Scanned text contains errors.

On this page: Interpres – Interrex

644

INTERDICTUM.

its origin was justa, became injusta, vitiosa, as soon as restitution was refused. Restitution could Toe claimed by the Interdictum de Precario, pre­cisely as in the case of Vis ; and the sole founda­tion of the right to this Interdict was a vitiosa possessio, as just explained. The Precarium was never viewed as a matter of contract. The Inter-dictum de precario originally applied to land only, but it was subsequently extended to movable things. The obligation imposed by the Edict was to restore the thing, but not its value, in case it was lost, unless dolus or lata culpa could be proved against the defendant. But from the time that the demand is made against, the defendant, he is in mora, and, as in the case of the other Interdicts, he is answerable for all culpa, and for the fruits or profits of the thing ; and generally, he is bound to place the plaintiff in the condition in which he would have been, if there had been no refusal. No exceptions were allowed in the case of a Pre­carium.

The origin of the Precarium is referred by Savigny to the relation which subsisted between a patronus and his cliens, to whom the patronus gave the use of a portion of the ager publicus. If the cliens refused to restore the land upon demand, the patronus was entitled to the Interdictum de pre­cario. As the relation between the patronus and the cliens was analogous to that between a parent and his child, it followed that there was no contract between them, and the patron's right to demand the land back was a necessary consequence of the relation between him and his cliens. (Festus, s. v. Patres.} The precarium did not fall into disuse when the old ager publicus ceased to exist, and in this respect it followed the doctrine of possessio generally. [agrariae legep.] It was in fact extended and applied to other things, and, among them, to the case of pledge. [PiGNUS.]

Gaius (iv. 156) makes a third division of In-terdicta into Simplicia and Duplicia, Siniplicia are those in which one person is the plaintiff (actor)., and the other is the defendant (reus]: all Restitutoria and Exhibitoria Interdicta are of this kind. Prohibitoria Interdicta are either Simplicia or Duplicia: they are Simplicia in such cases as those, when the praetor forbids any thing to be done in a locus sacer, in a flumen publicum, or on a ripa. They are Duplicia as in the case of the Interdictum uti Possidetis and Utrubi ; and they are so called, says Gaius, because each of the liti­gant parties may be indifferently considered as actor or reus, as appears from the terms of the Interdict. (Gains, iv. 160.)

Interdicta seem to have been also called Duplicia in respect of their being applicable both to the ac­quisition of a possession which had not been had before, and also to the recovery of a possession. An Interdict of this class was granted in the case of a vindicatio, or action as to a piece of land against a possessor who did not de'end his pos­session, as, for instance, when he did not submit to a judicium and give the proper sponsiones or satisdationes, A similar interdict was granted in the case of a vindicatio of an hereditas and a ususfructus. Proper security was always required from the person in possession, in the case of an in rem actio, in order to secure the plaintiff against any loss or injury that the property might sustain while it was in the possession of the defendant. If the defendant refused to give such security he

INTERREX.

lost the possessio, which was transferred to the plaintiff (petitor}. (Rudorff, Ueber das Interdict Quern Fundum.) &c., Zeitsclirift^ vol. ix.)

" By all these Interdicts Possession is protected, and possession in itself, in its immediate form as power, in fact, over a thing. Possession thus ob­tains a legal existence, which is simply connected with that fact. This pure reception of possession among Rights is not perplexed by the consideration of the rightful or wrongful origin of the possession, which origin has no effect with respect to the pro­tection given to possession. The Injusta Possessio, that is, the possession which has been acquired vi, or clam or precario, is certainly not protected against the person from whom it has been acquired by the possessor by any one of these three vitia possessionis ; but apart from this ease, the Injusta Possessio gives the same claim to protection as the Justa. (Dig. 43. tit. 17. s. 2.) The Interdicts arise out of Possessio, and indifferently whether it is Justa or Injusta ; only, if two possessors claim against one another, a former and a present pos­sessor, of whom the one has obtained possession from the other vitiose, the former is not protected against the latter. (Dig. 43. tit. 17. s. 1. § 9.)" Puchta, Institutionen, &c., ii. § 225.

(For other matters relating to the Interdict see Gaius, iv. 138—170 ; Paulus, S. R. v. tit. 6; Dig. 43 ; Savigny, Das Recht des Besitzes, pp. 403— 516; Savigny and Haubold, Zeitsckrift, vol. iii. pp. 305, 358, 421 ; Keller, Ueber die Deductio quae moribus fit and Das Interdictum Uti possidetis* Zeitsclirift, vol. xi. ; Rudorff, Bemerkungen uber dasselbe Interdict, Zeitsclirift, vol. xi.; Puchta, In- stitutionen^ &c., ii. §§ 109, 225.) [G. L.]

INTERPRES, an interpreter. This class of persons became very numerous and necessary to the Romans as their empire extended. Embassies from foreign nations to Rome, and from Rome to other states, were generally accompanied by inter­preters to explain the objects of the embassy to the respective authorities. (Cic. de Divinat. ii. 64, de Finib. v. 29 ; Plin. //. N. xxv. 2 ; Gell. xvii. 17. 2 ; Liv. xxvii. 43.) In large mercantile towns the interpreters, who formed a kind of agents through whom business was done, were sometimes very numerous, and Pliny (H. N. vi. 5) st?ttes that at Dioscurias in Colchis, there were at one time no less than 130 persons who acted as interpreters to the Roman merchants, and through \vhom all the business was carried on.

All Roman praetors, proconsuls, and quaestors, who were entrusted with the administration of a province, had to carry on all their official proceed­ ings in the Latin language (Val. Max. ii. 2. § 2), and as they could not be expected to be acquainted with the language of the provincials, they had always among their servants [apparitobes] 0113 or more interpreters, who were generally Romans, but in most cases undoubtedly freedmen. (Cic. pro Balb. IL) These interpreters had not only to officiate at the conventus [conventus], but also explained to the Roman governor everything which the provincials might wish to be laid before him. (Cic. c. Verr. iii. 37, ad Fain. xiii. 44 ; Caes. BelL Gall.i. 19 ; compare Dirksen, Civil. Abhandl. i. p. 16, &c.) [L.S.]

INTERREX, INTERREGNUM (called by the Greek writers jueo-ogao^Aeus, jjieffogacriXeios apx'h, !&€(ro§a<n\da). The office of Interreos is said to have been instituted on the death of Romulus,