USUCAPIO. Gains (ii. 40-42) states that if a Res Mancipi was transferred by bare tradition, without the forms of Mancipatio or in Jure Cesaio, the original owner retained the Quiritarian ownership, and the person to whom the thing was transferred had only the right to the enjoyment of the thing until by possession he had acquired the ownership (poasidendo usucapiat). For the effect of such enjoyment was to give him the same rights with respect to the thing as if it had been transferred in due legal form. In the case of moveables the Twelve Tables fixed one year as the term of Usucapio ; in the case of land and houses, two years. The acquisition of the Quiritarisu ownership of a thing by enjoyment of it under the circumstances above stated for these several periods was called Usucapio.
Gains states that there might also be Uaucapio in the case both of things Mancipi and things Nec Mancipi which had been transferred by bare tradition from a person who was not the owner, provided the transferee received them in good faith (bona fide), or, :n other words, believed that he received them from the owner. It seems probable that this rule of law was established by analogy to the rule of the Twelve Tables as to Res Mancipi which had been transferred by defective modes of conveyance. But the Twelve Tables may have fixed only the time of Usucapio : the origin of Usucapio may be anterior to the Twelve Tables.
When Gains wrote (in the second century of our moray, as it appears, bad become a regular mode of acquiring ownership; for property of all kinds might be so acquired which had been received by tradition and bona fide from a person who was not the owner. The case of things stolen, or the possession of which had been acquired by violence (vas), was an exception, for even if received bona fide they could never become the property of the receiver by Uaucapio. The Rea Mancipi of women also, who were in the tutela of their agnati, could not be objects of Usucapio unless they had been received from her by traditio with the proper consent (auctoritasi of her tutor : and the'hereditas of a woman who was in tutela legitima could not be an object of Uaucapio. As land (fundus) could net, according to the best opinion, be an object of fn-turn, a bona fide purchaser of land from a man who was not the owner, and knew he was not the owner, might acquire the property of it by Usucapio, provided the seller had not acquired the possession by violence, but had either taken possession of land which was vacant through the carelessness of the owner, or from the owner dying without a successor, or having been long absent.
Besides individual objects of property, Usucapio could exist in the case of Servitutes, and marriage, and in the case of an Hereditas. Originally such Servitutee as followed the rule of law as to Res Mancipi could only be transferred like Res Mancipi ; and thereforo Usucapio could only apply to such tervitutes. But by analogy to Res Mancipi,
they could be acquired by bare contract, to which Usuespio was super added ; and when Mancipatio at a later period was replaced by bare tradition, they could be acquired by contract simply. in the case of marriage, when there was no eo-emptio, the woman might come into the power of her husband by virtue of uninterrupted cohabitation for one year ; and she was then said to become a part of his Familia by Usucapio founded on a year's posseasion. (Gaius, i. 111.) In the case of the Hereditas, when the testator had not disposed of his property by the necessary forms of the Mancipatio and a.uncupatio, the person who was named hertz in the will could only acquire his legal title as such by Usucapio.
various instances will show the original notion of Usueapio. It was a legal effect given to bona fide possession and enjoyment for a _ fixed time, by means of which defects in the transfer of a thing were made good : it was not originally a mode of acquisition. It was founded on a title good in substance, but defective in form ; and this defect was supplied by the proper period of enjoyment (usus). When this cans had continued for the legal time, it gave its auetoritas (as into the power of her husband by tininterrupted matrimonial cohabita tion for one year. (See Savigny, System des heutigen Iloiniechen Rechts; iv., ch. iii., § 183, on the passage of Gcllius, which is a quotation from Q. Mucius Sctevola, the puntifex.) The word is also used in the sense of taking possession of a thing; and in course of time the notion of wrong was attached to the word. Anatnianus 31arcellinua (xxvi. 7, ed. Groner.) uses "usurpator" in a sense some what like the modern " usurper," when he says "usurpator indebitte poteatatia." _ _ AT as pronounced by the English, is the pressed or medial labial aspirate, bearing the same relation to f that l• does to p. Its form is only a variety of the character by which the vowel u is denoted, the latter being in its origin the cursive character employed with soft materials, while r is better adapted for writing on stone. The Homan letter a was probably pronounced as a te, a supposition which would explain the fact that in the alphabet of that language one character is employed for both u and r. The converse of this appears in the German alphabet, where to has nearly the power of r, while the latter symbol is used to designate the sound of the English f, as is the case also in Welsh.
r is interchangeable with l• and m : see these lettZrs. It is also interchangeable with!, and hence the confusion between the characters, as just observed. The changes with tr, gu, du, will be considered under the letter W.