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

.422 DOMINI UM. DOMIN U M.
(Ulp. Frag. xix.) are praedia in Italico solo, both and so becomes the owner of all the adrogated perrustic and urban; also jura rusticorum praediorum son's property (Gaius, iii. 21); or it is successio
or servitutes, as via, iter, aquaeductus; also slaves, mortis causa, as in the case of a testamentary heres,
and four-footed animals, as oxen, horses, &c., quae or a heres ab intestato.
collo dorsove domantur. Other things were nec Acquisitiones per universitatem are properly dismancipi. cussed under other heads [AnoPTIo; HERES;
All the things have been enumerated which are SUccEssIo; UNIVERSITAS]. The following rethe object of dominium, and some which are not. marks apply to acquisitiones rerum singularum.
Every dominus has a right to the possession of the Acquisiti nes were either civiles (ex jure civili);
thing of which he is domi-(us; but possession or naturales (exjure gentiuen), that is, there was no
alone, which is a bare fact without any legal formality prescribed for the mode of acquisition:
character, neither makes a man dominus, nor does in both cases dominium could be acquired. The
the want of possession deprive him of dominium. civiles acquisitiones of single things were by manciPossession has the same relation to a legal right to patio, in jure cessio, and usucapio: those naturali
a thing, as the physical power to operate upon it jure were by traditio or delivery. In the case of
has to the legal power; and accordinglythe doctrine res mancipi, the only modes of acquiring dominium
of possession precedes that of ownership. Things were mancipatio, in jure cessio, and usucapio; but
cannot be the objects of possessio civilis which usucapio applied also to things nec mancipi. The
cannot be the objects of dominium. alienation of things nec mancipi was the peculiar
Certain things are not properly objects of owner- effect of traditio or delivery (Ulp. Fk ag. xix. 8),
ship (dontinium), though a claim to them is pro- and if there was a justa causa, that is, some legal
secuted by an actio in rem: they are servitutes, ground or motive for the delivery, dominliurm was
emphyteusis, superficies, and pignus and hypotheca. thus acquired; traditio, in the case of a thing manDominium properly signifies the right of dealing cipi, merely made it ie bonis, and the dominium or
with a corporeal thing as a person (domainns) ownership continued unchanged. The notion that
pleases; this, of course, implies the right to ex- in the case of res nec mancipi, bare tradition with
clude all others from meddling with it. The do. a justa causa did not confer quiritarian ownership
minus has the right to possess, and is distinguished or dominium, is erroneous; for when the Roman
in that respect from the bare possessor, who has law did not require peculiar forms, the transfer of
only the right of possession. He who has the ownership was effected in what may be called the
ususfructus of a thing, is never considered as owner; natural way, that is, the simplest and most easy
and preprietas is the name for that which remains way in which the parties to the act could show
after the ususfructus is deducted from the owner- their meaning and carry it into effect.
ship. Ownership may be either absolute, that is, A man who was dominus of a thing, whether
as complete as the law allows any ownership to be, acquired jure civili or naturali, prosecuted his right
or it may be limited. The distinction between to it in the same way, by the rei vindicatio. He
bare ownership and ownership united with the could not of course prosecute such a right unless
beneficial interest, is explained in another place. he was out of possession; and, in order to succeed,
[BoNA.] A person who has no ownership of a he must prove his ownership. If he had a thing
thing, may have rights in or to a thing which, in bonis, and was in possession, he could acquire
as far as they extend, limit the owner's power over the ownership by usucapion: if he was out of poshis property, as hereafter explained. Ownership, session, it seems not an improbable conjecture of
being in its nature single, can only be conceived Unterholzner (Rhlein. MIus. fiir Jurisjprud. Erster
as belonging to one person; consequently there Jalirgang, p. 129), that he was aided in his action
cannot be several owners of one thing, but several after the time when the legis actiones fell into dispersons may own undivided shares or parts of a use and the formula was introduced (for as to a
thing. previous time it is difficult to form any conjecture)
As a man's right to deal with a thing and to by the fiction of his having received the property
exclude others from the use or enjoyment of it, by mancipatio. There are examples of a similar
may be limited, this may arise either from his being fiction in the case of the bonorum possessor and
bound to allow to another person a certain use or the bonorum emtor. (Gaius, iv. 34, 35.) A man
enjoyment of the thing of which he is dominus, or could only dispose of a legacy by his will per vinfrom his being bound to abstain from doing certain dicationem (Ulp. Frag. xxiv. 7) when he had the
acts on or to his property, and for the benefit of dominium of it: if he had not the dominium, he
some other person. could only give per damnationem or sinendi modo.
This limitation of a man's enjoyment of his own A slave who was the property of his master (donliis explained under SERVITUvES. nUts) might attain the Roman civitas by the act of
In order to acquire ownership, a person must manumission: if he was only in bonis of the person
have a legal capacity to acquire: and ownership who manumitted him, he became a Latinus by the
many be acquired by such a person, or by another act of manumission. The difference between qsiirifor him. There must also be a thing which can tarian ownership and in bonis was destroyed by
be the object of such ownership, and there must the legislation of Justinian, who declared in boais
be a legal mode of acquisition (acquisitio civilis). to be complete ownership.
Ownership may be acquired in single things (ac- Some modern writers enumerate in addition to
Tqisitio rerumn singzlarumz), or it may be acquired the civiles acquisitiones here enumerated, addictio,
in a number of things of different kinds at once emtio sub corona, sectio bonorum, adjudicatio; and
(acquisitio per universitatems),in which case a person lex (Ulp. Frag. tit. xix. ~ 2), by which last they
acquires them not as individual things, but he ac- understand those circumstances under which some
quires the parts by virtue of acquiring the whole. special enactment gives property to a person; and
The latter kind of acquisition is either successio inter caducum [CADUCUAI] is mentioned as an instance.
vivos, as in the case where a man adrogates another, A bonae fidei possessio was not ownership (do