... Pro consequendis in u.i. doctoralibus insigniis & privilegiis ... subsequentes LXXXVI. theses de interdictis cum octo parergis

ment, I do not think it is the purpose of our discussion to explain them one by one.

XLIII.
The interdicts for Retaining possession were introduced chiefly for this reason: so that when each party claims to possess, it might be established who should be considered the stronger in possession, and thus a petitory judgment a lawsuit determining the right of ownership rather than mere possession might be brought.

XLIIII.
Therefore, we posit two kinds of interdicts for Retaining possession: the first is named UTI POSSIDETIS As you possess, and the other bears the name UTROBI In which of the two.

XLV.
The UTI POSSIDETIS interdict also takes its name from the first words of the interdict. For the Praetor says: AS TO THESE BUILDINGS, ABOUT WHICH THE MATTER IS, NEITHER BY FORCE, NOR BY STEALTH, NOR BY PERMISSION OF ONE FROM THE OTHER YOU POSSESS, I FORBID FORCE TO BE USED TO PREVENT YOU FROM POSSESSING AS SUCH. I WILL NOT GIVE THIS INTERDICT CONCERNING SEWERS, NOR WILL I PERMIT AN ACTION TO BE BROUGHT FOR MORE THAN WHAT THAT THING IS WORTH WITHIN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE FIRST POWER TO LITIGATE EXISTED.

XLVI.
This interdict is said to be twofold, Direct and Useful. The Direct one is accommodated to the person who possesses immovable things at the time the lawsuit is contested, provided he does not possess them from the adversary by force, by stealth, or by permission.

XLVII.
And we say this is true whether one possesses civilly, or only naturally, or civilly and naturally at the same time; nor does it matter whether he possesses justly or unjustly, unless he possesses unjustly from the adversary. For in this case, we deny that the interdict is competent.

XLIIX.
From this it follows that this interdict is not competent for mere detainees,