Servus Communis

Regarded purely as a chattel, there is little to be said of the servus communis. The general principles of common ownership apply, and a few remarks will therefore suffice. He is the property of the owners in undivided shares, and possession of him by one of his owners, omnium nomine, is possession by all. A legacy of “my slaves” includes those in whom I own a share. They are reckoned, pro Falcidia, in the estate of each owner. The rights of ownership are necessarily somewhat cut down in view of the rights of other owners. Thus one of common owners cannot put the slave to torture, save in a matter of common interest. On the same principle, the actio servi corrupti is available to one master against another. The text appears corrupt, and there are signs of doubt, which may be due to the fact that the slave is the wrongdoer's own in a sense—a fact which is allowed to bar any action on servi cormptio, for receptio, i.e. of a fugitivus, against a co-owner. But even here Ulpian inclines to allow the action if the reception was celandi animo, though he quotes Julian as refusing it in any case. It is not easy to see why the relation makes any difference, since the act is presumably a furtum, for which Paul and Ulpian are clear that actio furti will lie against a co-owner. In all these cases an indemnity can be claimed by commwni dividundo, or, if they are socii, by pro sodow.