. Where a person is ordered to surrender property and does not obey the order of court, stating that he is unable to do so; if, indeed, he has the property, possession shall be forcibly transferred from him on application to the judge, and the only decision to be rendered in the matter is with reference to the profits. If, however, he is unable to deliver the property, and has acted fraudulently to avoid doing so, he must be ordered to pay as much as his adversary swears to, without any limitation; but where he is unable to deliver the property, and did not act fraudulently to avoid doing so, he can be ordered to pay no more than what it is worth; that is to say, the amount of the interest of his adversary. This is the general principle, and applies to all matters where property is to be delivered by order of court, whether interdicts or actions in rem or in personam are involved.

69Paulus, On Sabinus, Book XIII. Where a person has acted fraudulently in order to avoid being in possession, he can be punished in this manner, namely: the plaintiff shall not be required to give him security that he will assign to him the rights of action which he has in the case:

70Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XXIX. And it is settled that he cannot even be granted a Publician Action, lest he may be able to obtain property by violence and against the will of the owner, by the payment of a fair price.

71Paulus, On Sabinus, Book XIII. Where a possessor has fraudulently relinquished possession, but the plaintiff is unwilling to make oath, and prefers that his adversary should be ordered to pay the real value of the property, his desire should be granted.

72Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XVI. If you purchased the land of Sempronius from Titius, and after the price has been paid it is delivered to you, and then Titius becomes the heir of Sempronius, and sells and delivers the same land to another party, it is just that you should be preferred; for even if the vendor himself should bring suit against you to recover the property, you can bar him by an exception; but if he himself was in possession, and you should bring an action against him, you could make use of a replication against an exception on the ground of ownership.

73The Same, On the Edict, Book XVII. In an action brought to recover some specific property the possessor is not compelled to state what share of it belongs to him, for this is the duty of the plaintiff, and not of the possessor. The same rule is observed in the Publician Action. 1To a superficiary,

74Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXI. (That is to say, one who has a right to occupy the surface of ground belonging to another, on the condition of paying a certain rent for it),

75Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XVI. The Prætor promises an action in rem where proper cause is shown.

76Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book VII. The principles have been stated with reference to a suit for recovery of the entire property must be understood to equally apply to the recovery of a portion of the same; and it is the duty of the judge to order those things which should be given up to be also delivered in proportion, at the same time that the share itself is surrendered. 1An action for the recovery of a share which is not yet ascertained will be granted, if there is good cause for it. It is good cause where, for instance, the Lex Falcidia is applicable in the case of a will, on account of the uncertain sum which is to be reserved from legacies, when thorough investigation has not been made by the Court. Where a legatee to whom a slave has been bequeathed is entirely ignorant of what share in said slave he should bring suit for; an action of this kind will be granted. We understand that the same rule applies to other matters.

77Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XVII. A certain woman gave a tract of land by a letter to a man who was not her husband, and then rented the same land from him. It might be maintained that he had a right to an action in rem, since he had acquired possession through her, just as through a tenant. It was stated that he had indeed been on the land which was donated to him when the letter was sent; and this was sufficient to constitute delivery of possession, even though the renting of the ground had not taken place.

78Labeo, Epitomes of Probabilities by Paulus, Book IV. If you have not harvested the crops on a tract of land belonging to another of which you are merely in possession, you are not obliged to deliver anything produced by said land. Paulus, on the other hand, asks whether the crops become the property of the possessor because he gathered them on his own account? We must understand the harvesting of crops to mean not only where they are entirely gathered, but where this has begun and has proceeded to the extent that the crops have ceased to be supported by the land; as, for instance, where olives or grapes have been gathered, but no wine or oil has been made by anyone; for in this case, he who has gathered the crops is considered, from that time, to have obtained them.

79The Same, Epitomes of Probabilities by Paulus, Book VI. If you bring suit against me to recover a slave, and he dies after issue is joined, the profits must be estimated during the time that he lived. Paulus says, “I think that this is true only where the slave had not yet become so ill as to render his services worthless; for even if he had continued to live in that state of ill health, it would not be proper for the profits to be estimated during that time”.

80Ad Dig. 6,1,80ROHGE, Bd. 21 (1877), Nr. 84, S. 261: Folgen leichtsinnigen Leugnens.Furius Anthianus, On the Edict, Book I. We are not compelled to endure an action in rem, because anyone is allowed to allege that he is not in possession, so that if his adversary can prove that the other party is actually in possession of the property, he can have the possession transferred to himself by an order of court; even though he does not prove that the property is his.