closely allied modes (for instance, the necessarius heres acquires without aditio, which is a parcel of the title of voluntarius heres), or for some other reason, divers modes are lumped together under the head of acquisition by lex. The name, however, besides being a misnomer, is merely a sink or receptacle of miscellaneous unrelated titles, just as we shall find in the doctrine of obligations that miscellaneous titles (variae causarum figurae) are lumped together under the denomination of quasi-contract. QUIBUS ALIENARE LICEAT VEL NON. § 62. Accidit aliquando, ut qui dominus sit alienandae rei potestatem non habeat, et qui dominus non sit alienare possit. § 63. Nam dotale praedium maritus invita muliere per legem Iuliam prohibetur alienare, quamvis ipsius sit vel mancipatum ei dotis causa vel in iure cessum vel usucaptum. quod quidem ius utrum ad Italica tantum praedia, an etiam ad provincialia pertineat, dubitatur. § 64. Ex diverso agnatus furiosi curator rem furiosi alienare potest ex lege XII tabularum; item procurator, id est cui libera administratio permissa est; item creditor pignus ex pactione, quamvis eius ea res non sit. sed hoc forsitan ideo videatur fieri, quod voluntate debitoris intellegitur pignus alienari, qui olim pactus est, ut liceret creditori pignus vendere, si pecunia non sol vatur. § 62. It sometimes occurs that a proprietor has not a power of alienation, and that a non-proprietor has a power of alienation. 63. The alienation of dower land by the husband, without the consent of the wife, is prohibited by the lex Julia, although the husband is proprietor of the land by its mancipation as dower, or by surrender before a magistrate, or by usucapion. Whether this disability is confined to Italian soil, or extends to the provinces, authorities differ. § 64. Contrariwise, an agnate, as a lunatic's committee, is empowered to aliene his property by the law of the Twelve Tables; and so is an agent, when invested by his principal with free power of administration (Inst. 2, 1, 43). Again, a pledgee, in pursuance of his convention, may aliene the pledge, though not proprietor; this, however, may be said to rest on the assent of the pledgor previously given in the contract of pledge, which empowered the pledgee to sell in default of payment. §§ 62-64. It is conjectured that by some accidental displacement these three paragraphs have been transposed, and that in their proper order they should follow § 79 and precede § 80. There seems no good reason why they should be interposed between the titles of civil law and the titles of natural law. § 63. The lex Julia, relating only to Italian soil, permitted the husband to aliene the dotal land, with the consent of the wife, but prohibited its hypothecation, even with her consent. Justinian extended the prohibition to provincial soil, and to alienation with the wife's consent, Inst. 2, 8, pr. ADQUISITIONES DOMINII NATURALES. $65. Ergo ex his quae diximus adparet quaedam naturali iure alienari, qualia sunt ea quae traditione alienantur; quaedam ciuili, nam mancipationis et in iure cessionis et usucapionis ius proprium est civium Romanorum. § 66. Nec tamen ea tantum quae traditione nostra fiunt naturali nobis ratione adquiruntur, sed etiam quae occupando ideo adquisierimus, quia antea nullius essent: qualia sunt omnia quae terra, mari, coelo capiuntur. § 67. Itaque si feram bestiam aut volucrem aut piscem ceperimus, quidquid ita captum fuerit, id statim nostrum fit, et eo usque nostrum esse intellegitur, donec nostra custodia coerceatur. cum vero custodiam nostram evaserit et in naturalem libertatem se receperit, rursus occupantis fit, quia nostrum esse desinit. naturalem autem libertatem recipere videtur, cum aut oculos nostros evaserit, aut licet in conspectu sit nostro, difficilis tamen eius rei persecutio sit. § 68. In iis autem animalibus quae ex consuetudine abire et redire solent, veluti columbis et apibus, item cervis qui in silvas ire et redire solent, talem habemus regulam traditam, ut si revertendi animum habere desierint, etiam nostra esse desinant et fiant occupantium. revertendi autem animum videntur desinere habere, cum revertendi consuetudinem deseruerint. § 65. Thus it appears that some modes of alienation are titles of natural law, as delivery of possession, and others of civil law, as mancipation, surrender, usucapion, for these are titles confined to citizens of Rome. § 66. Another title of natural law, besides Tradition, is Occupation, whereby things not already subjects of property become the property of the first occupant, as the wild inhabitants of earth, air, and water, as soon as they are captured. 67. For wild beasts, birds, and fishes, as soon as they are captured, become, by natural law, the property of the captor, but only continue such so long as they continue in his power; after breaking from his custody and recovering their natural liberty, they may become the property of the next occupant; for the ownership of the first captor is terminated. Their natural liberty is deemed to be recovered when they have escaped from his sight, or, though they continue in his sight, when they are difficult to recapture. § 68. In those wild animals, however, which are habituated to go away and return, as pigeons, and bees, and deer, which habitually visit the forests and return, the rule has been handed down, that only the cessation of the instinct of returning is the termination of ownership, and then the property in them is acquired by the next occupant; the instinct of returning is held to § 69. Ea quoque quae ex hostibus capiuntur naturali ratione nostra fiunt. § 70. Sed et id quod per alluvionem nobis adicitur eodem iure nostrum fit. per alluvionem autem id videtur adici quod ita paulatim flumen agro nostro adicit, ut aestimare non possimus quantum quoquo momento temporis adiciatur. hoc est quod volgo dicitur, per adluvionem id adici videri quod ita paulatim adicitur, ut oculos nostros fallat. $71. Quod si flumen partem aliquam ex tuo praedio detraxerit et ad meum praedium attulerit, haec pars tua manet. § 72. At si in medio flumine insula nata sit, haec eorum omnium communis est qui ab utraque parte fluminis prope ripam praedia possident. si vero non sit in medio flumine, ad eos pertinet qui ab ea parte quae proxuma est iuxta ripam praedia habent. § 73. Praeterea id quod in solo nostro ab aliquo aedificatum est, quamvis ille suo nomine aedificaverit, iure naturali nostrum fit, quia superficies solo cedit. § 74. Multoque magis id accidit et in planta quam quis in solo nostro posuerit, si modo radicibus terram complexa fuerit. § 75. Idem contingit et in frumento quod in solo nostro ab aliquo satum fuerit. § 76. Sed si ab eo petamus fructum vel aedificium, et inpensas in aedificium vel in seminaria vel in sementem factas ei solvere nolimus, poterit nos per exceptionem doli repellere; utique si bonae fidei possessor fuerit. § 77. Eadem ratione probatum est, quod in chartulis sive mem be lost when the habit of returning is discontinued. § 69. Capture from an enemy is another title of property by natural law. § 70. Alluvion is another mode of acquisition by the same code. Alluvion is an addition of soil to land by a river, so gradual that in short periods the change is imperceptible; or, to use the common expression, a latent addition. § 71. But a parcel of your land swept away by a river, and carried down to mine, continues your property. § 72. An island that rises in the middle of a river is the common property of the proprietors on both banks of the river; if it is not in the middle of the stream, it belongs to the proprietors of the nearer bank. $73. Again, a building erected on my soil, though in the name and for the use of the builder, belongs to me by the natural code; for the ownership of a superstructure follows the ownership of the soil. § 74. The same occurs a fortiori when trees are planted on my land, as soon as they strike root. § 75. Similarly, when corn is sown on my land. § 76. But if I bring an action to recover the produce or the building, and refuse to compensate the other party for his outlay on the building or the plantation or the cornfield, he will defeat my action by the plea of fraud, if he was an innocent possessor. § 77. Similarly, the writing inscribed on my paper or parchment, branis meis aliquis scripserit, licet aureis litteris, meum esse, quia litterae chartulis sive membranis cedunt. itaque si ego eos libros easque membranas petam, nec inpensam scripturae solvam, per exceptionem doli mali summoveri potero. § 78. Sed si in tabula mea aliquis pinxerit velut imaginem, contra probatur magis enim dicitur tabulam picturae cedere. cuius diversi tatis vix idonea ratio redditur. certe secundum hanc regulam si me possidente petas imaginem tuam esse, nec solvas pretium tabulae, poteris per exceptionem doli mali summoveri. at si tu possideas, consequens est, ut utilis mihi actio adversum te dari debeat: quo casu nisi solvam impensam picturae, poteris me per exceptionem doli mali repellere, utique si bona fide possessor fueris. illud palam est, quod sive tu subripuisses tabulam sive alius, conpetit mihi furti actio. § 79. In aliis quoque speciebus naturalis ratio requiritur: proinde si ex uvis aut olivis aut spicis meis vinum aut oleum aut frumentum feceris, quaeritur utrum meum sit id vinum aut oleum aut frumentum, an tuum. item si ex auro aut argento meo vas aliquod feceris, aut ex meis tabulis navem aut armarium aut subsellium fabricaveris; item si ex lana mea vestimentum feceris, vel si ex vino et melle meo mulsum feceris, sive ex medicamentis meis emplastrum aut collyrium feceris: quaeritur, utrum tuum sit id quod ex meo effeceris, an meum. quidam materiam et substantiam spectandam esse putant, id est, ut cuius materia sit, illius et res quae facta sit videatur esse ; idque maxime placuit Sabino et Cassio. alii vero eius rem esse pu even in letters of gold, is acquired to me, for the property in the letters follows the property in the paper or parchment; but if I sue for the books or parchment without offering compensation for the writing, my action will be defeated by the plea of fraud. § 78. The canvas belonging to me, on which another man has painted a picture, is subject to a different rule, for the ownership of the canvas is held to follow the ownership of the painting: a difference which scarcely rests on a sufficient reason. By this rule, if I am in possession, and you claim the painting without offering the price of the canvas, I may defeat your claim by the plea of fraud. If you are in possession, I may claim the reconveyance of the canvas in a modified action, but unless I offer the price of the painting, you defeat me by pleading fraud, if you are an innocent possessor. It is certain, that, if you or another purloined the canvas, I can bring an action of theft. $79. On a change of species, also, we have recourse to natural law to determine the proprietor. Thus, if grapes, or olives, or sheaves, belonging to me, are converted by another into wine, or oil, or corn, a question arises whether the property in the corn, wine, or oil, is in me, or in the author of the conversion; or if my gold or silver is manufactured into a vessel, or a ship, chest, or chair is constructed from my timber, or my wool is made into cloth, or my wine and honey are made into mead, or my drugs into a plaster or eye-salve, it becomes a question whether the property in the new product is vested in me or in the manufacturer. According to some, the material or substance is the criterion; that is to say, the owner tant qui fecerit; idque maxime diversae scholae auctoribus visum est: sed eum quoque cuius materia et substantia fuerit, furti adversus eum qui subripuerit habere actionem; nec minus adversus eundem condictionem ei competere, quia extinctae res, licet vindicari non possint, condici tamen furibus et quibusdam aliis possessoribus possunt. of the material is to be deemed the owner of the product; and this was the doctrine of Sabinus and Cassius; according to others, the ownership of the product is in the manufacturer, and this was the doctrine of the opposite school; who also held that the owner of the substance or material could maintain an action of theft against the purloiner, or an action for reconveyance, because, though the destruction of property is a bar to a vindication, it is no bar to a reparative personal action 4 §5) against the thief and certain (other possessors. § 65. Tradition or transfer of possession, as we have seen, was admitted in the civil law as a mode of transferring quiritary property in such non-mancipable things as were corporeal: in mancipable things it could only transfer bonitary property. In Justinian's time Tradition had superseded Surrender in court and Mancipation; and transfer of possession was the universal solemnity for transfer of dominion. If we consider Surrender, Mancipation, Tradition, we shall see that they are only three forms of one identical title, Alienation. The substance or essence of the title, the intention on the one side to transfer property, on the other to accept it, is the same in all three; it is only the adventitious or accidental or evidentiary (3 § 92) portion of the title in which they differ. Although delivery of possession, like the solemnities of mancipation and surrender, is, as compared with the will or intention of the parties, only an evidentiary and symbolic part of the title, yet both parcels, the external as well as the internal act, are indispensable in the transfer of dominion. Traditionibus et usucapionibus dominia rerum, non nudis pactis, transferuntur, Cod. 2, 3, 20. Tradition and usucapion, not naked convention, operate a transfer of dominion.' We have already noticed exceptions to this rule in the case of servitus, hypotheca, societas, 1 § 31. Again, Nunquam nuda traditio transfert dominium sed ita si venditio vel aliqua justa causa praecesserit propter quam traditio sequeretur, Dig. 41, 1, 31. Naked delivery does not transfer property, but must be based on contract of sale or some other sufficient inducement.' It is clear that mere |