DE CONDICTIONE FURTIVA.

D. 13. 1.

1. Ulpianus libro octauo decimo ad Sabinum. In furtiua re soli domino condictio competit.

2. Pomponius libro sexto decimo ad Sabinum. Condic­tione ex causa furtiua et furiosi et infantes obligantur, cum heredes necessarii exstiterunt, quamuis cum eis agi non possit.

1. Ulpian. In respect of a thing stolen the condiction is allowed to none but the owner^[CLX].

2. Pomponius. Both madmen and infants are liable to a condiction on the ground of theft, when they are heredes neces­sarii, although the action² cannot be brought against them­selves.

² Sc. the condictio furtiva. It is brought against them in their capa­city of heirs, but couid not be brought against them suo nomine, even if they had misappropriated anything wrongfully; for there is an absolute presumption against their malice, and so they cannot commit a furtum, which requires an evil intention as well as a prohibited act. Actio cannot mean in this pas­sage the actio furti, for it is too obvious that this, being a personal action on a delict, dies with the wrongdoer.

3. Paulus libro nono ad Sabinum. Si condicatur seruus ex causa furtiua, id uenire in condictionem certum est quod intersit agentis, ueluti si heres sit institutus et periculum subeat dominus hereditatis perdendae, quod et lulianus scribit, item si mortuum hominem condicat, consecuturum ait pretium hereditatis.

4. Ulpianus libro quadragensimo primo ad Sabinum. Si seruus uel filius familias furtum commiserit, condicendum est domino id quod ad eum peruenit: in residuum noxae seruum dominus dedere potest.

5. Paulus libro nono ad Sabinum. Ex furtiua causa filio familias condici potest: numquam enim ea condictione alius quam qui fecit tenetur aut heres eius.

6. Ulpianus libro trigensimo octauo ad edictum. Pro-

3. Paulus. If a slave be claimed in a condiction on the ground of theft, it is certain that the measure of the action is the interest of the plaintiff; as, for example, when the slave has been appointed heir, and his master runs a risk of losing the inheritance.

4. Ulpiau. If a slave or a filiusfamilias has committed a theft, the condiction must be brought against the master for what has reached his hands; for anything further^{[161] [162] the owner can make noxal surrender of the slave.}

5. Paulus. A condiction can be brought against a filius- familias on the ground of theft: for to this condiction no other person is ever liable except the delinquent or his heir.

6. Ulpiau. In fact even though a theft be committed

suit than the amount which has reached the master; but surely the master is liable to the value of the slave and his peetdium, and I think Voet and the older commentators are in the right when they say, in opposition to Pothier, that the mas­ter must pay in full when sued by condictio furtiva, or pay what he can and make noxal surrender of the slave for the balance.

inde etsi ope consilio alicuius furtum factum sit, condictione non tenebitur, etsi furti tenetur.

7. Idem libro quadragensimo secundo ad Sabinum. Si pro fure damnum decisum sit, condictionem non impediri uerissimum est: decisione enim furti quidem actio, non autem condictio tollitur. (1.) Furti actio poenam petit legitimam, condictio rem ipsam, ea res facit, ut neque furti actio per condictionem neque condictio per furti actionem consumatur, is itaque, cui furtum factum est, habet actionem furti et condic­tionem et uindicationem, habet et ad exhibendum actionem. (2.) Condictio rei furtiuae, quia rei habet persecutionem, he­redem quoque furis obligat, nec tantum si uiuat seruus furtiuus, sed etiam si decesserit: sed et si apud furis heredem diem suum obiit seruus furtiuus uel non apud ipsum, post mortem with the aid and counsel of any one, he will not be liable to the condiction, although liable for theft^[CLXIII].

7. Ulfian. If a payment has been made in satisfaction for a theft, it is most indisputable that the condiction is not thereby estopped; for by the satisfaction the actio furti is cer­tainly barred, but not the condiction.

consilio” in the present passage is carelessly written for “consilio.” The first of these explanations seems the better one; Pothier, however, inclines to the other.

² If the article is still existent the owner has an option between the vindicatio and the condictio: but, of course, he cannot sue in both ways; he must elect.

108

tamen furis, dicendum est condictionem aduersus heredem durare, quae in herede diximus, eadem erunt et in ceteris successoribus.

8. Idem libro uicensimo septimo ad edictum. In re furtiua condictio ipsorum corporum competit: sed utrum tam- diu, quamdiu exstent, an uero et si desierint esse in rebus humanis ? et si quidem optulit fur, sine dubio nulla erit condic­tio : si non optulit, durat condictio aestimationis eius : corpus enim ipsum praestari non potest, (i.) Si ex causa furtiua res condicatur, cuius temporis aestimatio fiat, quaeritur, placet tamen id tempus spectandum, quo res umquam plurimi fuit, maxime cum deteriorem rem factam fur dando non liberatur : not in his possession, but still after the death of the thief, we must allow that the condiction stands good against the heir. And what we have said about the heir, will also apply to all other successors¹.

8. Ulpian. When a theft has been committed a condiction of the articles themselves is allowed ; but is this the case only so long as they are in existence, or even if they have ceased to exist ? If the thief tendered the thing^{[164] [165], undoubtedly there will be no condiction; if he did not tender it, there remains a condiction for its value ·, for the article itself cannot be delivered[166], i.}

taken; but probably, as the action could be instituted the moment after the theft was committed, we may take judicii accipiendi tempus to mean the time of the commission; for the words of D. 47. 1. 2. 3 shew that the contrast between the con­dictio furtiva and the actio ex lege Aquilia is under Ulpian’s consider­ation : “ namque Aquilia eam aes­timationem complectitur, quanti eo anno plurimi fuit, condictio autem ex causa furtiva non egreditur re­trorsum iudicii accipiendi tempus.” See also D. 45. 1. 59.

semper enim moram fur facere uidetur. (2.) Nonissime dicen­dum est etiam fructus in hac actione uenire.

9. Idem libro trigensimo ad edictum. In condictione ex causa furtiua non pro parte quae peruenit, sed in solidum tene­mur, dum soli heredes sumus; pro parte autem heres pro ea parte, pro qua heres est, tenetur.

10. Idem libro trigensimo octauo ad edictum. Siue mani­festus fur siue nec manifestus sit, poterit ei condici, ita de­mum autem manifestus fur condictione tenebitur, si depre­hensa non fuerit a domino possessio eius: ceterum nemo furum condictione tenetur, posteaquam dominus possessionem adpre- hendit. et ideo lulianus, ut procedat in fure manifesto tractare de condictione, ita proponit furem deprehensum aut occidisse aut fregisse aut effudisse id quod interceperat, (r.) Ei quo­que, qui ui bonorum raptorum tenetur, condici posse lulianus libro uicensimo secundo digestorum significat. (2.) Tamdiu autem condictioni locus erit, donec domini facto dominium eius rei ab eo recedat: et ideo si eam rem alienauerit, condi­tor a thief is always considered to be in default. 2. Lastly, we must rule that fruits too are within the scope of this, action.

9. Ulpian. In the condiction on the ground of theft we are liable, supposing we are sole heirs, not for the part (of the stolen article) which has come into our hands, but for the whole; but an heir in part is liable for the proportion in which he is heir.

10. Ulpian. Whether a man be a fur manifestus or a fur nec manifestus, a condiction can be brought against him. But a fur manifestus will be liable to the condiction, only if his pos­session has not been wrested from him by the owner; in fact, no thief is liable to the condiction after the owner has recovered possession. And so Julian, as a starting-point for his conside­ration of the condiction against a fur manifestus, makes the assumption that the thief has either killed, or broken or poured away that which he had misappropriated. 1. Julian in the twenty-second book of his Digests states that the condiction can also be brought against a man who is liable to the actio vi bonorttm raptorum. 2. But the condiction is only allowable till such time as, by act of the owner, the ownership of the thing departs from him; and therefore, if he has alienated the thing, cere non poterit. (3.) Unde Celsus libro duodecimo digesto­rum scribit, si rem furtiuam dominus pure legauerit furi, here­dem ei condicere non posse : sed et si non ipsi furi, sed alii, idem dicendum est cessare condictionem, quia dominium facto testatoris, id est domini, discessit.

11. Paulus libro trigensimo nono ad edictum. Sed nec legatarius condicere potest: ei enim competit condictio, cui res subrepta est, uel heredi eius : sed uindicare rem legatam ab eo potest.

12. Ulpianus libro trigensimo octauo ad edictum. Et ideo eleganter Marcellus definit libro septimo : ait enim : si res mihi subrepta tua remaneat, condices, sed et si dominium non tuo facto amiseris, aeque condices. (1.) In communi igitur re eleganter ait interesse, utrum tu prouocasti communi diuidundo iudicio an prouocatus es, ut, si prouocasti communi he cannot bring the condiction. 3.

11. Paulus. Yet neither can the legatee bring the condic­tion ; for the condiction belongs to the man himself from whom the thing has been stolen, or to his heir ; but he can by vindication reclaim from the thief the thing legacied.

12. Ulpian. And so Marcellus accurately discriminates in his seventh book: for he says, if a thing stolen from me^[CLXVIII] remains yours, you will have the condiction : and even if you have lost the ownership without act of your own, you can in like manner have a condiction. r. Hence, with regard to an article owned in common, he says, with accuracy, that it makes a difference whether you have demanded a suit communi divi-

fact that although the actio furti is given to every person who has in­terest, the condictio furtiva is only granted to the owner and his heir.

diuidundo iudicio, amiseris condictionem, si prouocatus es, retineas. (2.) Neratius libris membranarum Aristonem exis­timasse refert eum, cui pignori res data sit, incerti condictione acturum, si ea subrepta sit.

13. Paulus libro trigensimo nono ad edictum. Ex argen­to subrepto pocula facta condici posse Fulcinius ait: ergo in condictione poculorum etiam caelaturae aestimatio fiet, quae impensa furis facta est, quemadmodum si infans subreptus adoleuerit, aestimatio fit adulescentis, quamuis cura et sumpti­bus furis creuerit.

14. Iulianus libro uicensimo secundo digestorum. Si seruus furtiuus sub condicione legatus fuerit, pendente ea heres condictionem habebit et, si lite contestata condicio exstiterit, dundo, or whether the suit has been forced upon you : since, if you have demanded the suit, you will lose your condiction; if the suit has been forced upon you, you will retain it^[CLXIX]. 2. Ne­ratius, in his work the Membranee, states that Aristo was of opinion that a man to whom anything has been given in pledge has a condictio incerti, if it has been stolen from him².

13. Paulus. Fulcinius says that cups made out of stolen silver can be claimed by condiction : hence, in the condiction for the cups account will be taken of the chasing done at the cost of the thief; in like manner as when an infant has been stolen and has grown, the value taken is that of the youth, although he has grown by the care and cost of the thief.

14. Julian. If a stolen slave be given as a legacy upon some condition, so long as the condition is in suspense, the heir will have the condiction³; and if at the moment of litis

as the loss is presumably against his will, he does not lose the condiction which accrued to him whilst he was owner.

² See also D. 13. 3. 2.

³ Till the condition vests, the heir is owner: alter the condition has vested, the legatee is owner; but, not being a general successor, has no condiction. D. 13. 1. 11: D. 47. 1. 53. 29. It may be said that in this case the heir ought to have the condiction, because the ownership has passed from him

absolutio sequi debebit, perinde ac si idem seruus sub condi­cione liber esse iussus fuisset et lite contestata condicio exsti­tisset : nam nec petitoris iam interest hominem recipere et res sine dolo malo furis eius esse desiit, quod si pendente condi­cione judicaretur, iudex aestimare debebit, quanti emptorem inuenerit. (i.) Cauere autem ex hac actione petitor ei cum quo agitur non debebit. (2.) Boue subrepto et occiso condic­tio et bouis et corii et carnis domino competit, scilicet si et corium et caro contrectata fuerint: cornua quoque condicentur, sed si dominus condictione bouis pretium consecutus fuerit et postea aliquid eorum, de quibus supra dictum est, condicet, omnimodo exceptione summouetur. contra si corium condixe­rit et pretium eius consecutus bouem condicet, offerente fure

contestatio the condition has vested, an acquittal must ensue ; just as it would, if the same slave had been ordered to become free upon a condition, which condition had become vested at the time of litis contestatio ; for the plaintiff has now no interest in the recovery of the slave, and the matter of suit has, without fraud on the part of the thief, ceased to belong to the heir. But if judgment be given during the pendency of the condition, the judex must award the sum which he could find a purchaser (ready to give). 1. But the plaintiff will not be under obliga­tion in such a suit to give security to the defendant¹. 2. When an ox has been stolen and slaughtered, the owner has a condic- tion for the ox, its hide and its flesh, that is to say, if the hide and flesh have also been appropriated: the horns too can be matter for a condiction. But if the owner in a condiction for the ox has obtained his value, and shall afterwards bring a con­diction for any of the things above-named, he will undoubtedly be repelled by an exception. If, on the other hand, he has brought a condiction for the hide and obtained its value, and shall then bring a condiction for the ox, he will be defeated by pretium bouis detracto pretio corii doli mali exceptione sum- mouebitur. (3.) Idem iuris est uuis subreptis : nam et mus­tum et uinacia iure condici possunt.

otherwise than by his own act, D. 13.1.10. 2; but we must remember that the heir is bound, quasi ex con­tractu, by the testator’s act, and the legacy is through act on the part of the testator. See Just. Inst. 3. 27. 5·

¹ What is awarded to the heir is not the price, or part of the price,

of the thing, but the value of his contingent possession : the thief will owe the whole value to the legatee, if he does not at once deliver the legacy to him on the vesting of the con­dition. Hence no return on the part of the heir can possibly be de­manded, and therefore no security is needed.

15. Celsus libro duodecimo digestorum. Quod ab alio seruus subripuit, eius nomine liber furti tenetur : condici autem ei non potest, nisi liber contrectauit.

16. Pomponius libro trigensimo octauo ad Quintum Mucium. Qui furtum admittit uel re commodata uel deposita utendo, condictione quoque ex furtiua causa obstringitur : quae differt ab actione commodati hoc, quod, etiamsi sine dolo malo et culpa eius interierit res, condictione tamen tenetur, cum in commodati actione non facile ultra culpam et in depositi non ultra dolum malum teneatur is, cum quo agetur.

17. Papinianus libro decimo quaestionum. Parui refert ad tollendam condictionem, offeratur seruus furtiuus an in the exception of fraud, provided the thief tenders the price of the ox with the price of the hide deducted. 3. Such also is the rule when grapes are stolen, for both the juice and the skins¹ can be lawfully claimed by condiction.

15. Celsus. What a slave has stolen from a stranger, he is liable for in an actio furti on becoming free; but no condiction can be brought against him, unless he has appro­priated the thing after becoming free^{[170] [171].}

16. Pomponius. He who commits a theft by using an article lent to him or deposited with him is also liable to a condiction on the ground of theft: which condiction differs from the actio commodati in this respect, that, even though the article has perished without malice or carelessness on his part, yet he is responsible in the condiction: whereas in the actio commodati the defendant is scarcely liable for more than care­lessness, nor in the actio depositi for more than malice^[172].

17. Papinian. As to the destruction of the condiction, it matters little whether the stolen slave is tendered or there is a

³ The MSS. read “cum quo de­positi agitur but the word depositi is clearly superfluous, and therefore we omit it, as suggested by the ma­jority of editors.

8

aliud nomen aliumque statum obligationis transferatur: nec me mouet, praesens homo fuerit nec ne, cum mora, quae eueniebat ex furto, ueluti quadam delegatione finiatur.

18. Scaevola libro quarto quaestionum. Quoniam fur­tum fit, cum quis indebitos nummos sciens acceperit, uiden- dum, si procurator suos nummos soluat, an ipsi furtum fiat, et Pomponius epistularum libro octauo ipsum condicere ait ex causa furtiua : sed et me condicere, si ratum habeam quod in­debitum datum sit, sed altera condictione altera tollitur.

19. Paulus libro tertio ad Neratium. lulianus ex persona filiae, quae res amouit, dandam in patrem condictionem in pe­culium respondit.

20. Tryphoninus libro quinto decimo disputationum. Licet fur paratus fuerit excipere condictionem et per me stete­rit, dum in rebus humanis res fuerat, condicere eam, postea autem perempta est, tamen durare condictionem ueteres uolue- novation into another liability and another cause of obligation. Nor do I care whether the slave was present or not^[CLXXIII], since the delay (in fulfilling a duty) which was consequent on the theft is ended by a sort of delegation.

18. Scaevola. Since a theft takes place when any one knowingly receives money which is not due, we must consider in the case where an agent pays his own money, whether the theft is committed upon him. And Pomponius in the eighth book of his Epistles says that the agent himself has the condic- tion on the ground of theft: but that I also have one, if I have ratified the payment which was made without being due. But the one condiction is destroyed by the other.

19. Paulus. In the case of a daughter who has removed anything, Julian says that a condiction must be granted against the father to the extent of the peculium.

20. Tryphoninus. Even though a thief was prepared to defend a condiction, and it was through my fault that the con­diction was not brought whilst the thing was in existence, and afterwards it was destroyed, yet the ancients maintained that the condiction could still be brought, because it is considered

runt, quia uidetur, qui primo inuito domino rem contrectauerit, semper in restituenda ea, quam nec debuit auferre, moram facere. · that any one, who originally misappropriated a thing against the will of its owner, for ever makes default in restoration of what he ought not at all to have removed.