The article discusses the theory based on the immisso pecore of D. 19.5.14.3 that the actio de pastu pecoris applies only to the malicious introduction of sheep or flocks onto another’s property. The fact that this is not malicious behaviour seems evident given that, while Ariston argues that if acorns fall from your tree onto my land and are eaten by my livestock, you can only bring an actio in factum against you, Pomponius states in D. 10.4.9.1 that if animals were introduced maliciously to feed on fruit that had fallen from a neighbouring tree (si dolo pecus immisi ut glandem comederet), an actio ad exhibendum could be brought. Furthermore, we disagree with the theory that the hypotheses of pastus pecoris (not only concerning sheep, but livestock in general) and noctu furtim frugem pavisse ac secuisse (Plin. nat. hist. 18.3.12) refer to a single provision, as the two testimonies appear different.
L’articolo intende discutere la teoria che, basandosi sull’immisso pecore di D. 19.5.14.3, ritiene l’actio de pastu pecoris esperibile solo nei casi di introduzione dolosa di pecore o greggi nel fondo altrui. Che non si tratti di un comportamento doloso sembra risultare dal fatto che, mentre per Aristone se delle ghiande cadono dal tuo albero sul mio terreno e vengono mangiate dal mio bestiame, potrai intentare contro di me solo un’actio in factum, in D. 10.4.9.1 per Pomponio, nel caso in cui gli animali siano stati immessi dolosamente perché si cibino dei frutti caduti dall’albero confinante (si dolo pecus immisi ut glandem comederet), sarebbe possibile esperire un’actio ad exhibendum. Non si concorda inoltre con la teoria secondo cui le ipotesi di pastus pecoris (non riguardanti solo le pecore, ma più in generale il bestiame) e di noctu furtim frugem pavisse ac secuisse (Plin. nat. hist. 18.3.12) si riferiscono a un’unica disposizione, in quanto le due testimonianze appaiono differenti.
L’actio de pastu pecoris e il pascolo abusivo. Actio de pastu pecoris y pastoreo abusivo. Actio de pastu pecoris and unauthorised grazing
Sanna, Maria Virginia
2025-01-01
Abstract
The article discusses the theory based on the immisso pecore of D. 19.5.14.3 that the actio de pastu pecoris applies only to the malicious introduction of sheep or flocks onto another’s property. The fact that this is not malicious behaviour seems evident given that, while Ariston argues that if acorns fall from your tree onto my land and are eaten by my livestock, you can only bring an actio in factum against you, Pomponius states in D. 10.4.9.1 that if animals were introduced maliciously to feed on fruit that had fallen from a neighbouring tree (si dolo pecus immisi ut glandem comederet), an actio ad exhibendum could be brought. Furthermore, we disagree with the theory that the hypotheses of pastus pecoris (not only concerning sheep, but livestock in general) and noctu furtim frugem pavisse ac secuisse (Plin. nat. hist. 18.3.12) refer to a single provision, as the two testimonies appear different.| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
1_Sanna_Monographic Animals in Roman Law.pdf
accesso aperto
Tipologia:
versione editoriale (VoR)
Dimensione
497.9 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
497.9 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.


