{"title":"Bonfante、Vacca、Ankum:获得被其所有者遗弃的res mancipi的所有权,Pomp.D. 41,7,5pr.","authors":"Jeroen M.J. Chorus","doi":"10.1163/15718190-20241212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h2>Summary</h2><p>Pomponius, Digest 41,7,5<em>pr</em>., presents many difficulties. It holds, <em>inter alia</em>, that if the possessor of a thing abandoned by its owner, did not have that thing <em>in bonis</em>, the person who bought it from him, knowing that it had been abandoned, will usucapt it. But this seems to conflict with § 1, asserting that the acquirer of an abandoned thing becomes its <em>dominus</em> at once, without <em>usucapio</em>. Bonfante saw that the <em>principium</em> concerns only <em>res mancipi</em> and § 1 only <em>res nec mancipi</em>. Vacca did not agree, but subscribed to part of Bonfante’s interpretation. Both Bonfante and Vacca, however, introduced an element not mentioned by Pomponius: that the selling possessor ignored that the thing had been abandoned by its owner and, instead, thought the thing was <em>res aliena</em>. Ankum rejected that introduction and gave an interpretation (and reconstruction) of the fragment without the contested element. It is argued that Ankum’s interpretation should prevail.</p>","PeriodicalId":501512,"journal":{"name":"The Legal History Review","volume":"58 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bonfante, Vacca, Ankum: acquisition of ownership of res mancipi abandoned by their owner, Pomp. D. 41,7,5pr.\",\"authors\":\"Jeroen M.J. Chorus\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15718190-20241212\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h2>Summary</h2><p>Pomponius, Digest 41,7,5<em>pr</em>., presents many difficulties. It holds, <em>inter alia</em>, that if the possessor of a thing abandoned by its owner, did not have that thing <em>in bonis</em>, the person who bought it from him, knowing that it had been abandoned, will usucapt it. But this seems to conflict with § 1, asserting that the acquirer of an abandoned thing becomes its <em>dominus</em> at once, without <em>usucapio</em>. Bonfante saw that the <em>principium</em> concerns only <em>res mancipi</em> and § 1 only <em>res nec mancipi</em>. Vacca did not agree, but subscribed to part of Bonfante’s interpretation. Both Bonfante and Vacca, however, introduced an element not mentioned by Pomponius: that the selling possessor ignored that the thing had been abandoned by its owner and, instead, thought the thing was <em>res aliena</em>. Ankum rejected that introduction and gave an interpretation (and reconstruction) of the fragment without the contested element. It is argued that Ankum’s interpretation should prevail.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":501512,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Legal History Review\",\"volume\":\"58 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Legal History Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718190-20241212\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Legal History Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718190-20241212","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
摘要 庞波尼乌斯(Pomponius)的《摘要》(Digest 41,7,5pr.)提出了许多难题。它认为,除其他外,如果一件被其所有者遗弃的物品的拥有者并不拥有该物品的所有权,那么从他手中买下该物品的人在知道该物品已被遗弃的情况下,将使用该物品。但这似乎与第 1 节相冲突,因为第 1 节断言,被遗弃之物的取得者立即成为其支配者,而无需使用权。Bonfante 认为原则只涉及 res mancipi,而 § 1 只涉及 res nec mancipi。瓦卡并不同意,但赞同邦凡特的部分解释。然而,邦凡特和瓦卡都引入了庞波尼乌斯没有提到的一个因素:出售占有人无视该物已被其所有者遗弃,反而认为该物是异物。安库姆拒绝了这一引入,并在没有争议要素的情况下对该片段进行了解释(和重构)。据认为,应以 Ankum 的解释为准。
Bonfante, Vacca, Ankum: acquisition of ownership of res mancipi abandoned by their owner, Pomp. D. 41,7,5pr.
Summary
Pomponius, Digest 41,7,5pr., presents many difficulties. It holds, inter alia, that if the possessor of a thing abandoned by its owner, did not have that thing in bonis, the person who bought it from him, knowing that it had been abandoned, will usucapt it. But this seems to conflict with § 1, asserting that the acquirer of an abandoned thing becomes its dominus at once, without usucapio. Bonfante saw that the principium concerns only res mancipi and § 1 only res nec mancipi. Vacca did not agree, but subscribed to part of Bonfante’s interpretation. Both Bonfante and Vacca, however, introduced an element not mentioned by Pomponius: that the selling possessor ignored that the thing had been abandoned by its owner and, instead, thought the thing was res aliena. Ankum rejected that introduction and gave an interpretation (and reconstruction) of the fragment without the contested element. It is argued that Ankum’s interpretation should prevail.