LAND AND MOVEABLES

The first point of interest to note is the comparative insignificance in Roman law of the distinction between land and other property. It is not wholly ignored. Land requires a longer period for acquisition by possession for a certain time. Land cannot be stolen. There are special restrictions on the power of alienation of land by those in a fiduciary position, such as tutors and curators. There were in classical law, diminished under Justinian, material differences in the possessory remedies affecting it. There were other differences but they do not altogether amount to very much. The distinction in our law between freehold and leasehold interests can hardly be said to exist in Roman law, for a term of years was not regarded as creating an interest in land at all: it was throughout the Roman law only a contractual right giving in general no remedies, proprietary or possessory, against third parties. It thus resembles our term of years in the early part of its career, when, according to Pollock and Maitland, ‘in an evil hour’ it was affected by Roman law ideas and the termor was likened to the conductor who had not even possession of the land.

Throughout the greater part of the history of Roman law the most prominent distinction was that between res mancipi, which were transferable at civil law only by a formal ritual act, and res nec mancipi, which were transferable by delivery.