Also known as: habe · habendum · habere facias · to have
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A Latin verb meaning to have the right to something. In Roman law the term denotes legal entitlement to a thing and is distinguished from tenere, which refers to the fact of holding, and possidere, which refers to both right and fact.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
In a Roman provincial dispute, Marcus claimed habere over a vineyard he had never occupied. The magistrate recognized Marcus's superior legal title under habere even though a tenant currently held physical control under tenere.
After her father's death, Julia asserted habere to a seaside villa. Although a neighbor had begun farming the land, Julia proved her legal entitlement under habere rather than mere physical holding under tenere.
Titus lent money secured by a warehouse. When the debtor defaulted, Titus established habere to the stored grain, distinguishing his legal right from the warehouseman's mere physical possession under tenere.
Aulus sought to recover a skilled artisan who had fled. The court upheld Aulus's habere, confirming legal ownership despite the slave's current physical control by another household under tenere.
Two brothers inherited a farm. Gaius proved his habere to an undivided half even though his sibling exercised day-to-day control, showing that habere protects legal share independent of physical tenere.
After buying a cargo of wine at auction, Lucia asserted habere although the seller still held the amphorae. The praetor confirmed Lucia's legal right under habere separate from the seller's factual holding under tenere.
Habere refers to the legal right to a thing. Tenere refers only to the factual holding of the thing. Possidere refers to both the right and the fact of possession.
Supporting sources
Modern courts rarely invoke the term directly, yet the underlying distinction between legal right and physical control continues to shape property, agency, and tort doctrines concerning entitlement versus possession.
Supporting sources
…the refusal to give the requested information. He then called Jacob Wagner and Daniel Brent, summoned to attend but understood to have declined giving voluntary affidavits. They objected to being sworn, alleging they were clerks in the Department of State and not bound to disclose facts relating to the business or…