Maxim 4.3.8
It is not theft where the commencement of the detention arises through the will of the owner of the thing detained.
Furtum non est ubi initium habet detentionis per dominum rei.
Source: 3 Inst. 107; Jackson
Difficulty 2/5 — Approachable
Explanation
Where possession originated with the owner's consent, the subsequent retention does not constitute theft — the initial lawful delivery negates the element of unlawful taking.
Where this applies
- A person borrows something with permission and then refuses to return it.
- Someone who initially received property with consent is charged with theft for keeping it.
Cite this maxim
NeCede Max. 4.3.8 — It is not theft where the commencement of the detention arises through the will of the owner of the thing detained. — 3 Inst. 107; Jackson (Furtum non est ubi initium habet detentionis per dominum rei.)
Found an error? Suggest a correction →