This library is built in the open.
If you spot an error, have a suggestion, or just want to say hello — we’d love to hear from you.

of purchase and other contracts lost, the learned doctors rightly advise that before one initiates a vindication of property, one should see if one can obtain possession through any interdict. For thus the adversary will be compelled to prove his own right.
11. But it is a question of law whether one who is about to vindicate property should allege in the petition at least the proximate cause of his right, namely that he is the owner, or rather also the remote cause, because the thing was bequeathed or gifted to him, etc. The latter, although not necessary, would be safer for the plaintiff.
12. For if he says that he is vindicating the thing because he is the owner, he will be understood to have brought his entire right into judgment, so that if he does not prove his intention, he loses the lawsuit and cannot be heard afterwards, because the exception of res iudicata a matter already judged will stand against him.
13. But if he alleges a remote cause, that he is vindicating it because that thing was gifted or bequeathed to him, etc., then if he does not prove that article, he will not be prohibited from later bringing another article or cause of his ownership in a new trial, such as that it was bought or acquired by him through usucaption, etc., without the exception of res iudicata obstructing him.
14. Just as ownership is required on the part of the plaintiff, so is possession required on the part of the defendant.
15. Nor does it matter from what cause he possesses: for neither title nor even the good faith of the possessor prevents vindication. The reason seems to be that the cause of ownership is most powerful and surpasses all other causes.
16. Therefore, whether he has civil and natural possession together, or only one of them, he will be held by the vindication of property.
17. Whence it is that a vassal can be summoned by the vindication of property, so that the judgment or sentence which followed therefrom prejudices the lord, whether he knew of it or...