Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
<jats:sec><jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>In German legal literature a theory of so-called 'Nebenbesitz' ('co-ordinate possession') is being discussed since more than half a century. It would be applicable when a <jats:italic>detentor</jats:italic>, a lessee e.g., makes a delivery <jats:italic>constituto possessorio</jats:italic> to a new lessor, making him <jats:italic>possessor</jats:italic>, but goes on paying rent to the old lessor, which would leave this lessor in possession. Both possessors would be co-ordinate possessors. Some authors have been referring to Roman law (D. 41,2,32,1) as though it already knew co-ordinate possession. This paper examines the Roman law and <jats:italic>ius commune</jats:italic> sources and concludes they did not know 'Nebenbesitz'.</jats:p> </jats:sec>
The Legal History Review / Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis / Revue d'Histoire du Droit – Brill
Published: Jan 1, 2010
Keywords: ROMAN LAW; GERMAN LAW; DETENTOR; CO-ORDINATE POSSESSION; IUS COMMUNE; DELIVERY CONSTITUTO POSSESSORIO; 'NEBENBESITZ'
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.