The research aims to verify whether the hypothesis, even recently advanced, that Labeo doesn’t recognize the patientiam praestare, can be accepted. Doubts are corroborated by the presence of some of his decisions regarding interdictum quod aut clam that seem to exclude it, unlike other classical jurists. The analysis of the sources, however, does not allow to accept this negative opinion: there is not only an explicit testimony to this recognition in the field of actio aquae pluviae arcendae, but there are two more texts that would confirm it; in addition, the decisions of Labeo regarding interdictum quod aut clam will not allow to assume that he had a different opinion than other jurists: we can assume it by the cases examined by Labeo, coordinated with those relating to the actio aquae pluviae arcendae.[...]
Osservazioni sul "patientiam praestare" in Labeone
PARENTI, Lucio
2012-01-01
Abstract
The research aims to verify whether the hypothesis, even recently advanced, that Labeo doesn’t recognize the patientiam praestare, can be accepted. Doubts are corroborated by the presence of some of his decisions regarding interdictum quod aut clam that seem to exclude it, unlike other classical jurists. The analysis of the sources, however, does not allow to accept this negative opinion: there is not only an explicit testimony to this recognition in the field of actio aquae pluviae arcendae, but there are two more texts that would confirm it; in addition, the decisions of Labeo regarding interdictum quod aut clam will not allow to assume that he had a different opinion than other jurists: we can assume it by the cases examined by Labeo, coordinated with those relating to the actio aquae pluviae arcendae.[...]I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
