United States or Morocco ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
In treating of actions possessoires, M. Troplong is so unfortunate or awkward that he mutilates economy through failure to grasp its meaning "Just as property," he writes, "gave rise to the action for revendication, so possession the jus possessionis was the cause of possessory interdicts.... There were two kinds of interdicts, the interdict recuperandae possessionis, and the interdict retinendae possessionis, which correspond to our complainte en cas de saisine et nouvelete.
And when the code prohibits the reception of actions possessoires, in cases where the possession is not of a year's duration, it simply means that if, before a year has elapsed, the holder relinquishes possession, and ceases actually to occupy in propria persona, he cannot avail himself of an action possessoire against his successor.
Art. 23 of the Code is general: it absolutely requires that the plaintiff in actions possessoires shall have been in peaceable possession for a year at least. That is the invariable principle: it can in no case be modified. And why should it be set aside?
Code of Civil Procedure, Art. 23: "Actions possessoires are only when commenced within the year of trouble by those who have held possession for at least a year by an irrevocable title." M. Troplong's comments:
But it is not astonishing that M. Troplong rejects the third class of actions possessoires, when we consider that he rejects possession itself. This could be easily proved, were it not too tedious to plunge into these metaphysical obscurities. As an interpreter of the law, M. Troplong is no more successful than as a philosopher. One specimen of his skill in this direction, and I am done with him:
Word Of The Day