VIS ET VIS ARMATA
VIS ET VIS ARMATA There was an interdict
uncle vi or
de vi which could be
maintained by a man who was forcibly ejected from the possession of a piece
of ground or building ( “unde tu ilium vi dejecisti restituas”
) against the person who had ejected him. The interdict had two forms,
according as to whether deadly weapons had been used in carrying out the
ejectment or not. The interdict in the latter case of simple violence is
called by Cicero
interdictum quotidianum; the
interdict in case of armed violence was known as
interdictum de vi armata. When the interdict was brought on
account of eviction by ordinary violence, the defendant could defend himself
by proving that he himself had been previously evicted by the plaintiff
vi, clam, or
precario [
POSSESSIO], but he was precluded from this defence if he had been
guilty of vis armata. By a constitution of the Emperor Valentinian (Cod. 8,
4, 7), however, it was provided that a person who had evicted another by
violence should in all cases restore possessio, and, if owner, should
forfeit his property; if not owner, should forfeit the value. Thus the plea
that the plaintiff had acquired possession
vi,
clam, or
precario from the defendant,
was excluded in the case of vis quotidiana as well as in that of vis armata.
(
Dig. 43,
16; Gaius,
4.154, ed. Poste; INTERDICTUM; POSSESSIO; for an
account of the praetorian action
de vi bonorum
raptorum, see
FURTUM）
[
E.A.W]
