the claimant.

Should a man be dispossessed on the strength of testimony and then, at a later session, produce testimony establishing that he owned the object prior to the loss of possession, excusing his earlier silence by saying that his witnesses were absent, his evidence is accepted and given precedence—although another opinion holds that it is not.

If the non-possessor says to the possessor, “It was originally yours, and I bought it from you,” while the possessor responds, “No, it is still mine,” and they both furnish testimony, the non-possessor’s evidence is preferred.

Anyone who has acknowledged that something belongs to someone else and then claims it for himself will not be heard unless he can allege a subsequent transfer. By contrast, if property has already been taken from him pursuant to testimony and he later reclaims it, mentioning such a transfer is not required, according to the sounder view.

The authoritative position is that a mere increase in the number of witnesses on one side does not confer precedence; the same applies when one party produces two male witnesses and the other one male witness together with two women. If, however, the opposing side has only a single witness plus an oath, the side with two witnesses prevails on the stronger opinion.

If one set of witnesses testifies that the claimant has owned the article since a year ago, while another set traces ownership to an even earlier time, the longer period prevails, and from that earlier date the successful litigant is entitled to the rent and to any increment that has accrued.

When one set of testimony is undated and the other is dated, the sounder view is that they stand on an equal footing; but if the party whose testimony bears the later date is in actual possession, he is preferred.

Should the witnesses say, “He owned it yesterday,” without mentioning the present, their statement is inadmissible until they add, “His ownership has not ceased,” or, “We do not know of anything that has terminated it.” They may testify, “He owns it now,” on the basis of continuity arising from inheritance, purchase, and the like. If they testify that yesterday he acknowledged the property to belong to the claimant, that acknowledgement is deemed to persist.

When ownership of an animal or of a fruit-bearing tree is established by testimony, the owner does not thereby acquire fruit already present or offspring already born and separated; but, according to the sounder view, he does acquire any unborn fetus.

If a man buys an item and it is later taken from him on the basis of general testimony, he may recover the purchase price from the seller. A second opinion limits this right to cases in which the prevailing claimant traces his title to a time prior to the sale.

If a claimant states his ownership in absolute terms and the witnesses confirm that ownership while also mentioning its cause, his case is not harmed; but if he alleges one cause and they testify to another, his claim is undermined.

Section

If the landlord says, “I rented you the single room for ten,” while the tenant maintains, “No, the entire house for ten,” and both parties produce testimony, the two sets of evidence neutralize one another—though another view prefers the tenant’s claim.

If two people claim an article in the hand of a third party and each one produces testimony that he bought it and paid its price, then, if the dates differ, judgment is awarded to the earlier purchaser; otherwise, the testimonies cancel one another.

If each of them says, “I sold it to you for such-and-such,” or they both adduce testimony to that effect, then—