This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1848 edition. Excerpt: ... He thought it probably unreasonable that a mere prcedo should have the same possessio (naturalis) as a vassal or other party with good title, and therefore he assumed a third true Possession also (different from mere detention), and exclusive of possessio chilis and naturalis, which he termed corporalis, and ascribed to the prcedo only. He then referred possessio civi/is to ownership, on the justa adquisitionis causa of which Possession is founded, possessio naturalis in the same manner to jura in re, and distinguished from both the possessio corporalis, i. e., the Possession to which all title is wanting. But as he makes this division depend on the existence and quality of a right, which lies at the bottom of all Possession, the appropriate point of view for Possession itself is further removed in this than in every other doctrine. Cujas, who, in his earlier writings, laid down the more correct view of Bassian, in clearer terms, perhaps, than any other writer, subsequently adopted the exposition of Bartolus, but with an addition, which magnified the original error in it beyond all bounds (o). He held, namely, what Bartolus had never asserted, that possessio corporalis is not recognized in Roman Law as a juridical relation, as the foundation of rights. But, from the elaborate exposition of est, qua jure vel animo domirti his views, but also from the mode possidetur Naturalis tanin which he calls attention to tum ea est, quae alio jure apprethem. "Adverte ergo ad me. hensa est, quamdominii, vcluti jure Mihi videtur, quod antiqui et pignoris, vel jure ususfructus. moderui DD. multum deviarunt Eam quae mdlojure impudenter a a mente juris in hac materia." pnedone nullum jus, nullum titulum (o) Cujacii Observatio, L. 27, adfingente et...