The Same, On the Edict, Book LXVII. Who, when he is asked why he is entitled to possession will answer, “Because I am”; and will not contend that he is an heir, even by way of false representation:

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXVII. Where a debtor to the estate refuses to pay, not because he says that he is an heir, but for the reason that he denies, or doubts that the estate belongs to the party who is bringing suit for the recovery of the same, he will not be liable under the action for recovery.

Ad Dig. 30,1Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. III, § 623, Note 9.Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXVII. Legacies are equal in every respect to trusts.

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXVII. A father immediately possesses whatever his son acquires as a part of his peculium, although he may not be aware that he is under his control. Moreover, the same rule should be adopted even if the son is in possession of another as a slave.

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXVII. Let us see in what cases interdicts are available. It should be noted that they are applicable to both Divine or human affairs; to Divine affairs, where sacred or religious places are concerned. Interdicts are granted with reference to human affairs, where property has an owner, or where it belongs to no one. Free persons are included in that which belongs to no one, and interdicts will lie where they must be produced in court, or conducted anywhere. Things which have an owner are the property of the public, or of individuals. Public property consists of public places, highways, and rivers; property belonging to individuals is such as relates to property in its entirety, as in the case of an interdict Quorum, bonorum, and that which is separated, as in the case of the interdict Uti possidetis or De itinere actuque. 1There are three kinds of interdicts, exhibitory, prohibitory, and restitutory. There are also certain interdicts which are of a mixed nature, and which are both prohibitory and exhibitory. 2Some interdicts have reference to the present time, and others to future time. The interdict Uti possidetis has reference to the present time, and the one De itinere actuque de aqua sestiva has reference to future time. 3All interdicts are personal in their application, although they appear to relate to property. 4Some interdicts only last a year, and others are perpetual.

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXVII. The Prætor says: “Whenever possession of the property of an estate is granted to anyone under my Edict, you will restore to him everything belonging to said estate which you hold, either as heir, or merely as possessor, if there is no usucaption, or if he did not act in bad faith in order to avoid retaining possession.” 1Ad Dig. 43,2,1,1Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. III, § 617, Note 2.This interdict is restitutory, and applies to all property, and not to certain specific things. It is styled Quorum bonorum, and has for its object the obtaining possession of the entire property in dispute.

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXVII. 1This interdict is commonly called Quod legatorum. 2It is also for the purpose of obtaining possession. It has for its object the restoration to the heir of everything belonging to the estate of which a legatee, against the consent of the heir, has taken possession. For it seemed perfectly just to the Prætor that anyone should not define his rights himself, by taking possession of the legacy, but should first apply to the heir. Therefore the Prætor, by means of this interdict, places in the hands of the heir property which is in the possession of others as legacies, so that the legatees can sue the heir. 3This interdict, on the ground of public convenience, is said to extend to the heir of the heir, both civil and prætorian, as well as to other successors. 4But as it is sometimes uncertain whether anyone has possession of property as legatee, as heir, or as possessor under the Prætorian Edict, Arrian very properly says that proceedings should, be instituted to claim the estate, and that this interdict ought to be granted whether anyone in possession is liable under it as an heir, a possessor, or a legatee; just as we are accustomed to do when it is doubtful which of two actions should be brought; for we propose two actions, alleging that we can obtain what we are entitled to by one or the other of them. 5Ad Dig. 43,3,1,5Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. III, § 676, Note 22.When anyone has possession of property through a donation mortis causa, this interdict will not apply; because, of course, the Falcidian portion will remain in possession of the heir by operation of law, even though all the property has been actually transferred. 6Anyone who has received a preferred legacy is liable under this interdict, but only for what he is legally entitled to as a bequest, and not for that part of the estate which he holds in the capacity of heir. The same rule will apply to a legacy bequeathed to an heir in any other way, for, in this case, it must be decided that the interdict will not be applicable to that part of the estate to which he is entitled as heir. 7Where the Prætor says, “or has ceased to hold possession by fraud,” we must understand this to mean if he has ceased to have the power to make restitution. 8Hence the question arises, if the right of usufruct or use is bequeathed to anyone, and he takes possession of it, can he be compelled to restore it by the provisions of this interdict? The difficulty is that neither the usufruct nor the use can be actually possessed, but they are rather held. It can, however, be maintained that an interdict will lie. The same rule applies to the bequest of a servitude. 9The question arises, where anyone is placed in possession of an estate for the preservation of legacies, whether he can be compelled by this interdict to make restitution. The difficulty in the first place, is, that he who is placed in possession of the property for the purpose of insuring the payment of the legacies is not actually in possession, but rather has charge of the property; and in the second place, because this has been authorized by the Prætor. It will be safer to hold, however, that this interdict will lie; especially if security has already been given for the legacies, and the legatee does not withdraw, for then he is considered to have possession. 10We can not only say the legatee possesses the property by virtue of the legacies, but also that his heir and other successors can possess the same. 11Where the Prætor says, “with the consent of him to whom the property belongs,” this must be understood to signify that, if permission to take possession had been granted to the legatee after the estate has been entered. upon, or prætorian possession has been obtained, the interdict will not lie; because if this is done before the estate has been entered upon, or the consent to prætorian possession has been secured, it may properly be held that this will not prejudice him, if he desires to avail himself of the interdict. 12Where two articles are bequeathed, and one of them is taken with the consent of the heir, and the other without it, the result will be that one of them can be recovered, and the other cannot. The same rule should be adopted with reference to a single article, a part of which is taken with the consent of the heir, and a part without it, for he can only be deprived of a portion of the same by means of an interdict. 13It must be held that there will be ground for this interdict, if possession has begun to be taken by you, or by someone to whose place you have succeeded. We understand one person to have succeeded to the place of another when he succeeds to the entire property, or merely to part of it. 14Possession is always a benefit when it has been begun with the consent of him to whom the property belongs. If, however, the consent of the owner is not obtained until afterwards, it will still benefit the possessor. Therefore, if anyone begins to hold possession with the consent of him who has an interest in the property, and his consent is afterwards withdrawn, this will not prejudice him, because he began to hold possession with the consent of the party interested. 15If one of two heirs, or any other persons who have an interest in the property, gives his consent to possession of the same by the legatee, and the other does not, it is evident that an interdict will only lie against the one who refused his consent. 16Where the Prætor says, “unless security is furnished,” we should understand this to mean if the security continues to exist; for if it does not, the legatee will be placed in possession of the property of the estate for the purpose of insuring the payment of the legacies. 17I think that proper security should be furnished to the legatee either directly by operation of law, or in such a way that he can obtain it by an action on mandate, and then there will be ground for the interdict. 18If security is given for certain property, and not for some other, there will be no difficulty in instituting proceedings under the Edict with reference to the property for which security has been furnished, but this cannot be done to compel the return of the other.

The Same, On the Edict, Book LXVII. When a son under paternal control, who is a soldier, dies intestate, his property will pass to his father, not as his estate, but as his peculium. If, however, he made a will, his castrense peculium will be considered as his estate.

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXVII. Anyone who profits by the acts of another should guarantee them.