Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

'Zucker' and 'Fräsmaschinen', Did Roman law know 'co-ordinate possession' ('Nebenbesitz')?

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites

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 detentor, a lessee e.g., makes a delivery constituto possessorio to a new lessor, making him possessor, 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 ius commune sources and concludes they did not know 'Nebenbesitz'.

Affiliations: 1: Professor of Roman law, Groningen University, P.O. Box 716, 9700 AS Groningen, The Netherlands;, Email:


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation