Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T01:27:07.799Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Objections and Exceptions: The Palingenesia of D.43.24.17

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2005

Alan Rodger
Alan Rodger*
Affiliation:
a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.
Get access

Extract

A, the owner of a house in Rome, hears that, when carrying out some building work, C intends to interfere with one of the walls. A gives notice to C that he objects to the work (prohibet). Despite this, C goes ahead with it. Or else, being aware that A would object if he knew, C deliberately carries out the work while A is away at his seaside villa at Baiae. In the first situation C is regarded as doing the work by force (vi); in the second he does it clandestinely (clam). In either event, the praetor will grant A an interdict ordering C to put the wall back to its original state so that the parties’ rights may be determined and any appropriate security given: quod vi aut clam factum est … restituas.

Type
Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 64 , Issue 1 , 24 March 2005 , pp. 79 - 93
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Lenel, O., Das Edictum Perpetuum (3rd ed., Leipzig 1927; hereinafter ‘E.P. “), p. 482.Google Scholar On the law relating to the interdict see Karlowa, O., Römische Rechtsgeschichte vol. 2 (Leipzig 1901), pp. 1233–1239Google Scholar; Berger, A., “Interdictum” in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie vol. 9.2 (1916), col. 1609, at coll. 1662-1666Google Scholar; Bonfante, P., Corso di diritto romano vol. 2.1 (Rome 1926, reprinted 1966), chap. 18Google Scholar; Buckland, W. W., The Main Institutions of Roman Private Law (Cambridge 1931), p. 292Google Scholar.

2 D.43.24.11.14, Ulpian 71 ad edictum’, h.t. 12, Venuleius 2 interdictorum.

3 Windscheid-Kipp, Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts (9th ed., Frankfurt-am-Main 1906), vol. 2, § 465 n. 3; Berger, “Interdictum”, col. 1664, line 11; Bonfante, Corso, vol. 2.1, pp. 468 and 473 n. 2.

4 Translation by Thomas, J.A.C., in Watson, A. ed., The Digest of Justinian (revised ed., Philadelphia 1998) vol. 2Google Scholar.

5 E.P., p. 482 n. 6; Lenel, O., Palingenesia Juris Civilis (Leipzig 1889Google Scholar; hereinafter ‘Palingenesis’﹜, vol. 2, col. 816.

6 Index Jnterpolationum; apparently also A. M. Honoré, “Editing the Digest” (1973) 90 Z.S.S. 262, 298. Bonfante, Corso, vol.2.1, pp. 468 and 473 n. 2 quotes text 17 as coming from Paul without, however, noticing Lenel’s argument.

7 See, e.g., the discussion of Digest title 3.3 in A. Rodger, “Procurator Restitutus” in Manthe, U. and Krampe, C. (eds.), Quaestiones Iuris (Berlin 2000), p. 207Google Scholar.

8 Lenel, E.P., p. 483. On the formula and action see Lenel’s general observations: E.P., pp. 448-449 and 450.

9 E.P., p. 402 n. 8; Palingenesia vol. 2, col. 777, drawing attention to D.2.4.12, also from book 57 ad edictum, where Ulpian refers to the possibility of a son in potestate taking action, in the absence of his father, against one of his father’s freedmen who has summoned him to court.

10 For the order of reading see the results of Bluhme’s analysis as conveniently set out in the Stereotype Digest, Additamenta, p. 929: Ulpian 56-81 ad edictum, no. 101; Paul 53-78 ad edictum, no. 102; Celsus digestorum, no. 134. The detailed breakdown of the order of reading the books confirms that Ulpian 57 was read before both the part of Ulpian 71 dealing with the interdict quod vi (71 fin.) and Paul 67.

11 Honoré, 90 Z.S.S. 298.

12 E.P., p. 482 n. 6; Palingenesia vol. 1, col. 1083 (LVII is a misprint for LXVII).

13 E.P., p. 482 n. 6; Palingenesia vol. col. 1083, paras. 764 and 765. The compilers used a very short fragment in their title, 39.1, on operis novi nuntiatio: D.39.1.17. The inscription of that text refers to Paul 57 ad edictum, but Lenel corrects this to Paul 67 ad edictum’. E.P., p. 482 n. 6; Palingenesia vol. 1, col. 1083 n. 1. This correction seems to be sound and does not run up against the same kinds of difficulty with the order of the texts in the title as his purported correction of the inscription of D.43.24.17.

14 Lenel notes that, on his reconstruction, the wording of the interdict itself did not indicate who could bring or who could be caught by the interdict: E.P., p. 483.

15 The text takes a noticeably wide view of the usufructuary’s interest so as to include his pleasure in the beauty of non-fruit-bearing trees. See the discussion in F. Raber, “Zum pretium affectionis” in F. Horak, W. Waldstein (eds.), Festgabe für Arnold Herdlitczka zu seinem 75. Geburtstag (Munich 1972), p. 197 at pp. 209-210 with references.

16 As Beseler pointed out, the substance of 16.2 is somewhat surprising if it is intended to suggest that a defendant who acted vi aut clam and is in possession of the offending work need do no more than allow it to be removed at his expense: G. von Beseler, Beiträge zur Kritik der römischen Rechtsquellen vol. 4 (Tübingen 1920), p. 282. See also F. Schulz, “Die Lehre vom erzwungenen Rechtsgeschäft im antiken römischen Recht” (1922) 43 Z.S.S. 171, at p. 260. It is not at all clear why Schulz regards the discussion as being out of place at this point.

17 E.P., p. xxiv; pp. 501-503 and 506. Gaius’ commentary ad edictum provinciale deals with this title at a different point: E.P., pp. 9-11.

18 E.P., 8.

19 E.P., pp. 461-468.

20 See note 6.

21 E.P., p. 461 n. 19; Palingenesia vol. 2, col. 816.

22 Lenel, E.P., pp. 463-464, proceeds on the basis that the text of the interdict in Julian’s revision of the Edict contained a clause, certainly found in the text at the time of Cicero, which specifically referred to the plaintiff having been in possession at the time of his ejection. There is, however, much to be said for Keller’s view that the form of D.43.16.1.23 and the argument from the decision of Vivianus in h.t. 1.45, both from Ulpian 69 ad edictum, point to the requirement of possession being inferred from the requirement that the plaintiff should have been “ejected”. Note that Lenel has some difficulty in pinpointing the context of 1.45 in Ulpian’s commentary: E.P., p. 465; Palingenesia vol. 2, col. 818 n. 1. The point, which does not matter for present purposes, cannot be discussed further here.

23 Translation by Thomas, , in Watson, The Digest of Justinian vol. 2Google Scholar. I have added a translation of the last sentence of the passage, which Thomas omitted.

24 See note 13.

25 Translation by Tuplin, C.J., in Watson, The Digest of Justinian vol. 2Google Scholar.

26 Karlowa, , Römische Rechtsgeschichte, vol. 2, pp. 1234–1235Google Scholar. On the effect in rem of operis novi nuntiatio, see, for instance, D.39.1.10, Ulpian 45 ad Sabinum:, Palingenesia vol. 2, col. 1180.

27 Index Interpolationum.

28 Beiträge, vol. 4, p. 199. See also p. 238.

29 See E.P., p. 477 where Lenel rightly holds that the usage is found in classical writers.

30 Cf., Berger, “Interdictum”, col. 1664 lines 9-10; G. Serre, “Obligatio, obligare, obligari nei testi della giurisprudenza classica e del tempo di Diocleziano”, Studi in onore di Pietro Bonfante nel XL anno d’insegnamento (Milan 1930) vol. 3, p. 499 at p. 579.

31 Leumann-Hofmann-Szantyr, , Lateinische Grammatik vol. 2 (revised, 1972), p. 61Google Scholar.

32 Karlowa, , Romische Rechtsgeschichte, vol. 2, pp. 1234–1235Google Scholar appears to accept this part of the text as genuine and as consonant indeed with the basic nature of the interdict.

33 Cf., Honoré, 90 Z.S.S. 298; Stereotype Digest, p. 929.

34 As seen in the Stereotype Digest, p. 929.

35 E.P., p. 503 n. 10; Palingenesia vol. 1, coll. 1084-1085.

36 E.P., p. 506 n. 7; Palingenesia vol. 1, col. 1085.

37 Viz. si quis vadimoniis non obtemperaverit, litis dividuae et rei residuae, si alieno nomine agatur and si ex contractibus argentariorum agatur.

38 Viz. exceptio annalis and ne praeiudicium hereditati fiat.

39 On the very first title see E.P., p. 51 n. 1. On title VIII de procuratoribus et defensoribus see Rodger, “Procurator Restitutus”, p. 218.

40 E.P., p. 501 n. 1.

41 Kaser, M. and Hackl, K., Das Römische Zivilprozessrecht (2nd ed., Munich 1996), p. 412Google Scholar.

42 See Karlowa, , Römische Rechtsgeschichte, vol. 2, pp. 1237–1238Google Scholar; Bonfante, , Corso, vol. 2.1, pp. 470–471Google Scholar.

43 E.P, p. 482 n. 15, at p. 483.

44 Index Interpolationum; “probably interpolated” in the view of Bonfante, Corso, vol. 2.1, p. 470 n. 4.

45 E.P, p. 482 n. 10.

46 H.t. 3.2-3.4.

47 Rodger, A., “Labeo, Proculus and the Ones that Got Away” (1972) 88Google Scholar L.Q.R. 402, at p. 405 with refs.

48 Translation by Braun, T., in Watson, The Digest of Justinian vol. 2Google Scholar.

49 E.P., p. 455.

50 Stereotype Digest, p. 731 n. 2.

51 Palingenesia vol. 1, col. 1084 n. 3.

52 The text is from Ulpian’s commentary on the exceptio doli mali et metus: E.P., p. 512; Palingenesia vol. 2, col. 864.

53 The words pupilli and sive adulescentis cause certain difficulties. See Index Interpolationum. Those difficulties do not matter for present purposes.

54 Translation by Thomas, , in Watson, The Digest of Justinian vol. 2Google Scholar.

55 Palingenesia vol. 2, col. 812; E.P., p. 461 n. 19.

56 Palingenesia vol. 1, col. 1084, paragraphs 774-776; E.P., p. 501 n. 1.

57 I am grateful to David Johnston for reading and commenting on a draft of this paper.