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

INTERDICTUM. INTERDICTA UM. 643
case, the opposite party was required to make one nec clam nec precario." There were some peculialso. Ill the case of Caecina (Cic. pro Caecin. 8) arities as to possessio of moveable things. (Gaius,
a sponsio had been made: Cicero says, addressing iv. 151.)
the recuperatores, " sponsio facta est: hac de spon- The Interdictum recuperandae possessionis might
sione vobis judicandum est." In fact, when the be claimed by him who had been forcibly ejected
matter came before a judex or arbiter, the form of (vi dejectus) from his possession of an immovable
proceedirg vl-as similar to the olidinary judicium. thing, and its effect was to compel the wrongThe chief division of Interdicts has been stated. doer to restore the possession, and to make good all
The various purposes to which they were appli- damage. The initial words of the Interdict were,
cable appear from the titles; as, Interdictum de Unde tu illum vi dejecisti; and the words of comAqua, de Arboribus caedendis, de Liberis exhi- mand were, Eo restituas. (Cic. pro Caecin. 30,
bendis, de Rivis, de Superficiebus, &c. pro Tull. 4, 29, 44; Gaius, iv. 154; Dig. 43.
Another division of Interdicts was into those for tit. 16. s. 1.) There were two cases of Vis: one of
the purpose of acquiring Possession, retaining pos- Vis simply, to which the ordinary Interdict applied,
session, or recovering possession. (Gaius, iv. 144.) which Cicero calls Quotidianum; the other of Vis
The Interdictum adipiscelldae possessionis was Armata, which had been obtained by Caecina
given to him to whom the Bonorum possessio against Aebutius. The plaintiff had to prove that
[BONooaRvU PossEssIO] was given,andit is referred he was in possession of the premises, and had been
to by the initial words Quormn bonorum. (Dig. ejected by the defendant or his agents (fionzilia or
43. tit. 2. s. 1.) Its operation was to compel a procurator, Cic. pso Tull. 29.) If the matter camne
person, who had possession of the property of before a judex the defendant might allege that he
which the Bonorum possessio was granted to an- had complied with the Interdict, " restituisse,"
other, to give it up to sulch person, whether the though he had not done so in fact; but this was
person in possession of such property possessed it the form of the sponsio, and the defendant would
pro herede or pro possessore. The Bonorum Emtor succeed before the judex if he could show that he
[BONORUM EMTIO] was also entitled to this In- was not bound to restore the plaintiff to his posterdict, which was sometimes called Possessorimm. session. (Pro Caecin. 8, 32.)
It was also granted to him who bought goods at The defendant might put in an answer (erceptio)
public auction, and in such case was called Secto- to the plaintiff's claim for restitution: he might
ritn, the name " Sectores" being applied to per- show that the plaintiff's possession commenced
sons who bought property in such manner. (Cic. either vi, clam, or precario with respect to the
pro Rose. lAm. 36.) defendant (pro Caecin. 32, pro Tuzll. 44); but
The Interdictumn Salvianum was granted to the this exceptio was not allowed in the case of vis
owner of land, and enabled him to take possession armata. (Pro Caecis. 8, 32.) The defendant
of the goods of the colonus, who had agreed that might also plead that ayear had elapsed since the
his goods should be a security for his rent. (Dig. violence complained of, and this was generally a
43. tit. 3.) good plea; for the Interdict contained the words
This Interdict was not strictly a Possessorial "in hoc anno." But if the defendant was still in
Interdict, as Savigny has shown (Das Recht des possession after the year, he could not make this
Besitzes, p. 410; Puchta, Izstitutionen, &c. ii. plea; nor could he avail himself of it in a case of
~ 225.) It did not, like the two other Interdicts, Vis Armata. (Cic. ad Fctaz. xv. 16.)
presuppose a lawful possession, that is, a Jots pos- A clandestina possessio is a possessio in which
sessionis acquired by the fact of a rightful posses-'the possessor takes a thing (which must of course
sion; the complainant neither alleged an actual be a movable thing) secretly (futrtive) and without
possession nor a former possession. the knowledge of the person whose adverse claim
The Interdictum retinendae possessionis could to the possession he fears. Such a possessio, when
only be granted to a person who had a rightful'it was a disturbance of a rightful possessio, gave
possessio, and he was intitled to it in respect of the rightful possessor a title to have the Interdict
damages sustained by being disturbed in his pos- de clandestina possessions for the reeovery of his
session, in respect of anticipated disturbance in his possession. All traces of this interdict are nearly
possession, and in the case of a dispute as to owner- lost; but its existence seems probable, and it must
ship in which the matter of possession was first to have had some resemblance to the Interdictum de
be inquired into. Its effect in the last case would vi. The exceptio clandestinae possessionis was
be, as Gaius states, to determine which of two quite a different thislg, inasmuch as a clandestilla
litigant parties should possess, and be the defend- possessio did. lot necessarily suppose the lawful
ant, and which should be tile claimant, and htave possession of another party.
the burden of proof. There were two Interdicts The Interdictum de Precaria possessione or de
of this class named respectively Uti Possidetis and Precario applied to a case of Precarium. It is PreUtrubi, from the initial words of the Edict. The carinum wthens a mal permits another to exercise
Interdictum Uti Possidetis applied to land or ownership over his property, but retains the right
houses, and the other to moveabhies. The LTti of demanding the property backl when he pleases.
Possidetis protected the person who at the time of It is called Precarium because the person who
obtaining the Interdict was in actual possession, received ssuch permission usually obtained it by
provided he had not obtained the possession against request (prece) tho'glh request was not lsecesthe other party (adversaorius) vi, clam, or precario sary to constitute Precaritlo, for it might arise
which were the three vitia possessionis. (Festus, by tacit permission. (Paulus, S. R. v. tit. 6. s.
s. v. Possessio; Gains, iv. 160.) In the case of the I 1.) The person who received the detention of
Interdictum Utrubi, the possession of the movable the thing, obtained at the same time a legal posses
thing was by the Interdict declared to belong to sion, unless provision to the contrary was nade byhim who had possessed the thing against the other agreement. In either case the permission coltil at
pparty during the greater part of that year, " nec vi asy tilne be recalled, and the possessio, wbhich in
T -r