Voet's titles on vindications & interdicta

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1893 Excerpt: ...him. This is a matter of less doubt, that he who pays the debt in full would be able to recover from other possessors of other pignora not in solidum in full, but only pro rata. So that he may be in the same position as the others, who can be sued likewise for this sole reason that they are possessors of the pignora. Arg. 5015-5. Jon. a Sande, &c., liespons Jurisc. Holl, &c. Since in my Bk. 20, tit. 1, it has been said that the price of pignora sold cannot rightly be in the place of the pignus itself, nor succeeds into the place of the pignora. The consequence is, that according to the strict letter of the law the hypothecary action can be set in motion solely against the last possessor of the pignus, if indeed the pignus by several alienations has passed through many hands. s Recovery not in solidum but pro rata, why. As every possessor liable. Price of pignora not in place of the pignus. Strictly the last possessor only liable to hypothecary action. But first vendor when liable to be sued according to decisic n of Court of Holland for the price instead. Difference between eueing debtor and third party possessing. If third party sued proof necessary of debtor's ownership at date of special mortgage And at date subsequent to mortgage if mortgage general. No such proof if debtor sued without objection of any one. Why. Further reason. Effect of third party's contumacy. Although from considerations of the equitable and the right, in order to prevent superfluous suits and the multiplication of costs it has been decided by the Court of Holland that an action should not be denied to the creditor against the first vendor of the pignus for the price realised by the sale, if it should be certain that the fourth possessor can bring an action against the third...