jure
JURE, A´CTIO IN. [JURISDICTIO]
JURE, CE´SSIO IN, was a mode of transferring rights by means of a fictitious suit, and so far resembled the forms of conveyance by fine and common recovery which, till lately, were in use in England. The proceeding was the following. The person to whom the object of transfer belonged (dominus qui cedit), and the person to whom it was to be transferred (vindicans, cui ceditur), appeared before the magistratus; in whose presence the intended transferee vindicated the thing as his own. The magistratus then asked the party making the transfer whether he opposed a counter-vindication; and on his declaring that he did not or remaining silent, the magistratus decreed (addixit) the object to the vindicant. The admission of the right of the vindicant or transferee by the real owner was the foundation of the magisterial decree, the rule of procedure being confessus pro judicato est. The proceeding was in form a legis actio in rem, made to serve the purpose of a conveyance. In jure cessio was probably recognised by the Twelve Tables (cf. Paulus on Vat. Fragm. 50, et mancipationem et in jure cessionem lex XII. Tab. confirmat), though, at the time of the passing of this law, it may only have been used as a mode of manumission. The uses to which in jure cessio was applied, according to the law as laid down by the classical jurists, were the following :--1 to manumit a slave per vindictam [MANUMISSIO] (cf. Liv. 2.5); 2, to emancipate a filiusfamilias; 3, for the purpose of adoption; 4, to transfer the tutela legitima mulierum; 5, to transfer the hereditas legitima (Gaius, 2.34--37); 6, to transfer ownership of res, whether mancipi or nec mancipi, though the alternative form of mancipatiowas generally preferred (Gaius, 2.25); 7, for creating servitudes, rustic servitudes alone being also created by mancipatio (Gaius, 2.29, 30). In jure cessio being a legis actio, it could not be carried out by means of agents.
In jure cessio is last mentioned in Constitutions of Constantine. It was obsolete in the time of Justinian, and the compilers of his legislation omitted mention of it in excerpts, where it occurred. (Gaius, 2.24; Ulp. Fragm. 19, 9; Schilling, Inst. 2.154; Leist, Mancipation, § 36, &c.; Ihering, Geist des R. R. 2.579 if.; Aug. Schultze, Privatrecht und Process in ihrer Wechselbeziehung, § § 459 if., 477 ff.; Sohm, Institut des röm. Rechts, 3rd edit., p. 30, &c.; Voigt, Zwölf Tafeln, 2.75.)
[E.A.W]