Conventional sequestration

"Rci depositae proprietas apud deponcntem manet: sed et possessio, nisi apud sequestrem deposita esc: nam turn demum sequester possidet: id enim agitur ea depositione, ut neutrius possession! id tempus procedat."²³⁷

It is not difficult to see the reason for this distinction. Where two parties had a dispute over a particular object, there was always the danger that, in the course of the dispute, one of the parties (the one in possession of the disputed object) might acquire ownership by usucapio. The period for usucaption was short in Roman law, and not even the commence­ment of legal proceedings had any influence on its running. Bona fides was required only at the time of obtaining possession—mala fides superveniens non nocet. Hence it was imperative that the object be given to a third party, not involved in the dispute, until the issue had been settled. It would, however, have frustrated the whole object of this exercise if this third party had not been considered as the possessor; otherwise the period of usucaption would still have run in favour of one of the parties. The sequester was bound to return the thing to the person in whose favour the dispute had been decided; the latter could avail himself of a special actio (depositi) sequestraria.²³⁸

Today, this type of conventional sequestration has largely sunk into oblivion; the German Code does not even mention it any more,^[1169] The period of usucaption is ten years; judicial enforcement of a claim averring title over the thing interrupts this period, and mala fides superveniens non nocet has (under the influence of canon law) long since been converted into its opposite.

III.