... Theses hasce miscellaneas ex iure decerptas

XV.

The emphyteuta who has lost his emphyteusis through his own fault forfeits it by operation of law even before a declaratory sentence; however, as regards execution—that is, so that the emphyteuta may be deprived of his right—he forfeits it only then, if the Dominus has declared his will. And hence, the emphyteuta who has ceased to pay the canon is compelled to restore the fruits, not from the day of delay, but from the day of the Dominus’s declaration, because he retains his right before the declaration of the Dominus.

XVI.

Hence, it might be asked whether the Dominus can occupy the emphyteutical property by his own authority and expel a person who resists by his own authority. The negative view, which certain ones hold, is the truer one and more consistent with the law; Julius Clarus says that the affirmative is more accepted in practice.

XVII.

Whether children of brothers, if they are the only ones, succeed to their paternal uncle per capita and not per stirpes, even if they are of a different number, is asked. Although there are very many who maintain that the succession ought to take place per stirpes, and that this same thing is not lacking in reason, yet the contrary opinion is that which the most August Emperor Charles V was pleased to advocate at the Diet of Speyer in the year [15]29, with all customs to the contrary being abolished.

XIIX.

Let this be the end: That an investiture made regarding a thing belonging to another in any way, if done purely, is invalid to the effect that the thing becomes feudal, and that a fief be established for him who has been invested with it; it is valid if done under a condition, for instance, if