Descendants of Roman Law?

[Faustus]

An interesting descendant of Roman Law?

The state of Georgia claims an error in an 1818 survey marking the Tennessee border line was incorrectly positioned because surveyors used inadequate equipment for their work. The calculations were done by a "challenged" university math professor. We can hear it all now: "What If I

Edited February 21, 2008 by Faustus

[M. Porcius Cato]

I'd just add that usucapio ("you leave it, you lose it") also provides a sufficient legal basis for agrarian-based colonists to claim title to traditional lands of nomadic raiding parties.

[Kosmo]

The law around here it's that usucapio works after 30 years of posesion. Romans had a shorter term.

Tennessee could use "eror comunis facit jus" - mutual error has legal effects.

[Faustus]

The law around here it's that usucapio works after 30 years of posesion. Romans had a shorter term.

Tennessee could use "eror comunis facit jus" - mutual error has legal effects.

 

It's doubtful that Georgia will ever successfully cause a state line to be moved, in view of long standing Rights of "Adverse Possession", "Usucapio", and your mention "Eror comunis facit jus".

 

In doing this about one hundred forty two square miles (91,000 acres) of land would be affected. This is probably only a threat to get a simpler result: an easement to get water rights separated from Georgia's access by only a mile distance. If they were to get an easement all the rest of their challenges would likely "go away". Indiana won access to the Ohio river for commercial traffic opposed by Kentucky, but with conditions.

 

The Romans had that covered also when they incorporated rights of easement into their law:

 

This from "ANCIENT ROMAN IDEAS OF LAW" (click)

"The Roman law affirmed". . . . "The acquisition of property by purchase,

gift, and inheritance, and by prescriptive right, was

of course the subject of many laws. The law also recog-

nized servitudes or easements, rights such as passage

by path or road through lands of others, or the drawing

of water. Naturally, contracts (pacta) relating to prop-

erty rights were well protected, except that no contract

was valid that was contrary to the public law and

welfare."