Case 8. Possession in Doubtful Faith

A certain man of a sufficiently disreputable appearance knocked at the door of a certain presbytery and offered Titius the priest a hare together with a large salmon for a few shillings. Titius gravely suspected that the things were stolen; nevertheless, since the next day was Holy Saturday and the following Sunday was Easter Sunday, he thought that the opportunity was not to be despised and bought them. After a few days he found with certainty that the things had been stolen, and consequently he is troubled by a scruple concerning the purchase made and whether any obligation rests upon him. Hence it is asked:

1. What are the obligations of a possessor in doubtful faith?

2. What would the obligations of Titius be if he had bought the said things in open market?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. What are the obligations of a possessor in doubtful faith?

One who deprives another of the possession of something without being certain that it is his must make restitution, for he injured the possessor's rights. If he obtained possession in good faith, and afterwards began to doubt about his right of possession, he must make inquiries as to the true owner, and abide by the result. If, after inquiry, the doubt remains, he may retain possession. If he obtained possession in doubtful faith, and after inquiry the doubt remains, he must make restitution of part, according to the quality of the doubt, according to the common opinion. D’Annibale and Bucceroni think that even in this case possession of the whole may be retained with the intention of making restitution to the true owner if and when he appears.

2. What would be the obligations of Titius if he had bought the objects mentioned in the case in open market?

If he had bought them in open market in good faith, he would have acquired ownership of the goods, as the law in that case gives a valid title to the property thus bought.

3. The case. Titius did wrong in buying the hare and salmon while in doubt whether the seller had the right to sell, and in afterward eating them in the same state of doubt. He knowingly exposed himself to the danger of consuming what belonged to some one else and sinned against justice. When afterward he found out for certain that they were stolen, he became obliged to make restitution to the true owner, for having unwarrantably consumed his property. If he had bought and consumed the goods in good faith, he would have been bound to nothing.