Question X: Whether it is lawful, by private authority, to recover what is ours

That the seizure of spoils in a just war is not unlawful is proved by the Holy Doctor on chapter 10 of Wisdom, in these words: The just took the spoils of the wicked, because it is done by public authority.

But to seize another's goods at God's express command is no sin. Thus the Hebrews took away the riches of the Egyptians, Exodus 12, as is commonly noted with St. Bonaventure, in sermon 6 on the ten commandments, and in 2 dist. 40 dub. 2, where, however, many note that the Hebrews had a right to those goods on account of the wages withheld for their labors spent in building the cities, as Clement of Alexandria teaches, book 1 of the Stromata, Epiphanius in the Anchoratus, St. Thomas 2. 2. quaest. 66. art. 5. ad 1., where Salon, Aragon, Valentia, tract. 3. disp. 5. quaest. 10. puncto 5., Gabriel in 4. dist. 15. quaest. 3. art. 1., Sotus l. 2. de Iust. quaest. 3. art. 8. and lib. 5. quaest. 3. art. 3. ad 1., Melchior Cano lib. 2. de locis, cap. 4., Sayrus Lib. 9. cap. 14.

From this a doubt can arise: Whether by private authority men can seize their own wages; And whether anyone else can take away a thing unjustly detained by another.

This question is treated by Altisiodorensis summa, tract. de restitut. quaest. 6., Alensis 4. part. quaest. 24. memb. 5. art. 3., the Gloss on the chapter Ius Gentium, Richardus 4. dist. 15. quaest. 7. art. 1. ad 2., Paludanus there, quaest. 3. dist. 3. art. 3. and quaest. 4. art. 2., St. Antoninus part. 2. tit. primo, cap. 15., Sylvester V. bellum 1. quaest. 9. and V. furtum, quaest. 12., Angelus there, Adrianus quodl. 6. art. 1., Castro lib. 2. de potestate leg. poen. cap. 10. argument. 4., Cajetan 2. 2. quaest. 66. art. 3. and 5., Sotus lib. 5. de Iust. quaest. 3. art. 1. and art. 3. ad 1., John Medina Cod. de restit. quaest. 3. causa 12., Navarrus Man. cap. 17. n. 111. and cap. inter verba 11. quaest. 3. conclusione concl. 66. num. 792., Covarruvias lib. 1. var. resol. cit. and num. 14., Sebastianus Medices in summa, titulo 6. quaest. 129., Salon 2. 2. quaest. 66. art. 5. controv. 2., Aragon there, Petrus Navarrus Lib. 3. de restit. cap. 1. part. 4. disput. 8. num. 384., Valentia disp. 5. quaest. 10. puncto 5., Lopez part. 2. Instruct. cap. 8., Joseph Angles quaestio quid sit liberare fustisito, art. 2. diffic. 27. disp. 15., Toledo lib. 5. summae, cap. 15., Garbo de restit. quaest. 85. dub. 2., Corduba summa, quaest. 111. et Lib. 1. qq. quaest. 35., and others in Sayrus l. 9. cap. 14., Fagundez lib. 7. cap. 30.

I say, therefore, first, that it is not lawful to take away one's own property in this way, if it can be obtained by another, more honorable means; for although no injustice is committed with respect to the thing received, still it is committed with respect to the manner, for they make justice for themselves to the prejudice of the public judgment of right. Injury is also done to the one holding the thing, if he is a just possessor, as a depositary; for thus you expose him to the danger of having to pay twice for the thing, and to other inconveniences, as St. Thomas says, 2. 2. quaest. 66. art. 5. ad 3.

I say secondly that, certain conditions being in place, this is lawful.

The FIRST is that the thing be owed in justice. So Corduba with Navarrus and Sayrus.

The SECOND, that this debt be liquid.

The THIRD, that he receive no more than is owed to him.

The FOURTH, that he cannot recover that good by order of law, or out of court, without grave loss.

The FIFTH, that it be likely to him that asking the debt from the debtor will profit him nothing.

The SIXTH, that no grave scandal follow.

The SEVENTH, that he take care to admonish the debtor, or the heirs, that the debt is now to be paid.

These conditions therefore being in place, since no injury is inflicted on anyone, and the thing is reduced to equality, it will be lawful to make such compensation for oneself, as Sayrus says, num. 8.

The same thing, I said, many understand to be able to be done even by violent seizure, unless an immense disturbance in the Republic follow. Others, however, deny this, because a private person may not punish another, as is gathered from St. Thomas, 2. 2. quaest. 66. art. 8. Therefore those who seize in this way are punished by Princes.