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

206 B3ONA. I3ONA CADUCA.
in the same person. And as a man might have the jus gentium (in the Roman sense of that term).
both the Quiritarian ownership and the right to the (Gaius, ii. 26, 41, 20; Ulp. Frag. i. 16.)
enjoyment of a thing, so one might have the Quiri- (Zimmern, Ueber das %Weserz dessogenannten bonitarian ownership only, and another might have the tar ischen Eiyentlhums, Rzseinisch. M2zs.fiir Jurisps;
enjoyment of it only. This bare ownership was iii. 3.) [G. L.]
sometimes expressed by the same terms (ex juse BONA CADU'CA. Caducumn literally signifies
Quiritiumn) as that ownership which was complete, that which falls: thus, glans caduca, according to
~but sometimes it was appropriately called nudum Gaius (Dig. 50. tit. 16. s. 30), is tne mast which
jas Quir-itiunz (Gaius, iii. 100), and yet the person falls from a tree. Caducum, in its general sense,
who had such bare right was still called dominus, might be any thing without an owner, or what the
and by this term he is contrasted with the use- person entitled to neglected to take (Cic. De 0s.
frzctearius and the bonae fidei possessor. iii. 31, Phil. x. 5); but the strict legal sense of caThe historical origin of this notion, of the sepa- ducum and bona caduca, is that stated by Ulpian
ration of the ownership from the right to enjoy a (Frag. xvii. De Cadsucis), which is as follows:thing, is not known; but it may be easily conjec- If a thing is left by testament to a person, so
tured. When nothing was wanting to the transfer that he can take it by the jus civile, but from some
of ownership but a compliance with the strict cause has not taken it, that thing is called cadzzlegal form, we can easily conceive that the Roman czm, as if it hadfillen from him; for instance, if
jurists would soon get over this difficulty. The a legacy was left to an unmarried person, or a
strictness of the old legal institutions of Rome Latinus Junianus; and the usnarried person did
was gradually relaxed to meet the wants of the not within a hundred days obey the law, or if
people, and in the instance already mentioned, the within the same time the Latinus did not obtain
jurisdiction of the praetor supplied the defects of the Jus Quiritium, or had become a peregrinus
the law. Thus, that interest which a man had (see Cujacius, ad Ulpiani Titulos XXIX. vol. i. ed.
acquired in a thing, and which only wanted certain Neapol. 1758), the legacy was caducum. Or if a
forms to make it Quiritarian ownership, was pro- Pleres ex parle, or a legatee, died before the opening
tected by the praetor. The praetor could not give of the will, the thing was cadluczm. The thing
Quiritarian ownership, but he could protect a man which failed to come to a person in consequence
in the enjoyment of a thing — he could maintain of something happening in the life of the testator
his possession: and this is precisely what the was said to be in cause caduci; that which failed,praetor did with respect to those who were pos- of taking effect between the death of the testator
sessors of public land; they had no ownership, but and the opening of the will, was simply called
only a possession, in which they were protected caducun. (Comp. Dig. 28. tit. 5. s. 62, and Dig.
by the praetor's interdict. [ARaAaRIAE LEG-ES, 31. s. 51; Code Civil, Art. 1039, &c.)
-p. 38.] The law above alluded to is the Lex Julia et
That which was in bonis, then, was that kind of Papia Poppaea, which is sometimes simply called
interest or ownership which was protected by the Julia, or Papia Poppaea. This law, which was
praetor, which interest may be called bonitarian or passed in the time of Augustus (A. D. 9), had the
beneficial ownership, as opposed to Quiritarian or double object of encouraging marriages and enrichbare legal ownership. It does not aprear that the ing the treasury-aerariens (Tacit. Ann. iii. 25),
word dominium is ever applied to such bonitarian and contained, with reference to these two objects,
ownership except it may be in one passage of a great number of provisions. Martial (v. Ep. 75)
Gaius (i. 54), the explanation of which is not free alludes to a person who married in order to comply
from difficulty. with the law.
That interest called in bonis, which arose from That which was caducum came, in the first
a bare tradition of a res mancipi, was protected by place, to those among the heredes who had chilthe exceptio, and the actio utilis in rem. (Dig. 41. dren; and if the heredes had no children, it came
tit. 1. s. 52.) Possessio is the general name of the among those of the legatees who had children. The
interest which was thus protected. The person law gave the jus accrescendi, that is, the right to
who had a thing in bonis and ex justa causa was the caducum as far as the third degree of ccnalso entitled to the actio Publiciana, in case he sanguinity, both ascending and descending (Ulp.
lost the possession of the thing before he had Frag. 18), to those who were made heredes by the
gained the ownership by usucapion. (Gaius, iv. will. Under the provisions of the law, the cadtc36.) cumn, in case there was no prior claimant, bet anged
The phrases bonorum possession bonorum posses- to the aerarium; or, as Ulpian (xxviii. 7) expresses
sor, might then apply to him who has had a res it, if no one was entitled to the bonorum possessio,
mancipi transferred to him by tradition only; but or if a person was entitled, but did not assert his
the phrase applies also to other cases in which the right, the bona became public property (populo
praetor by the help of fictions gave to persons the deferuntar), according to the Lex Julia caducaria;
beneficial interest to whom he could not give the but by a constitution of the Emperor Antoninus
ownership. When the praetor gave the goods of Caracalla it was appropriated to the fiscus: the jus
the debtor to the creditor, the creditor was said accrescendi above mentioned was, however, still
in possessionsem rerezn, or bonorstsm debitoris nitti. retained. The lawyers, however (tiri pu'Cdemntis(Dig. 42. tit. 5. s. 14, &c.) [BoNoaRtM EMaTIO; sini), by various devices, such as substitutions,
O30NORUM PossEssmo.] often succeeded in making the law of no effect.
As to things nec manlipi, the ownership might A case is mentioned in the Digest (28. tit. 4. s. 3),
be transferred by bare tradition or delivery, and in which bona caduca were claimed by the fiscus
such ownership was Quiritarian, inasmuch as the in the time of Marcus Antoninus, and another in
RIoman law required no special form to be ob- which the fiscus is mentioned even under Hadrian,
served in the transfer of the ownership of res nec where one would expect to find the term aerarium
mancipi. Such transfer was made according to used. (Savigny, Ssteem, &c. ii. 273, note qq.)