holds a portion of the whole of the inheritance,
knowing that he is not entitled. It is called an interdict for obtaining
possession, because it is available only for initiating possession;
accordingly, it is not granted to a person who has already had and lost
possession. Another interdict for obtaining possession is that named
after Salvius, by which the landlord gets possession of the tenant's
property which has been hypothecated as a security for rent.

4 The interdicts 'Uti possidetis' and 'Utrubi' are interdicts for
retaining possession, and are employed when two parties claim ownership
in anything, in order to determine which shall be defendant and which
plaintiff; for no real action can be commenced until it is ascertained
which of the parties is in possession, because law and reason both
require that one of them shall be in possession and shall be sued by
the other. As the role of defendant in a real action is far more
advantageous than that of plaintiff, there is almost invariably a keen
dispute as to which party is to have possession pending litigation: the
advantage consisting in this, that, even if the person in possession has
no title as owner, the possession remains to him unless and until the
plaintiff can prove his own ownership: so that where the rights of the
parties are not clear, judgement usually goes against the plaintiff.
Where the dispute relates to the possession of land or buildings,
the interdict called 'Uti possidetis' is employed; where to movable
property, that called 'Utrubi.' Under the older law their effects were
very different. In 'Uti possidetis' the party in possession at the
issue of the interdict was the winner, provided he had not obtained
that possession from his adversary by force, or clandestinely, or by
permission; whether he had obtained it from some one else in any of
these modes was immaterial. In 'Utrubi' the winner was the party who
had been in possession the greater portion of the year next immediately
preceding, provided that possession had not been obtained by force, or
clandestinely, or by permission, from his adversary. At the present
day, however, the practice is different, for as regards the right to
immediate possession the two interdicts are now on the same footing;
the rule being, that whether the property in question be movable or
immovable, the possession is adjudged to the party who has it at the
commencement of the action, provided he had not obtained it by f