Scanned text contains errors.
If he lost the possession before the usucapion was complete, he could in most cases recover it by the Possessorial Interdicts, properly so called, or by other legal means. This, according to Savigny, is the origin of the Bonorum Possessio.
In course of time when Bonitarian ownership (in bonis) was fully established and co-existed witli Quiritarian ownership, this new kind of ownership was attributed to the Bonorum Possessor, after he had acquired the Bonorum Possessio, and thus all that belonged to the deceased ex jure Quiritium became his in bonis and finally by Usucapion, ex jure Quiritium ; though in the mean time he had most of the practical advantages of Quiritarian ownership. Ultimately the Bonorum Possessio came to be considered as a species of hereditas, and the like forms of procedure to those in the case of the real hereditas were applied to the case of the Bonorum Possessio: thus arose the possessoria hereditatis petitio, which is mentioned by Gains, and cannot therefore be of later origin than the time of Marcus Aurelius. Thus the new form of procedure, which would have rendered the Interdict Quorum Bonorum unnecessary, if it had been introduced sooner, coexisted with the Interdict, arid a person might avail himself of either mode of proceeding, as he found best. (Gams, iii. 34.) In the legislation of Justinian, we find both forms of procedure mentioned, though that of the Interdict had altogether fallen into disuse. (Ihst. 4. tit. 15.)
According to the old law, any possessor, without respect to his title, could by usucapion pro herede obtain the ownership of a thing belonging to the hereditas ; and of course the Bonorum Possessor was exposed to this danger as much as the Heres. If the time of Usucapion of the possessor was not interrupted by the first claim, the heres had no title to the Interdict, as appears from its terms, for Such a possessor was not included in No. 1 or 2, Hadrian (Gams, ii. 57) by a senatusconsultum changed the law so far as to protect the heres against the complete usucapion of an Improbus Possessor, and to restore the thing to him. Though the words of Gams are general, there can be no doubt that the Senatusconsultum of Hadrian did not apply to the Usucapion of the Bonorum Possessor iior to that of the Bonae fidei possessor. Now if we assume that the Senatusconsultum of Hadrian applied to the Bonorum Possessor also, its provisions must have been introduced into the formula of the Interdict, and thus the obscure passage No. 3 receives a clear meaning, which is this : You shall restore that also which you no longer possess pro possessore, but once so possessed, and the possession of which has only lost that quality in consequence of a lucrativa usucapio. According to this explanation the passage No. 3 applies only to the new rule of law established by the Senatusconsultum of Hadrian, which’allowed the old usucapion of the improbus possessor to have its legal eft’ect, but rendered it useless to him by compelling restitution. , In the legislation of Justinian consequently these words have no meaning, since that old usucapion forms no part of it ; yet the words have been retained in the compilation of Justinian, like many others belonging to an earlier age, though in their new place they are entirely devoid of meaning.
,ii (Savigny, Ueber das Interdict Quorum Bonorum, tfeitschrift) &c. vol. v.; Dig. 43. tit. 2 ; Gaius, iv. 144,) [G.L.J
RECEPTA.
R.
RAMNES, RAMNENSES. [patrick.] RAPI’NA. [BoNA rafta ; furtum.] RA STER or RASTRUM, dim. RASTELLUS, RALLUS, RALLUM (|w<rr^p), a spud (/cd~ Tpwos)’, a rake, a hoe. Agreeably to its derivation from rado, to scrape., " Raster " denoted a hoe which in its operation and in its simplest form resembled the scrapers used by our scavengers in cleansino- the streets. By the division of its blade
C3 *s
into tines or prongs, it assumed more of the form of our garden-rakes, and it was .distinguished by the epithets bidens and quadridens (Cato de Re Rust, 10) according to the number of the divisions. .
The raster bidens was by far the most common species,.and hence we frequently find it mentioned under the simple name bidens. (Juv. iii. 228.) This term corresponds to the Greek 5i’/ceAAcc, for which (r/j,wvri was substituted in the Attic dialect (Xen. Cyrop. vi. 2. § 34, 36 ; Aristoph. Nub, 1488, 1502, Aves, 601; Phryn. Edog.y. 30-2, ed. Lobeck ; Plato, Repuh. p. 426, f ; Tim. Lex. Plat, s. v.) . The bidens was used to turn up the soil,’ and thus to perform on a small scale the part of a plough. (Plin. H. N. xvii. 9. s. 6.) But it was much more commonly used in th.e work called occatio, i. e. the breaking down of the clods after ploughing. (Virg. Ge.org. i. 94, 155.) [agricul-tltra, p. 52, a.] Hence it was heavy. (Ovid. Met. xi. 101.) The prongs of the bidens held by the rustic in the woodcut at p. 849 are curved, which agrees with the description of the same implement in Catullus (Ivi. 39). Vine-dressers continually used the bidens in hacking and breaking the lumps of earth, stirring it, and collecting it about the roots of the vines. (Virg. Georg. ii. 355, 400 ; Col. de Re Rust. iii. 13, iv. 14, Geopon. v. 25.) In stony land it was adapted for digging trenches, whilst the spade was better suited to the purpose when the soil was full of the roots of rushes and other plants. (PJin. H. N. xviii. 6. s. 8 ; Suet. Nero, 19.) [pala.] Wooden rakes were sometimes used. (Col. de Re Rnst. ii. 13.) [J. Y.J
RATES. [navis, p. 783, a.]
RATIO’NIBUS DISTRAHENDIS ACTIO.
[TUTELA.]
RECEPTA; DE RECEPTO, ACTIO. The Praetor declared that he would allow an action against Nautae, Canpones, and Stabularii, in respect of any property for the security of which they had undertaken (receperint, whence the name of the action) if they did not restore it. The meaning of the term Nauta has been explained [ExERCiTORiA actio] : the meaning of Caupo follows from the description of the business of a Caupo. (Dig. 4. tit. 9. s. 5.) " A Nauta, Canpo, and Stabularius are paid not for the care which they take of a thing ; but the Nauta‘.is paid for carrying passengers ; the Caupo for permitting travellers to stay in his Caupona ; the Stabularius for allowing beasts of burden to stay in his stables, and yet they are bound for the security of the thing also (custodiae nomine tenentur)." The two latter actions are similar to such actions as arise among us against innkeepers, and livery stable keepers, on whose premises loss or injury has been sustained with respect to the property of persons which they have by legal implication undertaken the care of. At first sisht there seems no reason
