L'enigmatica actio de pastu pecoris: da Huvelin a noi

The article aims to question the mainstream theory that the ‘enigmatic’ actio de pastu pecoris would only be admissible in cases of fraudulent introduction of animals into other people’s funds, and solely in the case of sheep or flocks. See D. 19, 5, 14, 3 (immisso pecore), D. 10, 4, 9, 1 (si dolo pecus immisi), D. 9, 2, 39 pr. (quoniam si quid ex ea re damnum cepit, habet proprias actiones). It is also argued that the hypotheses of pastus pecoris and noctu furtim frugem pavisse ac secuisse cannot refer to a single provision.