[116]
He composes an edict;—such language that any one can
perceive that it was written for the sake of one individual. He all but names the
man; he details his whole cause; he disregards right, custom, equity, the edicts of
all his predecessors. “According to the edict of the city
praetor,—if any doubt arises about an inheritance, if the possessor does
not give security....” What is it to the praetor which is the possessor?
Is not this the point which ought to be inquired into, who ought to be the
possessor? Therefore, because he is in possession, you do not remove him from the
possession. If he were not in possession, you would not give him possession. For you
nowhere say so; nor do you embrace anything else in your edict except that cause for
which you had received money. What follows is ridiculous.
This text is part of:
Search the Perseus Catalog for:
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.