He is so completely controlled by his prejudices in this respect, that he is unconsciously led, not to unite (that would be horrible in his eyes), but to identify the _action possessoire_ with the _action petitoire_.

This could be easily proved, were it not too tedious to plunge into these metaphysical obscurities.
As an interpreter of the law, M.Troplong is no more successful than as a philosopher.

One specimen of his skill in this direction, and I am done with him:-- Code of Civil Procedure, Art.

23: "_Actions possessoires_ are only when commenced within the year of trouble by those who have held possession for at least a year by an irrevocable title." M.Troplong's comments:-- "Ought we to maintain--as Duparc, Poullain, and Lanjuinais would have us--the rule _spoliatus ante omnia restituendus_, when an individual, who is neither proprietor nor annual possessor, is expelled by a third party, who has no right to the estate?
I think not.Art.23 of the Code is general: it absolutely requires that the plaintiff in _actions possessoires_ shall have been in peaceable possession for a year at least.

That is the invariable principle: it can in no case be modified.
And why should it be set aside?
The plaintiff had no seisin; he had no privileged possession; he had only a temporary occupancy, insufficient to warrant in his favor the presumption of property, which renders the annual possession so valuable.