Dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

VINDICATIO. VINDICATIO. 1199
upwards; and in cases of smaller value it was fifty This Sponsio Praejudicialis was merely a tech.
asses. This was a provision of the XII. Tables; nical mode of converting an actio in rem into an
but if a man's freedom (libertas) was in issue, the actio in personam, and we must suppose that there
poena was only fifty asses. was some goodreason for the practice. It might
If the property claimed was a piece of land, the be conjectured that it was introduced in order to
claimants appeared In jure and challenged each obviate the trouble and difficulties attendant on the
other to go on the land in the presence of witnesses old process of the Vindicatio.
(superstites, Festus, s. v.; Cic. pro Mlurena, 12), From the expression of Gaius, it appears that
where each made his claim. In the time of the there was also a Sponsio Poenalis, that is both the
Twelve Tables says Gellius (xx. 10) the Magis- defendant made a sponsio and the plaintiff made a
tratus who presided in the court accompanied the restipulatio. Thus in the case of "certa pecunia
parties to the land in order to perfect the process credita," the defendant's sponsio was made at the
in jure; but this mode of procedure, which might risk of losing the sum, if he could not sustain his
do in very early times and within a small territory, denial of the plaintiff's claim; and the plaintiff's
must have become inconvenient. Accordingly it restipulatio was made at the like risk if lie could
became the practice for one of the claimants to go not support his claim. The poena of the Sponsio
through the form of ejecting the other from the and restipulatio belonged to the successful party.
land, which was called the Vis Civilis. (Com- (Gaius, iv. 13;) There was also a Poenalis sponsio
pare Gellius, xx. 10; Cic. pro Caecina, 1, 7, 32, in the case of Interdicts (Gaius, iv. 141, 165, &c.),
pro 7Xllio, 20.) In course of time it became and Pecunia, Constituta. In the case of Certa
the practice to bring into court a clod of earth, or Pecunia the sponsio was to the amount of one-third
a bit of a column, as a sign of the thing; and of the sum demanded, which was called legitima
even in the case of moveable objects, a part was pars. (Cic. pro Rose. Corn. 4, 5.) In the case of
often brought into court to represent the whole; Constituta Pecunia the sponsio was to the amount
and the Vindicatio was made as if the whole thing of one-half. (Gaius, iv. 171.) These stipulationes
was there. It seems that the process might also were fixed by law; in other cases they were fixed
be begun by the parties performing the ceremony by the Edict.
of the Deductio on the ground before they came In These sponsiones were introduced probably partly
jus, where however they performed the fiction of with a view to check litigation. and partly with a
going to the premises and returning. The change view to give compensation to the party who ultiin the form of procedure, which change was accom- mately obtained a verdict; for otherwise there do
plished "contra Duodecinm Tabulas, tacito consensu," not appear in the Roman law to be any direct proled to the phrase'"ex jure manum conserere" (Gell. visions as to the costs of suits. Thus Gaius (iv.
xx. 10), which is explained thus: one party 174) enumerates four modes in which the Actoris
called the other out of court (ex jure) "ad con- calumnia is checked; the Calumniae judicium,
serendam manum in rem de qua agebatur:" the Contrarium judicium, Jusjurandum, and the Restiparties, he says, then went together to the land in pulatio. The Restipulatio, he says, "is allowed
dispute, and brought a clod of earth from it, "in in certain cases; and as in the Contrarium judicium
jus in urbem ad Praetoremr;" and the clod of earth the plaintiff has in all cases judgment against him,
was viewed as the whole " ager." if he cannot sustain his case, and it matters not
When the Legis Actiones fell into disuse, the whether or not he knows that his claim was not
process of the Vindicatio was altered and became good, so in all cases the plaintiff (that is if he canthat of the Sponsio. The term Sponsio is best ex- not sustain his case) is condemned in the penalty
plained by giving the substance of a passage in of the restipulatio."
Gaius (iv. 91, &c.). In the case of an actio in rem, As to the form of the Sponsio the passage of
a sean might proceed either Per formulam petito- Gaius already referred to is an example; and there
riam, in which the Intentio of the plaintiff was, is another in the oration of Cicero, pro P. Qu6inthat a certain thing was his property; or he might tio (8. 27). The use of the word Si or Ni in the
proceed Per sponsionem which did not contain Sponsio would depend on the fact which was afsuch an Intentio. The defendant was challenged firmed or rather on the mode of affirmation and
to a Sponsio in such terms as these " Si homo the party affirming. Cicero (pro Caecin. 23) alquo de agitur ex jure Quiritium meus est sestertios ludes to the use of these words (sire, nive) Bris..s
xxv. Nummos dare spondes?" The Intentio in sonius (de Formeulis, &c. v. 7. p. 348) has collected
the formula was that if the slave belonged to the instances of them.
plaintiff, the sum of money contained in the Spon- The other mode of procedure in the case of Vinsio ought to be paid to the plaintiff (sponsionis dicatio, that was in use after the Legis Actiones
sotunl'aza actoni dari debere). The Sponsio evi- fell into disuse was, Per Formulam Petitoriam, in
dently took its name from the verb Spondeo. If which the plaintiff (actor) claimed the thing as his
the plaintiff proved the slave to be his property, he property (intendit rein seanm esse). In this form of
was intitled to a judgment. Yet the sum of mo- proceeding there was the Stipulatio called Judicaney was not paid, though it Wvas the object of the tumrn solvi, by which the defendant engaged to obey
Intentio, for5 says Gaius, "it is not poenalis, but the decree of the Judex. (Gaius, iv. 91.) This
praejudicialis, and the sponsio is introduced merely formula was adapted also to the cases of Praetorian
as a means of trying the right to the property, and ownership and the Actio Publiciana. (Gaius, iv,
this explains why the defendant has no restipula. 34, 36.) In cases which were brought before the
tioe. The sponsio was said to be "pro praede Centumviri, it was the practices at least in the
litis et vindiciarum,?' because it took the place of Imperial period, to come first before the Praetor
the praedinum, which when the Legis actiones were Urbanus or Peregrinus in order that the matter
in use, was given"pro lite et vindiciis," that is, might be put in the old form of the Sacramentum.
"pro re et fractibus" by the possessor to the plain- (Gaius, iv. 31, 95; Gell. xx. 10.)
tiff. [PIAEJUDCIUM, PARS.] An hereditas was sued for like any other thing