...property (dominium), so that a man is either owner or not; and it was the same in the old Roman law, for a man was either owner ' ex jure quiritium,' or he was not. But ownership was afterwards divided, so that one man may now be owner of a thing ex jure quiritium, and...

...that a man is either the owner of a thing or ho is not. And this was formerly the case among the Raman people ; for a man was either owner ex jure Quiritium, or he was not. But afterwards the ownenhip was split, so that now one man mar be the owner (iJomtmia) of a thing ex jura Quiruium, and...

...slightly conversant with English law. " There is," says Gaius (ii. 40), "amongforeigners (peregrini) only one kind of ownership (dominium), so that a man...afterwards the ownership was split, so that now one man may be the owner (dominus) of a thing ex jure Quiritium, and yet another may have it in bonis. For...

...(absolutely) or is not regarded as owner (at all). And this rule the Roman people followed of old, for a man was either owner ex jure Quiritium, or he was not regarded as owner. But afterwards ownership became capable of division, so that one man might be owner...

...distinction is explained iu the following passage of Gains (ii. 40): "Among foreigners (peregrini) there is only one kind of ownership (dominium), so that a man...among the Roman people ; for a man was either owner ex iure Quiritium, or not owner at all. But afterwards the ownership was divided, so that now one man...