Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/139

Paragraph 1- If two individuals are in a dispute over an item and neither has possession, such as the case where two individuals were fighting over a boat and each one said it belonged to him, the stronger party would win and whomever can overpower the other first would keep the item until the other party brings proof that it belongs to him. Nevertheless, the other party can force the party that took possession to take an oath. He must swear that the item belongs to him. So long as the other party has not brought a proof, we would not let the other party take the item from the party that overpowered first, even if he is now able to overpower.

Paragraph 2- If a third party came and grabbed the item with a claim that it belongs to him, the other two have no claim against because him because the party currently in possession claims it is his. If he grabbed it without any claim, however, we would remove the item from him but there is no solution for him until he returns it to each one because he doesn’t know who to return it to. If the property is real property and he took possession and consumed the fruits, the actual land cannot be stolen but he would need to pay the fruits back to each one.

Paragraph 3- If one of the two parties who are in dispute comes to court and asks that the court take possession until he can bring proof that it is his, we would not listen to him. If the court took possession with both parties’ consent or if they took possession in error, we would not remove the item from the court until it is determined who the item belongs to.

Paragraph 4- If the parties are disputing a field and neither has possession, such as where the owner of the field died and both are coming to inherit and each one says he is a closer relative and should be inheriting, and neither party has a proof, the stronger party will win. See above in the beginning of Siman 138 as to the law where both parties have possession. If one party overpowered the other and consumed the fruits, and the second party subsequently brought two witnesses that he is a relative to the deceased, but they don’t know if the party that overpowered is related or not, we would remove the field from the possessor because he is an uncertain relative and his counterparty is a certain relative. The same would apply if the second party brought witnesses that he is a closer relative than the one that took possession, and we would remove the field from him and give it to the closer relative. He must return the fruits he consumed, even if the only way we know he consumed them was by his own admission. In a case where the halachic authorities disagree over the ruling, and neither party took possession and it is something that can be divided, we would divide it. If dividing it is impractical, the stronger party would win.