363/2 “Ab eo . . . in cujus locum hereditate vel emptione aliove quo iure successi.”  D. 43. 19. 3, Section 2.

363/3 D. 50. 4. 1, Section 4.  Cf.  Cic. de Off. 3. 19. 76; Gaii Inst.  IV.  Section 34.

363/4 C. 2. 3. 21; C. 6. 16. 2; cf.  D. 38. 8. 1, pr.

364/1 “In locum successisse accipimus sive per universitatem sive in rem sit successum.”  D. 43. 3. 1, Section 13.  Cf.  D. 21.3.3, Section 1; D. 12.2.7&8;D. 39. 2. 24, Section 1.

364/2 D. 41.2. 13, Sections 1, 11.  Other cases put by Ulpian may stand on a different fiction.  After the termination of a precarium, for instance, fingitur fundus nunquam fuisse possessus ab ipso detentore.  Gothofred, note 14 (Elz. ed.).  But cf.  Puchta, in Weiske, R. L., art.  Besitz, p. 50, and D. 41.2.13, Section7.

364/3 Inst. 2. 6, Sections 12, 13.  Cf.  D. 44. 3. 9.  See, for a fuller statement, 11 Am.  Law Rev. 644, 645.

365/1 Recht des Besitzes, Section11 (7th ed.), p. 184, n. 1, Eng. tr. 124, n. t.

365/2 Paulus, D. 8. 6. 18, Section 1.  This seems to be written of a rural servitude (aqua) which was lost by mere disuse, without adverse user by the servient owner.

365/3 Hermogenianus, D. 21. 3. 3; Exe. rei jud., D. 44. 2. 9, Section 2; ib. 28; ib. 11, Sections 3, 9; D. 10. 2. 25, Section 8; D. 46. 8. 16, Section I; Keller, Roem.  Civilproc., Section 73.  Cf.  Bracton, fol. 24 b, Section 1 ad fin.

365/4 “Recte a me via uti prohibetur et interdictum ei inutile est, quia a me videtur vi vel clam vel precario possidere, qui ab auctore meo vitiose possidet. nam et Pedius scribit, si vi aut clam aut precario ab co sit usus, in cuius locum hereditate vel emptione aliove quo lure suceessi, idem esse dicendum:  cum enim successerit quis in locum eorum, aequum non est nos noceri hoc, quod adversus eum non nocuit, in cuius locum successimus.”  D. 43. 19. 3, Section 2.  The variation actore, argued for by Savigny, is condemned by Mommsen, in his edition of the Digest, —­it seems rightly.

365/5 D. 12. 2. 7 & 8.

366/1 Ulpian, D. 39. 2. 24, Section1.  Cf.  D. 8. 5.7; D. 39. 2. 17, Section 3, n. 79 (Elzevir ed.); Paulus, D. 2. 14. 17, Section 5.

366/2 “Cum quis in alii locum successerit non est aequum ei nocere hoc, quod adversus eum non nocuit, in cujus locum successit.  Plerumque emptoris eadem causa esse debet circa petendum ac defendendum, quae fuit auctoris.”  Ulp.  D. 50. 17. 156, Sections 2, 3.  “Qui in ius dominiumve alterius succedit, iure ejus uti debet.”  Paulus, D. 50. 17. 177.  “Non debeo melioris condieionis esse, quam auctor meus, a quo ius in me transit.”  Paulus, D. 50. 17. 175, Section 1.  “Quod ipsis qui contraxerunt obstat, et successoribus eoturn obstabit.”  Ulp.  D. 50. 17. 143.  “Nemo plus iuris ad alium transferre potest, quam ipse haberet.”  Ulp.  D. 50. 17. 54; Bract., fol. 31 b.  Cf.  Decret.  Greg.  Lib.  II.  Tit.  XIII. c. 18, De rest. spoliat.:  “Cum spoliatori quasi succedat in vitium.”  Bruns, R. d.  Besitzes, p. 179.  Windscheid, Pand., Section 162 a, n. 10.