Justinian•DIGESTA
Abbo Floriacensis1 work
Abelard3 works
Addison9 works
Adso Dervensis1 work
Aelredus Rievallensis1 work
Alanus de Insulis2 works
Albert of Aix1 work
HISTORIA HIEROSOLYMITANAE EXPEDITIONIS12 sections
Albertano of Brescia5 works
DE AMORE ET DILECTIONE DEI4 sections
SERMONES4 sections
Alcuin9 works
Alfonsi1 work
Ambrose4 works
Ambrosius4 works
Ammianus1 work
Ampelius1 work
Andrea da Bergamo1 work
Andreas Capellanus1 work
DE AMORE LIBRI TRES3 sections
Annales Regni Francorum1 work
Annales Vedastini1 work
Annales Xantenses1 work
Anonymus Neveleti1 work
Anonymus Valesianus2 works
Apicius1 work
DE RE COQUINARIA5 sections
Appendix Vergiliana1 work
Apuleius2 works
METAMORPHOSES12 sections
DE DOGMATE PLATONIS6 sections
Aquinas6 works
Archipoeta1 work
Arnobius1 work
ADVERSVS NATIONES LIBRI VII7 sections
Arnulf of Lisieux1 work
Asconius1 work
Asserius1 work
Augustine5 works
CONFESSIONES13 sections
DE CIVITATE DEI23 sections
DE TRINITATE15 sections
CONTRA SECUNDAM IULIANI RESPONSIONEM2 sections
Augustus1 work
RES GESTAE DIVI AVGVSTI2 sections
Aurelius Victor1 work
LIBER ET INCERTORVM LIBRI3 sections
Ausonius2 works
Avianus1 work
Avienus2 works
Bacon3 works
HISTORIA REGNI HENRICI SEPTIMI REGIS ANGLIAE11 sections
Balde2 works
Baldo1 work
Bebel1 work
Bede2 works
HISTORIAM ECCLESIASTICAM GENTIS ANGLORUM7 sections
Benedict1 work
Berengar1 work
Bernard of Clairvaux1 work
Bernard of Cluny1 work
DE CONTEMPTU MUNDI LIBRI DUO2 sections
Biblia Sacra3 works
VETUS TESTAMENTUM49 sections
NOVUM TESTAMENTUM27 sections
Bigges1 work
Boethius de Dacia2 works
Bonaventure1 work
Breve Chronicon Northmannicum1 work
Buchanan1 work
Bultelius2 works
Caecilius Balbus1 work
Caesar3 works
COMMENTARIORUM LIBRI VII DE BELLO GALLICO CUM A. HIRTI SUPPLEMENTO8 sections
COMMENTARIORUM LIBRI III DE BELLO CIVILI3 sections
LIBRI INCERTORUM AUCTORUM3 sections
Calpurnius Flaccus1 work
Calpurnius Siculus1 work
Campion8 works
Carmen Arvale1 work
Carmen de Martyrio1 work
Carmen in Victoriam1 work
Carmen Saliare1 work
Carmina Burana1 work
Cassiodorus5 works
Catullus1 work
Censorinus1 work
Christian Creeds1 work
Cicero3 works
ORATORIA33 sections
PHILOSOPHIA21 sections
EPISTULAE4 sections
Cinna Helvius1 work
Claudian4 works
Claudii Oratio1 work
Claudius Caesar1 work
Columbus1 work
Columella2 works
Commodianus3 works
Conradus Celtis2 works
Constitutum Constantini1 work
Contemporary9 works
Cotta1 work
Dante4 works
Dares the Phrygian1 work
de Ave Phoenice1 work
De Expugnatione Terrae Sanctae per Saladinum1 work
Declaratio Arbroathis1 work
Decretum Gelasianum1 work
Descartes1 work
Dies Irae1 work
Disticha Catonis1 work
Egeria1 work
ITINERARIUM PEREGRINATIO2 sections
Einhard1 work
Ennius1 work
Epistolae Austrasicae1 work
Epistulae de Priapismo1 work
Erasmus7 works
Erchempert1 work
Eucherius1 work
Eugippius1 work
Eutropius1 work
BREVIARIVM HISTORIAE ROMANAE10 sections
Exurperantius1 work
Fabricius Montanus1 work
Falcandus1 work
Falcone di Benevento1 work
Ficino1 work
Fletcher1 work
Florus1 work
EPITOME DE T. LIVIO BELLORUM OMNIUM ANNORUM DCC LIBRI DUO2 sections
Foedus Aeternum1 work
Forsett2 works
Fredegarius1 work
Frodebertus & Importunus1 work
Frontinus3 works
STRATEGEMATA4 sections
DE AQUAEDUCTU URBIS ROMAE2 sections
OPUSCULA RERUM RUSTICARUM4 sections
Fulgentius3 works
MITOLOGIARUM LIBRI TRES3 sections
Gaius4 works
Galileo1 work
Garcilaso de la Vega1 work
Gaudeamus Igitur1 work
Gellius1 work
Germanicus1 work
Gesta Francorum10 works
Gesta Romanorum1 work
Gioacchino da Fiore1 work
Godfrey of Winchester2 works
Grattius1 work
Gregorii Mirabilia Urbis Romae1 work
Gregorius Magnus1 work
Gregory IX5 works
Gregory of Tours1 work
LIBRI HISTORIARUM10 sections
Gregory the Great1 work
Gregory VII1 work
Gwinne8 works
Henry of Settimello1 work
Henry VII1 work
Historia Apolloni1 work
Historia Augusta30 works
Historia Brittonum1 work
Holberg1 work
Horace3 works
SERMONES2 sections
CARMINA4 sections
EPISTULAE5 sections
Hugo of St. Victor2 works
Hydatius2 works
Hyginus3 works
Hymni1 work
Hymni et cantica1 work
Iacobus de Voragine1 work
LEGENDA AUREA24 sections
Ilias Latina1 work
Iordanes2 works
Isidore of Seville3 works
ETYMOLOGIARVM SIVE ORIGINVM LIBRI XX20 sections
SENTENTIAE LIBRI III3 sections
Iulius Obsequens1 work
Iulius Paris1 work
Ius Romanum4 works
Janus Secundus2 works
Johann H. Withof1 work
Johann P. L. Withof1 work
Johannes de Alta Silva1 work
Johannes de Plano Carpini1 work
John of Garland1 work
Jordanes2 works
Julius Obsequens1 work
Junillus1 work
Justin1 work
HISTORIARVM PHILIPPICARVM T. POMPEII TROGI LIBRI XLIV IN EPITOMEN REDACTI46 sections
Justinian3 works
INSTITVTIONES5 sections
CODEX12 sections
DIGESTA50 sections
Juvenal1 work
Kepler1 work
Landor4 works
Laurentius Corvinus2 works
Legenda Regis Stephani1 work
Leo of Naples1 work
HISTORIA DE PRELIIS ALEXANDRI MAGNI3 sections
Leo the Great1 work
SERMONES DE QUADRAGESIMA2 sections
Liber Kalilae et Dimnae1 work
Liber Pontificalis1 work
Livius Andronicus1 work
Livy1 work
AB VRBE CONDITA LIBRI37 sections
Lotichius1 work
Lucan1 work
DE BELLO CIVILI SIVE PHARSALIA10 sections
Lucretius1 work
DE RERVM NATVRA LIBRI SEX6 sections
Lupus Protospatarius Barensis1 work
Macarius of Alexandria1 work
Macarius the Great1 work
Magna Carta1 work
Maidstone1 work
Malaterra1 work
DE REBUS GESTIS ROGERII CALABRIAE ET SICILIAE COMITIS ET ROBERTI GUISCARDI DUCIS FRATRIS EIUS4 sections
Manilius1 work
ASTRONOMICON5 sections
Marbodus Redonensis1 work
Marcellinus Comes2 works
Martial1 work
Martin of Braga13 works
Marullo1 work
Marx1 work
Maximianus1 work
May1 work
SUPPLEMENTUM PHARSALIAE8 sections
Melanchthon4 works
Milton1 work
Minucius Felix1 work
Mirabilia Urbis Romae1 work
Mirandola1 work
CARMINA9 sections
Miscellanea Carminum42 works
Montanus1 work
Naevius1 work
Navagero1 work
Nemesianus1 work
ECLOGAE4 sections
Nepos3 works
LIBER DE EXCELLENTIBUS DVCIBUS EXTERARVM GENTIVM24 sections
Newton1 work
PHILOSOPHIÆ NATURALIS PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA4 sections
Nithardus1 work
HISTORIARUM LIBRI QUATTUOR4 sections
Notitia Dignitatum2 works
Novatian1 work
Origo gentis Langobardorum1 work
Orosius1 work
HISTORIARUM ADVERSUM PAGANOS LIBRI VII7 sections
Otto of Freising1 work
GESTA FRIDERICI IMPERATORIS5 sections
Ovid7 works
METAMORPHOSES15 sections
AMORES3 sections
HEROIDES21 sections
ARS AMATORIA3 sections
TRISTIA5 sections
EX PONTO4 sections
Owen1 work
Papal Bulls4 works
Pascoli5 works
Passerat1 work
Passio Perpetuae1 work
Patricius1 work
Tome I: Panaugia2 sections
Paulinus Nolensis1 work
Paulus Diaconus4 works
Persius1 work
Pervigilium Veneris1 work
Petronius2 works
Petrus Blesensis1 work
Petrus de Ebulo1 work
Phaedrus2 works
FABVLARVM AESOPIARVM LIBRI QVINQVE5 sections
Phineas Fletcher1 work
Planctus destructionis1 work
Plautus21 works
Pliny the Younger2 works
EPISTVLARVM LIBRI DECEM10 sections
Poggio Bracciolini1 work
Pomponius Mela1 work
DE CHOROGRAPHIA3 sections
Pontano1 work
Poree1 work
Porphyrius1 work
Precatio Terrae1 work
Priapea1 work
Professio Contra Priscillianum1 work
Propertius1 work
ELEGIAE4 sections
Prosperus3 works
Prudentius2 works
Pseudoplatonica12 works
Publilius Syrus1 work
Quintilian2 works
INSTITUTIONES12 sections
Raoul of Caen1 work
Regula ad Monachos1 work
Reposianus1 work
Ricardi de Bury1 work
Richerus1 work
HISTORIARUM LIBRI QUATUOR4 sections
Rimbaud1 work
Ritchie's Fabulae Faciles1 work
Roman Epitaphs1 work
Roman Inscriptions1 work
Ruaeus1 work
Ruaeus' Aeneid1 work
Rutilius Lupus1 work
Rutilius Namatianus1 work
Sabinus1 work
EPISTULAE TRES AD OVIDIANAS EPISTULAS RESPONSORIAE3 sections
Sallust10 works
Sannazaro2 works
Scaliger1 work
Sedulius2 works
CARMEN PASCHALE5 sections
Seneca9 works
EPISTULAE MORALES AD LUCILIUM16 sections
QUAESTIONES NATURALES7 sections
DE CONSOLATIONE3 sections
DE IRA3 sections
DE BENEFICIIS3 sections
DIALOGI7 sections
FABULAE8 sections
Septem Sapientum1 work
Sidonius Apollinaris2 works
Sigebert of Gembloux3 works
Silius Italicus1 work
Solinus2 works
DE MIRABILIBUS MUNDI Mommsen 1st edition (1864)4 sections
DE MIRABILIBUS MUNDI C.L.F. Panckoucke edition (Paris 1847)4 sections
Spinoza1 work
Statius3 works
THEBAID12 sections
ACHILLEID2 sections
Stephanus de Varda1 work
Suetonius2 works
Sulpicia1 work
Sulpicius Severus2 works
CHRONICORUM LIBRI DUO2 sections
Syrus1 work
Tacitus5 works
Terence6 works
Tertullian32 works
Testamentum Porcelli1 work
Theodolus1 work
Theodosius16 works
Theophanes1 work
Thomas à Kempis1 work
DE IMITATIONE CHRISTI4 sections
Thomas of Edessa1 work
Tibullus1 work
TIBVLLI ALIORVMQUE CARMINVM LIBRI TRES3 sections
Tünger1 work
Valerius Flaccus1 work
Valerius Maximus1 work
FACTORVM ET DICTORVM MEMORABILIVM LIBRI NOVEM9 sections
Vallauri1 work
Varro2 works
RERVM RVSTICARVM DE AGRI CVLTURA3 sections
DE LINGVA LATINA7 sections
Vegetius1 work
EPITOMA REI MILITARIS LIBRI IIII4 sections
Velleius Paterculus1 work
HISTORIAE ROMANAE2 sections
Venantius Fortunatus1 work
Vico1 work
Vida1 work
Vincent of Lérins1 work
Virgil3 works
AENEID12 sections
ECLOGUES10 sections
GEORGICON4 sections
Vita Agnetis1 work
Vita Caroli IV1 work
Vita Sancti Columbae2 works
Vitruvius1 work
DE ARCHITECTVRA10 sections
Waardenburg1 work
Waltarius3 works
Walter Mapps2 works
Walter of Châtillon1 work
William of Apulia1 work
William of Conches2 works
William of Tyre1 work
HISTORIA RERUM IN PARTIBUS TRANSMARINIS GESTARUM24 sections
Xylander1 work
Zonaras1 work
Dig. 7.3.0. Quando dies usus fructus legati cedat.
7.2.0. On the usufruct increasing by accretion.
Dig. 7.3.0. When the day for a legacy of usufruct accrues.
Dig. 7.6.0. Si usus fructus petetur vel ad alium pertinere negetur.
7.5.0. On the usufruct of those things which are consumed by use or diminished.
Dig. 7.6.0. If a usufruct is claimed or it is denied that it pertains to another.
Omnium praediorum iure legati potest constitui usus fructus, ut heres iubeatur dare alicui usum fructum. dare autem intellegitur, si induxerit in fundum legatarium eumve patiatur uti frui. et sine testamento autem si quis velit usum fructum constituere, pactionibus et stipulationibus id efficere potest.
Over all estates a usufruct can be constituted by way of legacy, such that the heir is ordered to give to someone the use and fruits. He is understood to “give” if he has put the legatee into possession of the estate or allows him to use and enjoy. And even without a will, if someone wishes to establish a usufruct, he can effect it by pactions and stipulations.
Usus fructus et ab initio pro parte indivisa vel divisa constitui et legitimo tempore similiter amitti eademque ratione per legem falcidiam minui potest: reo quoque promittendi defuncto in partes hereditarias usus fructus obligatio dividitur: et si ex communi praedio debeatur, uno ex sociis defendente pro parte defendentis fiet restitutio.
Usufruct may from the beginning be constituted for an undivided part or a divided one, and likewise be lost at the lawful time; and by the same rationale it can be diminished by the Falcidian law: likewise, when the promissor has died, the obligation of the usufruct is divided into hereditary shares; and if it is owed from common property, with one of the partners defending, restitution will be made for the defender’s share.
Rei soli, ut puta aedium, usu fructu legato quicumque reditus est, ad usufructuarium pertinet quaeque obventiones sunt ex aedificiis, ex areis et ceteris, quaecumque aedium sunt. unde etiam mitti eum in possessionem vicinarum aedium causa damni infecti placuit, et iure dominii possessurum eas aedes, si perseveretur non caveri, nec quicquam amittere finito usu fructu. hac ratione labeo scribit nec aedificium licere domino te invito altius tollere, sicut nec areae usu fructu legato potest in area aedificium poni: quam sententiam puto veram.
For real property, for instance of buildings, when a usufruct is bequeathed, whatever revenue there is belongs to the usufructuary, as do whatever windfalls/receipts arise from the edifices, from the areas (plots), and from the rest—whatever pertains to the buildings. Whence it has also been decided that he may be sent into possession of neighboring buildings for the cause of damage not yet done (damnum infectum), and that he will hold those houses with the right of ownership if there is persistence in not giving security, and will lose nothing when the usufruct is finished. On this reasoning Labeo writes that it is not permitted for the owner, you being unwilling, to raise the building higher—just as, with a usufruct of an area bequeathed, a building cannot be placed on the area—which opinion I judge to be true.
Quoniam igitur omnis fructus rei ad eum pertinet, reficere quoque eum ad aedes per arbitrum cogi celsus scribit celsus libro octavo decimo digestorum, hactenus tamen, ut sarta tecta habeat: si qua tamen vetustate corruissent, neutrum cogi reficere, sed si heres refecerit, passurum fructuarium uti. unde celsus de modo sarta tecta habendi quaerit, si quae vetustate corruerunt reficere non cogitur: modica igitur refectio ad eum pertinet, quoniam et alia onera adgnoscit usu fructu legato: ut puta stipendium vel tributum vel salarium vel alimenta ab ea re relicta. et ita Marcellus libro tertio decimo scribit.
Since therefore all the fruit of the thing pertains to him, Celsus writes—in book 18 of the Digests—that he too can be compelled by an arbiter to repair the buildings, but only to this extent: that he have the roofs kept sound (sarta tecta). If, however, any parts have collapsed from age, neither is compelled to restore them; but if the heir has restored them, the heir will allow the usufructuary to use them. Whence Celsus inquires about the measure of “having the roofs kept sound,” if he is not compelled to repair what has fallen through age: accordingly, moderate repair pertains to him, since he also acknowledges other burdens when a usufruct is bequeathed; for example, stipendium or tributum or salarium or alimenta charged upon the thing left. And so Marcellus writes in book 13.
Cassius quoque scribit libro octavo iuris civilis fructuarium per arbitrum cogi reficere, quemadmodum adserere cogitur arbores: et aristo notat haec vera esse. neratius autem libro quarto membranarum ait non posse fructuarium prohiberi, quo minus reficiat, quia nec arare prohiberi potest aut colere: nec solum necessarias refectiones facturum, sed etiam voluptatis causa ut tectoria et pavimenta et similia facere, neque autem ampliare nec utile detrahere posse,
Cassius also writes in the eighth book of the Civil Law that the usufructuary may be compelled through an arbiter to make repairs, just as he is compelled to prop the trees; and Aristo notes that these things are true. Neratius, however, in the fourth book of his Notebooks, says that the usufructuary cannot be prohibited from repairing, since neither can he be prohibited from plowing or cultivating; and that he will make not only necessary repairs, but also, for the sake of pleasure, such as plastering and pavements and the like; yet he can neither enlarge nor take away what is useful,
Item si fundi usus fructus sit legatus, quidquid in fundo nascitur, quidquid inde percipi potest, ipsius fructus est, sic tamen ut boni viri arbitratu fruatur. nam et celsus libro octavo decimo digestorum scribit cogi eum posse recte colere.
Likewise, if the usufruct of an estate has been bequeathed, whatever arises on the estate, whatever can be perceived from it, is its fruit, provided, however, that he enjoy it by the arbitration of a good man. For Celsus also writes in the eighteenth book of the Digest that he can be compelled to cultivate it rightly.
Huic vicinus tractatus est, qui solet in eo quod accessit tractari: et placuit alluvionis quoque usum fructum ad fructuarium pertinere. sed si insula iuxta fundum in flumine nata sit, eius usum fructum ad fructuarium non pertinere pegasus scribit, licet proprietati accedat: esse enim veluti proprium fundum, cuius usus fructus ad te non pertineat. quae sententia non est sine ratione: nam ubi latitet incrementum, et usus fructus augetur, ubi autem apparet separatum, fructuario non accedit.
A treatment neighboring to this is that which is accustomed to be handled concerning what has acceded (accession); and it has been decided that the usufruct of alluvion also pertains to the usufructuary. But if an island has been born in a river next to the estate (fundus), Pegasus writes that its usufruct does not pertain to the usufructuary, although it accedes to the ownership: for it is as it were a proper, separate estate, whose usufruct does not pertain to you. Which opinion is not without reason: for where the increment lies hidden, the usufruct is increased; but where it appears as something separate, it does not accede to the usufructuary.
Seminarii autem fructum puto ad fructuarium pertinere ita tamen, ut et vendere ei et seminare liceat: debet tamen conserendi agri causa seminarium paratum semper renovare quasi instrumentum agri, ut finito usu fructu domino restituatur.
However, I think the fruits of the nursery belong to the usufructuary, provided nonetheless that he is permitted both to sell and to sow; yet for the purpose of planting the field he ought always to renew the nursery kept ready, as a sort of instrument of the field, so that, when the usufruct is finished, it is restored to the owner.
Instrumenti autem fructum habere debet: vendendi tamen facultatem non habet. nam et si fundi usus fructus fuerit legatus et sit ager, unde palo in fundum, cuius usus fructus legatus est, solebat pater familias uti, vel salice vel harundine, puto fructuarium hactenus uti posse, ne ex eo vendat, nisi forte salicti ei vel silvae palaris vel harundineti usus fructus sit legatus: tunc enim et vendere potest. nam et trebatius scribit silvam caeduam et harundinetum posse fructuarium caedere, sicut pater familias caedebat, et vendere, licet pater familias non solebat vendere, sed ipse uti: ad modum enim referendum est, non ad qualitatem utendi.
However, he ought to have the fruit of the implements; nevertheless he does not have the faculty of selling. For even if the usufruct of a farm has been bequeathed, and there is a field from which the paterfamilias was accustomed to make use of stakes for the farm whose usufruct is bequeathed, whether of willow or of reed, I think the usufructuary can use it to this extent, that he not sell from it, unless perhaps the usufruct of a willow-grove or of a stake-wood or of a reed-bed has been bequeathed to him: then indeed he can also sell. For Trebatius too writes that the usufructuary can cut a coppice and a reed-bed, just as the paterfamilias used to cut, and sell, although the paterfamilias was not accustomed to sell, but to use them himself: for the reference is to the mode, not to the quality of the using.
Arboribus evolsis vel vi ventorum deiectis usque ad usum suum et villae posse usufructuarium ferre labeo ait: nec materia eum pro ligno usurum, si habeat unde utatur ligno. quam sententiam puto veram: alioquin et si totus ager sit hunc casum passus, omnes arbores auferret fructuarius: materiam tamen ipsum succidere quantum ad villae refectionem putat posse: quemadmodum calcem, inquit, coquere vel harenam fodere aliudve quid aedificio necessarium sumere.
Labeo says that, when trees have been torn up by the roots or thrown down by the force of winds, the usufructuary may carry them off for his own use and that of the villa; and that he is not to use timber as firewood, if he has a source from which to use/take firewood. I think this opinion true: otherwise, even if the whole field had suffered this mishap, the fructuary would carry off all the trees. Nevertheless, he thinks that he himself may cut timber insofar as concerns the refection/repair of the villa—just as, he says, to burn lime or to dig sand or to take whatever else is necessary for the building.
Usufructuarius vel ipse frui ea re vel alii fruendam concedere vel locare vel vendere potest: nam et qui locat utitur, et qui vendit utitur. sed et si alii precario concedat vel donet, puto eum uti atque ideo retinere usum fructum, et hoc cassius et pegasus responderunt et pomponius libro quinto ex sabino probat. non solum autem si ego locavero, retineo usum fructum, sed et si alius negotium meum gerens locaverit usum fructum, iulianus libro trigensimo quinto scripsit retinere me usum fructum.
The usufructuary can either himself enjoy that thing, or grant it to another to be enjoyed, or lease it, or sell it: for both he who leases uses it, and he who sells uses it. But even if he grants it to another by precarium (at‑will permission) or donates it, I think he is using it and therefore retains the usufruct; and Cassius and Pegasus answered thus, and Pomponius in book 5 from Sabinus approves it. Moreover, not only if I have leased do I retain the usufruct, but also if another, managing my business, has leased the usufruct, Julianus in book 35 wrote that I retain the usufruct.
De illo pomponius dubitat, si fugitivus, in quo meus usus fructus est, stipuletur aliquid ex re mea vel per traditionem accipiat: an per hoc ipsum, quasi utar, retineam usum fructum? magisque admitti retinere. nam saepe etiamsi praesentibus servis non utamur, tamen usum fructum retinemus: ut puta aegrotante servo vel infante, cuius operae nullae sunt, vel defectae senectutis homine: nam et si agrum aremus, licet tam sterilis sit, ut nullus fructus nascatur, retinemus usum fructum.
Pomponius has doubts about this: if a fugitive, in whom my usufruct is, should stipulate something from my property or receive it by delivery (tradition): do I by this very fact, as though I were using, retain the usufruct? and it is rather to be admitted that I retain it. for often, even if we do not use slaves though they are present, nevertheless we retain the usufruct: as, for instance, when the slave is ill, or an infant whose services are none, or a man of failing old age: for even if we plough a field, although it is so barren that no fruit is produced, we retain the usufruct.
julianus, however, writes in the thirty-fifth book of the digests that, even if the fugitive slave does not stipulate anything, nevertheless the usufruct is retained: for, he says, by the same reasoning that possession is retained by the proprietor, even if the slave is in flight, by the same reasoning the usufruct also is retained.
Idem tractat: quid si quis possessionem eius nactus sit, an, quemadmodum a proprietario possideri desinit, ita etiam usus fructus amittatur? et primo quidem ait posse dici amitti usum fructum, sed licet amittatur, tamen dicendum, quod intra constitutum tempus ex re fructuarii stipulatus est, fructuario adquiri potest. per quod colligi posse dici, ne quidem si possideatur ab alio, amitti usum fructum, si modo mihi aliquid stipuletur, parvique referre, ab herede possideatur vel ab alio cui hereditas vendita sit vel cui proprietas legata sit, an a praedone: sufficere enim ad retinendum usum fructum esse affectum retinere volentis et servum nomine fructuarii aliquid facere: quae sententia habet rationem.
He likewise treats: what if someone has obtained possession of it—whether, just as it ceases to be possessed by the proprietor, so also the usufruct is lost? And at first indeed he says it can be said that the usufruct is lost; but although it be lost, nevertheless it must be said that what within the fixed time has been stipulated on the usufructuary’s account can be acquired for the usufructuary. From which it can be gathered to be said that not even if it is possessed by another is the usufruct lost, provided only that something is stipulated to me, and it matters little whether it is possessed by the heir, or by another to whom the inheritance has been sold, or to whom the ownership has been bequeathed, or by a brigand: for it suffices for retaining the usufruct that there be the intention of one who wishes to retain it and that a slave do something in the name of the usufructuary; which opinion has a rationale.
Iulianus libro trigensimo quinto digestorum tractat, si fur decerpserit vel desecuerit fructus maturos pendentes, cui condictione teneatur, domino fundi an fructuario? et putat, quoniam fructus non fiunt fructuarii, nisi ab eo percipiantur, licet ab alio terra separentur, magis proprietario condictionem competere, fructuario autem furti actionem, quoniam interfuit eius fructus non esse ablatos. Marcellus autem movetur eo, quod, si postea fructus istos nactus fuerit fructuarius, fortassis fiant eius: nam si fiunt, qua ratione hoc evenit?
Julian in the thirty-fifth book of the Digest treats the question: if a thief has plucked or cut off ripe fruits hanging, to whom is he held by condiction— to the owner of the estate or to the usufructuary? And he thinks that, since fruits do not become the usufructuary’s unless they are taken (perceived) by him, although they are separated from the land by another, the condiction rather lies for the proprietor, but to the usufructuary belongs the action for theft, since it was his concern that the fruits not be carried off. Marcellus, however, is moved by this: that if afterward the usufructuary should have obtained those fruits, perhaps they become his; for if they do, by what reasoning does this come about?
unless we say that those things, though meanwhile they became the proprietor’s, will, once presently seized by the usufructuary, become the usufructuary’s, on the example of a thing bequeathed under a condition, which meanwhile is the heir’s, but when the condition exists passes to the legatee. For it is true that the condiction is competent to the proprietor; but when the dominium is in suspense (as Julian himself says in the case of the offspring that is being brought forth, and in that which the slave in usufruct has received by delivery, the price indeed not yet paid, yet security given by him), it should be said that the condiction is in suspense, and rather that the dominium is in suspense.
Si cuius rei usus fructus legatus erit, dominus potest in ea re satisdationem desiderare, ut officio iudicis hoc fiat: nam sicuti debet fructuarius uti frui, ita et proprietatis dominus securus esse debet de proprietate. haec autem ad omnem usum fructum pertinere iulianus libro trigensimo octavo digestorum probat. si usus fructus legatus sit, non prius dandam actionem usufructuario, quam satisdederit se boni viri arbitratu usurum fruiturum: sed et si plures sint, a quibus usus fructus relictus est, singulis satisdari oportet.
If the usufruct of any thing has been bequeathed, the owner can demand security (satisdation) in respect of that thing, so that this be done by the judge’s office; for just as the usufructuary ought to use and enjoy, so too the owner of the proprietas ought to be secure as to the proprietas. Julian proves in Book 38 of the Digest that these matters pertain to every usufruct. If a usufruct is bequeathed, an action ought not to be given to the usufructuary before he has given security that he will use and enjoy according to the arbitration of a good man; and if there are several persons by whom the usufruct has been left, security must be given to each individually.
De praeteritis autem damnis fructuarius etiam lege aquilia tenetur et interdicto quod vi aut clam, ut iulianus ait: nam fructuarium quoque teneri his actionibus nec non furti certum est, sicut quemlibet alium, qui in aliena re tale quid commiserit. denique consultus, quo bonum fuit actionem polliceri praetorem, cum competat legis aquiliae actio, respondit, quia sunt casus, quibus cessat aquiliae actio, ideo iudicem dari, ut eius arbitratu utatur: nam qui agrum non proscindit, qui vites non subserit, item aquarum ductus conrumpi patitur, lege aquilia non tenetur. eadem et in usuario dicenda sunt.
As to past damages, moreover, the usufructuary is also held under the Aquilian law and the interdict quod vi aut clam, as Julian says: for it is certain that the usufructuary too is liable to these actions, and likewise for theft, just as anyone else who has committed such a thing in another’s property. Finally, when he was consulted for what case it was good that the praetor should promise an action, when the action of the Lex Aquilia is available, he replied that, because there are cases in which the Aquilian action does not apply, therefore a judge should be appointed, so that he may use his discretion: for he who does not plough a field, who does not replant vines, likewise who allows water-conduits to be spoiled, is not held by the Lex Aquilia. The same things are to be said also with respect to the user (usuary).
Sed si inter duos fructuarios sit controversia, iulianus libro trigensimo octavo digestorum scribit aequissimum esse quasi communi dividundo iudicium dari vel stipulatione inter se eos cavere, qualiter fruantur: cur enim, inquit iulianus, ad arma et rixam procedere patiatur praetor, quos potest iurisdictione sua componere? quam sententiam celsus quoque libro vicensimo digestorum probat, et ego puto veram.
But if there is a controversy between two usufructuaries, Julianus writes in the 38th book of the Digest that it is most equitable either that a proceeding be granted as if for division of common property (quasi communi dividundo), or that they bind themselves by stipulation as to how they shall enjoy the fruits; for why, says Julianus, should the praetor allow them to proceed to arms and brawl, whom he can compose by his jurisdiction? This opinion Celsus also approves in the 20th book of the Digest, and I think it true.
Fructuarius causam proprietatis deteriorem facere non debet, meliorem facere potest. et aut fundi est usus fructus legatus, et non debet neque arbores frugiferas excidere neque villam diruere nec quicquam facere in perniciem proprietatis. et si forte voluptarium fuit praedium, virdiaria vel gestationes vel deambulationes arboribus infructuosis opacas atque amoenas habens, non debebit deicere, ut forte hortos olitorios faciat vel aliud quid, quod ad reditum spectat.
The usufructuary ought not to make the condition of the ownership worse; he can make it better. And where the usufruct of a landed estate has been bequeathed, he ought neither to cut down fruit-bearing trees nor to demolish the villa, nor to do anything to the detriment of the ownership. And if perchance the estate was a pleasure-property, having pleasure-grounds or riding-circuits or promenades, shaded and pleasant with unfruitful trees, he ought not to throw them down, so as perhaps to make kitchen-gardens or anything else that looks to revenue.
Inde est quaesitum, an lapidicinas vel cretifodinas vel harenifodinas ipse instituere possit: et ego puto etiam ipsum instituere posse, si non agri partem necessariam huic rei occupaturus est. proinde venas quoque lapidicinarum et huiusmodi metallorum inquirere poterit: ergo et auri et argenti et sulpuris et aeris et ferri et ceterorum fodinas vel quas pater familias instituit exercere poterit vel ipse instituere, si nihil agriculturae nocebit. et si forte in hoc quod instituit plus reditus sit quam in vineis vel arbustis vel olivetis quae fuerunt, forsitan etiam haec deicere poterit, si quidem ei permittitur meliorare proprietatem.
Thence the question was raised whether he can himself institute stone-quarries or chalk-diggings or sand-pits; and I think that he too can institute them, if he is not going to occupy any part of the field necessary for this matter. Accordingly, he will also be able to inquire into the veins of quarries and of metals of this kind; therefore the diggings of gold and silver and sulphur and copper and iron and the rest he will be able either to work which the paterfamilias instituted, or to institute himself, if it will do nothing to harm agriculture. And if perchance in that which he has instituted there is more revenue than in the vineyards or tree-plantations or olive-groves which were there, perhaps he may even take these down, since indeed it is permitted him to ameliorate the property.
Si tamen quae instituit usufructuarius aut caelum corrumpant agri aut magnum apparatum sint desideratura opificum forte vel legulorum, quae non potest sustinere proprietarius, non videbitur viri boni arbitratu frui: sed nec aedificium quidem positurum in fundo, nisi quod ad fructum percipiendum necessarium sit.
If, however, the things which the usufructuary sets up either corrupt the sky of the field or are going to require a great apparatus of workmen or perhaps of pickers, which the owner cannot sustain, he will not be seen to be enjoying in the judgment of a good man; nor indeed is he to set up a building on the estate, except what is necessary for the taking of the fruits.
Sed si aedium usus fructus legatus sit, nerva filius et lumina immittere eum posse ait: sed et colores et picturas et marmora poterit et sigilla et si quid ad domus ornatum. sed neque diaetas transformare vel coniungere aut separare ei permittetur, vel aditus posticasve vertere, vel refugia aperire, vel atrium mutare, vel virdiaria ad alium modum convertere: excolere enim quod invenit potest qualitate aedium non immutata. item nerva eum, cui aedium usus fructus legatus sit, altius tollere non posse, quamvis lumina non obscurentur, quia tectum magis turbatur: quod labeo etiam in proprietatis domino scribit.
But if the usufruct of a house has been bequeathed, Nerva the son says that he can let in lights; and he can also add colors and paintings and marbles and small statues, and anything for the ornament of the house. But he will not be permitted to transform the apartments (diaetae) or to join or to separate them, or to alter the entrances or the back-doors, or to open escape-ways, or to change the atrium, or to convert the green-plots (viridaria) to another mode: for he can improve what he found, with the quality of the house not altered. Likewise Nerva says that he to whom the usufruct of a house has been bequeathed cannot raise it higher, although the lights are not darkened, because the roof is more disturbed: which Labeo also writes even of the owner of the property.
Item si domus usus fructus legatus sit, meritoria illic facere fructuarius non debet nec per cenacula dividere domum: atquin locare potest, sed oportebit quasi domum locare. nec balineum ibi faciendum est. quod autem dicit meritoria non facturum ita accipe quae volgo deversoria vel fullonica appellant. ego quidem, et si balineum sit in domo usibus dominicis solitum vacare in intima parte domus vel inter diaetas amoenas, non recte nec ex boni viri arbitratu facturum, si id locare coeperit, ut publice lavet, non magis quam si domum ad stationem iumentorum locaverit, aut si stabulum quod erat ^ orat^ domus iumentis et carruchis vacans, pistrino locaverit,
Likewise, if the usufruct of a house has been bequeathed, the usufructuary ought not to make meritoria there, nor to divide the house by upper-story rooms; yet he can lease it, but he will have to lease it as a house. Nor is a bath to be made there. But as to what he says—that he will not make meritoria—take it thus: those which are commonly called inns (deversoria) or fulleries (fullonicae). For my part, even if there is a bath in the house, accustomed to be reserved for the master’s uses in the inmost part of the house or among pleasant suites, he would not act rightly nor according to the judgment of a good man, if he should begin to lease it so that the public bathe, any more than if he leased the house for a station of beasts of burden, or if a stable which was ^ orat^ of the house, standing empty of beasts of burden and carriages, he leased to a bakehouse (pistrinum),
Mancipiorum quoque usus fructus legato non debet abuti, sed secundum condicionem eorum uti: nam si librarium rus mittat et qualum et calcem portare cogat, histrionem balniatorem faciat, vel de symphonia atriensem, vel de palaestra stercorandis latrinis praeponat, abuti videbitur proprietate.
The usufructuary of slaves under a legacy too ought not to abuse, but to use them according to their condition: for if he send a copyist to the countryside and compel him to carry a basket and lime, make an actor a bath-attendant, or make a hall-steward out of a musician from the band, or set a man from the wrestling-school over the dunging of the latrines, he will be seen to be abusing the ownership.
Proinde etsi scaenicae vestis usus fructus legetur vel aulaei vel alterius apparatus, alibi quam in scaena non utetur, sed an et locare possit, videndum est: et puto locaturum, et licet testator commodare, non locare fuerit solitus, tamen ipsum fructuarium locaturum tam scaenicam quam funebrem vestem.
Accordingly, even if the usufruct of scenic attire is bequeathed, or of the curtain or of some other apparatus, he shall not use it anywhere other than on the stage; but whether he can also let it out must be considered: and I think he can let it out; and although the testator was wont to lend, not to lease, nevertheless the usufructuary himself will lease out both scenic and funereal attire.
Proprietatis dominus non debebit impedire fructuarium ita utentem, ne deteriorem eius condicionem faciat. de quibusdam plane dubitatur, si eum uti prohibeat, an iure id faciat: ut puta doleis, si forte fundi usus fructus sit legatus, et putant quidam, etsi defossa sint, uti prohibendum: idem et in seriis et in cuppis et in cadis et amphoris putant: idem et in specularibus, si domus usus fructus legetur. sed ego puto, nisi sit contraria voluntas, etiam instrumentum fundi vel domus contineri.
The owner of the property ought not to impede the usufructuary in such use, provided he does not make its condition worse. Plainly, there is doubt whether, if he forbids him to use certain things, he does so by right: for instance, dolia, if perchance the usufruct of a farm has been bequeathed; and some think that, even if they are embedded, he should be prohibited from using them: they think the same of seriae, and of tubs, and of casks and amphoras: likewise of windowpanes, if the usufruct of a house is bequeathed. But I think, unless there is a contrary intention, that even the equipment (instrumentum) of the farm or the house is included.
Sed nec servitutem imponere fundo potest proprietarius nec amittere servitutem: adquirere plane servitutem eum posse etiam invito fructuario iulianus scripsit. quibus consequenter fructuarius quidem adquirere fundo servitutem non potest, retinere autem potest: et si forte fuerint non utente fructuario amissae, hoc quoque nomine tenebitur. proprietatis dominus ne quidem consentiente fructuario servitutem imponere potest,
But neither can the proprietor impose a servitude upon the estate nor can he lose a servitude: plainly Julian wrote that he can acquire a servitude even with the usufructuary unwilling. From which it follows correspondingly that the usufructuary indeed cannot acquire a servitude for the estate, but he can retain it: and if by chance they have been lost through the usufructuary not using them, he will be held liable on this account as well. The owner of the proprietas cannot impose a servitude even with the usufructuary consenting,
Locum autem religiosum facere potest consentiente usufructuario: et hoc verum est favore religionis. sed interdum et solus proprietatis dominus locum religiosum facere potest: finge enim eum testatorem inferre, cum non esset tam oportune, ubi sepeliretur.
A place, moreover, can be made religious with the usufructuary consenting; and this is true in favor of religion. But sometimes even the owner of the property alone can make a place religious: imagine, for instance, that he carries the testator to burial, when there was not so opportune a place where he might be buried.
Ex eo, ne deteriorem condicionem fructuarii faciat proprietarius, solet quaeri, an servum dominus coercere possit. et aristo apud cassium notat plenissimam eum coercitionem habere, si modo sine dolo malo faciat: quamvis usufructuarius nec contrariis quidem ministeriis aut inusitatis artificium eius corrumpere possit nec servum cicatricibus deformare.
from this, so that the proprietor not make the condition of the usufructuary worse, it is usually asked whether the master can coerce the slave. and aristo, in cassius, notes that he has the fullest coercive power, provided only that he acts without fraudulent intent; although the usufructuary cannot corrupt his skill by contrary services, nor even by unusual ones, nor disfigure the slave with scars.
Proprietarius autem et servum noxae dedere poterit, si hoc sine dolo malo faciat, quoniam noxae deditio iure non peremit usum fructum, non magis quam usucapio proprietatis, quae post constitutum usum fructum contingit. debebit plane denegari usus fructus persecutio, si ei qui noxae accepit litis aestimatio non offeratur a fructuario.
The proprietor, moreover, can also surrender the slave by noxal surrender, if he does this without fraud or malice, since noxal surrender by law does not extinguish the usufruct, any more than the usucapion of the ownership which occurs after the usufruct has been constituted. plainly, the action for the usufruct ought to be denied, if the valuation of the action is not tendered by the usufructuary to him who accepted the noxal surrender.
Proculus putat insulam posse ita legari, ut ei servitus imponatur, quae alteri insulae hereditariae debeatur, hoc modo: " si ille heredi meo promiserit per se non fore, quo altius ea aedificia tollantur, tum ei eorum aedificiorum usum fructum do lego" vel sic: " aedium illarum, quoad altius, quam uti nunc sunt, aedificatae non erunt, illi usum fructum do lego. "
Proculus thinks a tenement can be thus bequeathed, so that a servitude is imposed upon it, which shall be owed to another hereditary tenement, in this manner: " if he shall have promised to my heir that, through himself, it will not come about that those buildings are raised higher, then to him I give and bequeath the usufruct of those buildings" or thus: " of those houses, so long as they shall not have been built higher than as they now are, I give and bequeath to him the usufruct. "
Si servi usus fructus sit legatus, quidquid is ex opera sua adquirit vel ex re fructuarii, ad eum pertinet, sive stipuletur sive ei possessio fuerit tradita. si vero heres institutus sit vel legatum acceperit, labeo distinguit, cuius gratia vel heres instituitur vel legatum acceperit.
If the usufruct of a slave has been bequeathed, whatever he acquires from his own labor or from the property of the usufructuary pertains to him—that is, it goes to the usufructuary—whether he stipulates or possession has been delivered to him. But if he has been instituted heir or has received a legacy, Labeo distinguishes according to for whose sake he was either instituted heir or received the legacy.
Sed et si quid donetur servo, in quo usus fructus alterius est, quaeritur, quid fieri oporteat. et in omnibus istis, si quidem contemplatione fructuarii aliquid ei relictum vel donatum est, ipsi adquiret: sin vero proprietarii, proprietario: si ipsius servi, adquiretur domino, nec distinguimus, unde cognitum eum et cuius merito habuit, qui donavit vel reliquit. sed et si condicionis implendae causa quid servus fructuarius consequatur et constiterit contemplatione fructuarii eam condicionem adscriptam, dicendum est ipsi adquiri: nam et in mortis causa donatione idem dicendum est.
But also, if anything is gifted to a slave in whom another has a usufruct, the question arises what ought to be done. And in all such cases, if indeed something has been left or donated to him in contemplation of the usufructuary, it is acquired for that person; but if in contemplation of the proprietor, for the proprietor; if in contemplation of the slave himself, it is acquired for the owner. Nor do we distinguish whence the donor knew him and to whose merit he attributed it, the one who gave or bequeathed. But also, if for the sake of fulfilling a condition the slave held in usufruct obtains something, and it is established that that condition was appended in contemplation of the usufructuary, it must be said to be acquired for him; for the same is to be said in a donation mortis causa.
Sed sicuti stipulando fructuario adquirit, ita etiam paciscendo eum adquirere exceptionem fructuario iulianus libro trigensimo digestorum scribit. idemque et si acceptum rogaverit, liberationem ei parere.
But just as by stipulating he acquires for the usufructuary, so also Julianus, in the 30th book of the Digest, writes that by making a pact he likewise acquires for him an exception for the usufructuary. And likewise, if he has requested an entry of receipt to be acknowledged, it yields liberation for him.
Quoniam autem diximus quod ex operis adquiritur ad fructuarium pertinere, sciendum est etiam cogendum eum operari: etenim modicam quoque castigationem fructuario competere sabinus respondit et cassius libro octavo iuris civilis scripsit, ut neque torqueat, neque flagellis caedat.
Since, moreover, we have said that what is acquired from labor pertains to the usufructuary, it must also be understood that he can be compelled to work: for Sabinus replied that even a moderate chastisement is competent against the usufructuary; and Cassius wrote in the eighth book of Civil Law that he must neither torture nor scourge with whips.
Interdum tamen in pendenti est, cui adquirat iste fructuarius servus: ut puta si servum emit et per traditionem accepit necdum pretium numeravit, sed tantummodo pro eo fecit satis, interim cuius sit, quaeritur. et iulianus libro trigensimo quinto digestorum scripsit in pendenti esse dominium eius et numerationem pretii declaraturam, cuius sit: nam si ex re fructuarii, retro fructuarii fuisse. idemque est et si forte stipulatus sit servus numeraturus pecuniam: nam numeratio declarabit, cui sit adquisita stipulatio.
Sometimes, however, it is in suspense to whom this usufructuary slave acquires: for instance, if he buys a slave and receives him by tradition, and has not yet numerated the price, but has only furnished surety for it, in the meantime it is asked whose he is. And Julian, in the thirty-fifth book of the Digest, wrote that his dominium is in suspense, and that the numeration of the price will declare whose he is: for if it is from the property of the usufructuary, he will have been the usufructuary’s retroactively. And the same is true also if perhaps the slave has stipulated that he will numerate the money: for the numeration will declare to whom the stipulatio has been acquired.
therefore we have shown that ownership is in suspense until the price is counted out. what then if, with the usufruct lost, the price is then paid? julianus indeed, in the thirty-fifth book of the Digest, wrote that it still matters whence the price was paid; but Marcellus and mauricianus think that, the usufruct having been lost, ownership has already been acquired by the owner of the property. but julianus’s opinion is more humane.
But if the price has been paid out of the property of both, Julian wrote that dominion pertains to both, namely pro rata of the price paid. Yet what if perchance he pays at the same time from the property of both, as, for instance, he owed 10,000 by way of the price and paid ten apiece out of the property of each: to which does the slave acquire more? If he pays by numeration, it will matter whose coins he pays first; for those which he pays afterwards he will either vindicate, or, if the coins have been consumed, they pertain to a condiction. But if he pays them together in a little sack, he has done nothing for the recipient, and therefore he seems not yet to have acquired dominion for anyone, because, since the slave pays more than the price, he will not make the coins the recipient’s.
Si operas suas iste servus locaverit et in annos singulos certum aliquid stipuletur, eorum quidem annorum stipulatio, quibus usus fructus mansit, adquiretur fructuario, sequentium vero stipulatio ad proprietarium transit semel adquisita fructuario, quamvis non soleat stipulatio semel cui quaesita ad alium transire nisi ad heredem vel adrogatorem. proinde si forte usus fructus in annos singulos fuerit legatus et iste servus operas suas locavit et stipulatus est ut supra scriptum est, prout capitis minutione amissus fuerit usus fructus, mox restitutus, ambulabit stipulatio profectaque ad heredem redibit ad fructuarium.
If this slave has let out his services and stipulates for a certain sum in each several year, the stipulation for those years during which the usufruct remained is acquired by the usufructuary; but the stipulation for the following years passes to the proprietor—although a stipulation once acquired for someone is not wont to pass to another, except to an heir or to an adrogator. Accordingly, if perchance a usufruct has been bequeathed in single years, and this slave let out his services and stipulated as is written above, then, in proportion as the usufruct has been lost by capitis deminution and soon restored, the stipulation will move about, and, having gone forth to the heir, will return to the usufructuary.
Quaestionis est, an id quod adquiri fructuario non potest proprietario adquiratur. et iulianus quidem libro trigensimo quinto digestorum scripsit, quod fructuario adquiri non potest proprietario quaeri. denique scribit eum, qui ex re fructuarii stipuletur nominatim proprietario vel iussu eius, ipsi adquirere.
It is a question whether that which cannot be acquired for the usufructuary is acquired for the proprietor. And Julian, indeed, in book 35 of the Digest wrote that what cannot be acquired for the usufructuary is to be claimed for the proprietor. Finally, he writes that one who stipulates on the usufructuary’s account, expressly for the proprietor or by his order, acquires it for him.
Servus fructuarius si usum fructum in se dari stipuletur aut sine nomine aut nominatim proprietario, ipsi adquirit exemplo servi communis, qui stipulando rem alteri ex dominis cuius res est, nihil agit, quoniam rem suam stipulando quis nihil agit, alteri stipulando adquirit solidum.
If a usufructuary slave should stipulate that a usufruct in himself be given, either without naming anyone or expressly naming the proprietor, he acquires it for him, on the example of a common slave, who, by stipulating the thing to that one of the co-owners to whom the thing belongs, does nothing—since by stipulating one’s own thing one does nothing—whereas by stipulating to the other he acquires the whole.
Idem iulianus eodem libro scripsit: si servo fructuarius operas eius locaverit, nihil agit: nam et si ex re mea, inquit, a me stipulatus sit, nihil agit, non magis quam servus alienus bona fide mihi serviens idem agendo domino quicquam adquirit. simili modo, ait, ne quidem si rem meam a me fructuario conducat, me non obligabit. et regulariter definiit: quod quis ab alio stipulando mihi adquirit, id a me stipulando nihil agit: nisi forte, inquit, nominatim domino suo stipuletur a me vel conducat.
The same Julian wrote in the same book: if, in the case of a slave, the usufructuary has let out his services, he does nothing; for even if, he says, he has stipulated from me ex re mea (for my benefit), he does nothing—no more than a slave belonging to another, serving me in good faith, by doing the same acquires anything for his master. In a like manner, he says, not even if someone hires my thing from me, the usufructuary, will he bind me. And he defined as a rule: what someone, by stipulating from another, acquires for me, that, by stipulating from me, accomplishes nothing—unless perhaps, he says, he stipulates expressly in his master’s name from me, or takes it on hire.
Si duos fructuarios proponas et ex alterius re servus sit stipulatus, quaeritur, utrum totum an pro parte, qua habet usum fructum, ei quaeratur. nam et in duobus bonae fidei possessoribus hoc idem est apud scaevolam agitatum libro secundo quaestionum, et ait volgo creditum rationemque hoc facere, ut si ex re alterius stipuletur, partem ei dumtaxat quaeri, partem domino: quod si nominatim sit stipulatus, nec dubitari debere, quin adiecto nomine solidum ei quaeratur. idemque ait et si iussu eius stipuletur, quoniam iussum pro nomine accipimus.
If you posit two usufructuaries, and a slave has stipulated from the property of one of them, the question is raised whether the whole is acquired for him, or only for the share in which he has usufruct. For the same issue has been discussed by Scaevola concerning two bona fide possessors in Book Two of the Questions, and he says it is commonly believed, and reason supports this, that if he stipulates from the property of another, a part is acquired for him only, and a part for the owner; but if he has stipulated by name, there ought to be no doubt that, with the name added, the whole (the solid) is acquired for him. And he says the same also if he stipulates by his order, since we take an order in place of a name.
Quod autem diximus ex re fructuarii vel ex operis posse adquirere, utrum tunc locum habeat, quotiens iure legati usus fructus sit constitutus, an et si per traditionem vel stipulationem vel alium quemcumque modum, videndum. et vera est pegasi sententia, quam et iulianus libro sexto decimo secutus est, omni fructuario adquiri.
But as to our statement that it is possible to acquire from the thing of the usufructuary or from his works, it must be considered whether this has place only when the usufruct has been constituted by right of legacy, or also if by tradition or stipulation or any other mode. And Pegasius’s opinion is true, which Julian too followed in book 16: that it is acquired for every usufructuary.
Si operas suas locaverit servus fructuarius et imperfecto tempore locationis usus fructus interierit, quod superest ad proprietarium pertinebit. sed et si ab initio certam summam propter operas certas stipulatus fuerit, capite deminuto eo idem dicendum est.
If the usufructuary’s slave has hired out his services, and, before the term of the lease is completed, the usufruct has perished, what remains will pertain to the proprietor. But also if from the beginning he has stipulated a fixed sum on account of fixed services, upon his capitis deminutio the same must be said.
Si quid cloacarii nomine debeatur vel si quid ob formam aquae ductus, quae per agrum transit, pendatur, ad onus fructuarii pertinebit: sed et si quid ad collationem viae, puto hoc quoque fructuarium subiturum: ergo et quod ob transitum exercitus confertur ex fructibus: sed et si quid municipio, nam solent possessores certam partem fructuum municipio viliori pretio addicere: solent et fisco fusiones praestare. haec onera ad fructuarium pertinebunt.
If anything is owed under the name of the sewer-dues, or if anything is paid on account of the structure of an aqueduct that passes through the field, it will pertain to the burden of the usufructuary: and also if anything is for a contribution to the road, I think the usufructuary will undergo this as well: therefore also what is contributed out of the fruits on account of the passage of an army: and likewise if anything is to the municipality, for possessors are accustomed to assign a certain part of the fruits to the municipality at a cheaper price: they are also accustomed to render payments (fusiones) to the fisc. these burdens will pertain to the usufructuary.
Si is, qui binas aedes habeat, aliarum usum fructum legaverit, posse heredem Marcellus scribit alteras altius tollendo obscurare luminibus, quoniam habitari potest etiam obscuratis aedibus. quod usque adeo temperandum est, ut non in totum aedes obscurentur, sed modicum lumen, quod habitantibus sufficit, habeant.
If a person who has two houses has bequeathed the usufruct of one of them, Marcellus writes that the heir can, by raising the other higher, obscure its lights, since a house can be inhabited even with its lights obscured. This, however, must be tempered to this extent: that the house not be completely darkened, but that it have a modest light which suffices for the inhabitants.
Si quis unas aedes, quas solas habet, vel fundum tradit, excipere potest id, quod personae, non praedii est, veluti usum et usum fructum. sed et si excipiat, ut pascere sibi vel inhabitare liceat, valet exceptio, cum ex multis saltibus pastione fructus perciperetur. et habitationis exceptione, sive temporali sive usque ad mortem eius qui excepit, usus videtur exceptus.
If someone conveys a single house, which is the only one he has, or a farm, he can reserve that which pertains to the person, not to the praedium, such as use and usufruct. But even if he reserves that it be permitted for him to pasture or to inhabit, the reservation is valid, since from many pasturelands (saltus) the fruits are taken by pasturing. And by a reservation of habitation, whether for a term or until the death of the one who reserved it, use is considered to have been reserved.
Usum fructum in quibusdam casibus non partis effectum optinere convenit: unde si fundi vel fructus portio petatur et absolutione secuta postea pars altera quae adcrevit vindicetur, in lite quidem proprietatis iudicatae rei exceptionem obstare, in fructus vero non obstare scribit iulianus, quoniam portio fundi velut alluvio portioni, personae fructus adcresceret.
It is agreed that in certain cases a usufruct does not obtain the effect of a share; whence, if a portion of a farm or of the fruits is sought, and after an acquittal has followed, thereafter the other part which has accreted is claimed, then indeed in the suit for ownership the exception of res judicata stands in the way, but as to the fruits Julian writes that it does not stand in the way, since the portion of the farm, as if by alluvion, accreted to the portion, whereas the fruits accrete to the person.
Quotiens duobus usus fructus legatur ita, ut alternis annis utantur fruantur, si quidem ita legatus fuerit " titio et maevio", potest dici priori titio, deinde maevio legatum datum. si vero duo eiusdem nominis fuerint et ita scriptum fuerit " titiis usum fructum alternis annis do": nisi consenserint, uter eorum prior utatur, invicem sibi impedient. quod si titius eo anno, quo frueretur, proprietatem accepisset, interim legatum non habebit, sed ad maevium alternis annis usus fructus pertinebit: et si titius proprietatem alienasset, habebit eum usum fructum, quia et si sub condicione usus fructus mihi legatus fuerit et interim proprietatem ab herede accepero, pendente autem condicione eandem alienavero, ad legatum admittar.
Whenever a usufruct is bequeathed to two in such a way that they are to use and enjoy it in alternate years, if indeed it has been so bequeathed “to titio and maevio,” it can be said that the legacy was given first to titio, then to maevio. But if there were two of the same name and it has been written thus, “to the titiuses I give a usufruct in alternate years”: unless they agree which of them shall use it first, they will hinder one another. But if titius, in the year in which he would have enjoyed it, had received ownership, in the meantime he will not have the legacy, but the usufruct will pertain to maevio in alternate years; and if titius had alienated the ownership, he will have that usufruct, because even if a usufruct had been bequeathed to me under a condition, and in the meantime I receive ownership from the heir, but while the condition is pending I alienate the same, I am admitted to the legacy.
Universorum bonorum an singularum rerum usus fructus legetur, hactenus interesse puto, quod, si aedes incensae fuerint, usus fructus specialiter aedium legatus peti non potest, bonorum autem usu fructu legato areae usus fructus peti poterit: quoniam qui bonorum suorum usum fructum legat, non solum eorum, quae in specie sunt, sed et substantiae omnis usum fructum legare videtur: in substantia autem bonorum etiam area est.
Whether a usufruct of all the goods or of individual things is bequeathed, I think the difference is this: if the house(s) have been burned, a usufruct specifically of the house(s) bequeathed cannot be claimed; but under a legacy of the usufruct of the goods, the usufruct of the site can be claimed. For he who bequeaths the usufruct of his goods seems to bequeath the usufruct not only of those which are in specie, but also of the whole substance; and in the substance of the goods the site is included.
Usus fructus servi mihi legatus est isque, cum ego uti frui desissem, liber esse iussus est: deinde ego ab herede aestimationem legati tuli: nihilo magis eum liberum fore sabinus respondit ( namque videri me uti frui homine, pro quo aliquam rem habeam), condicionem autem eius libertatis eandem manere, ita ut mortis meae aut capitis deminutionis interventu liber futurus esset.
The usufruct of a slave was bequeathed to me, and he, when I had ceased to use and enjoy, was ordered to be free: thereafter I received from the heir the valuation of the legacy: sabinus responded that he would be none the more to be free ( for I am considered to be using and enjoying the man, in whose place I have some thing), but that the condition of that liberty remains the same, so that by the intervention of my death or of a capitis deminution (diminution of status) he would be about to be free.
Qui usum fructum areae legaverat, insulam ibi aedificavit: ea vivo eo decidit vel deusta est: usum fructum deberi existimavit. contra autem non idem iuris esse, si insulae usu fructu legato area, deinde insula facta sit. idemque esse, et si scyphorum usus fructus legatus sit, deinde massa facta et iterum scyphi: licet enim pristina qualitas scyphorum restituta sit, non tamen illos esse, quorum usus fructus legatus sit.
He who had bequeathed the usufruct of a plot (area) built a tenement (insula) there: while he was still alive it collapsed or was burned: he considered the usufruct to be owed. On the contrary, the same law is not in force if, the usufruct of the tenement having been bequeathed, the plot was thereafter made into a tenement. And the same holds if the usufruct of cups (scyphi) was bequeathed, then they were made into a mass and again into cups: for although the former quality of the cups has been restored, nevertheless they are not the very ones whose usufruct was bequeathed.
Stipulatus sum de titio fundum cornelianum detracto usu fructu: titius decessit: quaesitum est, quid mihi heredem eius praestare oportet. respondit referre, qua mente usus fructus exceptus sit: nam si quidem hoc actum est, ut in cuiuslibet persona usus fructus constitueretur, solam proprietatem heredem debiturum: sin autem id actum sit, ut promissori dumtaxat usus fructus reciperetur, plenam proprietatem heredem eius debiturum. hoc ita se habere manifestius in causa legatorum apparere: etenim si heres, a quo detracto usu fructu proprietas legata sit, priusquam ex testamento ageretur, decesserit, minus dubitandum, quin heres eius plenam proprietatem sit debiturus.
I stipulated from Titius for the Cornelian estate with the usufruct deducted: Titius died: the question was asked what his heir ought to render to me. He answered that it makes a difference with what intention the usufruct was excepted: for if indeed it was transacted that the usufruct be constituted in the person of anyone whatsoever, the heir would owe only the property; but if it was transacted that the usufruct be reserved only to the promisor, the heir would owe full property. That this is so appears more plainly in the case of legacies: for if the heir, by whom—with the usufruct deducted—the property was bequeathed, has died before action was brought on the testament, there is less room for doubt that his heir will owe full property.
Usus fructus servi titio legatus est: cum per heredem staret, quo minus praestaretur, servus mortuus est: aliud dici non posse ait, quam in id obligatum esse heredem, quanti legatarii intersit moram factam non esse, ut scilicet ex eo tempore in diem, in quo servus sit mortuus, usus fructus aestimetur. cui illud quoque consequens esse, ut si ipse titius moriatur, similiter ex eo tempore, quo mora sit facta, in diem mortis aestimatio usus fructus heredi eius praestaretur.
The usufruct of a slave was bequeathed to Titius: when it depended on the heir, whereby it was not provided, the slave died: he says that nothing else can be said than that the heir is obligated in the amount of the legatee’s interest that no delay have been caused, namely, that the usufruct be valued from that time up to the day on which the slave died. And this also follows: that if Titius himself dies, similarly from the time when delay was made, a valuation of the usufruct up to the day of death be rendered to his heir.
Quaesitum est, si, cum in annos decem proximos usum fructum de te dari stipulatus essem, per te steterit quo minus dares et quinquennium transierit, quid iuris sit. item si stichi decem annorum proximorum operas de te dari stipulatus sim et similiter quinquennium praeteriit. respondit eius temporis usum fructum et operas recte peti, quod per te transactum est quo minus darentur.
It was asked, if, when I had stipulated that a usufruct be given by you for the next ten years, it was due to you that you did not give it and a five-year period has passed, what the law is. Likewise, if I stipulated that the services of Stichus for the next ten years be given by you, and similarly five years have elapsed. He responded that the usufruct and the services for that time are rightly claimed, since it was through you that they were not given.
Non utitur usufructuarius, si nec ipse utatur nec nomine eius alius, puta qui emit vel qui conduxit vel cui donatus est vel qui negotium eius gerit. plane illud interest, quod, si vendidero usum fructum, etiamsi emptor non utatur, videor usum fructum retinere,
The usufructuary is not using it, if neither he himself uses it nor another in his name, for example one who bought it or who leased it or to whom it was given as a gift or who conducts his business. Clearly this makes a difference, because if I sell the usufruct, even if the buyer does not use it, I am deemed to retain the usufruct,
Rerum an aestimationis usus fructus tibi legetur, interest: nam si quidem rerum legetur, deducto eo, quod praeterea tibi legatum est, ex reliquis bonis usum fructum feres: sin autem aestimationis usus fructus legatus est, id quoque aestimabitur, quod praeterea tibi legatum est. nam saepius idem legando non ampliat testator legatum: re autem legata etiam aestimationem eius legando ampliare legatum possumus.
It makes a difference whether the usufruct of the things or of the valuation is bequeathed to you: for if indeed the usufruct of the things is bequeathed, after deducting that which besides has been left to you, you will enjoy the usufruct from the remaining goods; but if a usufruct of the valuation has been bequeathed, that too will be appraised which has otherwise been left to you. For by bequeathing the same thing repeatedly the testator does not amplify the legacy; but, the thing having been bequeathed, we can also amplify the legacy by bequeathing its valuation.
Usufructuarius novum tectorium parietibus, qui rudes fuissent, imponere non potest, quia tametsi meliorem excolendo aedificium domini causam facturus esset, non tamen id iure suo facere potest, aliudque est tueri quod accepisset an novum faceret.
A usufructuary cannot impose a new plaster-coating upon walls that were raw/rough, because although by improving (cultivating) the building he would make the owner’s condition better, nevertheless he cannot do that by his own right; and it is one thing to maintain what he received, and another to make something new.
Quod si heres hoc non fecisset et ob id fructuarius frui non potuisset, heres etiam fructuarii eo nomine habebit actionem, quanti fructuarii interfuisset non cessasse heredem, licet usus fructus morte eius interisset.
But if the heir had not done this, and on that account the usufructuary had not been able to enjoy, the heir of the usufructuary too will have, under that head, the action for as much as it would have been in the usufructuary’s interest that the heir had not been remiss, although the usufruct had been extinguished by the usufructuary’s death.
Si absente fructuario heres quasi negotium eius gerens reficiat, negotiorum gestorum actionem adversus fructuarium habet, tametsi sibi in futurum heres prospiceret. sed si paratus sit recedere ab usu fructu fructuarius, non est cogendus reficere, sed actione negotiorum gestorum liberatur.
If, with the usufructuary absent, the heir, as though managing his business, makes repairs, he has the negotiorum gestorum action against the usufructuary, even though the heir was looking to his own future interest. But if the usufructuary is prepared to withdraw from the usufruct, he is not compelled to repair, but is released from the negotiorum gestorum action.
Titius maevio fundum tusculanum reliquit eiusque fidei commisit, ut eiusdem fundi partis dimidiae usum fructum titiae praestaret: maevius villam vetustate corruptam necessariam cogendis et conservandis fructibus aedificavit: quaesitum est, an sumptus partem pro portione usus fructus titia adgnoscere debeat. respondit scaevola, si priusquam usus fructus praestaretur, necessario aedificasset, non alias cogendum restituere quam eius sumptus ratio haberetur.
titius bequeathed to maevius the tusculan estate and committed it to his trust, in order that he should provide to titia the usufruct of one-half of the same estate: maevius built a villa, the former one having been ruined by age, necessary for gathering and conserving the fruits: it was asked whether titia ought to acknowledge a share of the expenses in proportion to the usufruct. scaevola answered that, if before the usufruct was furnished he had necessarily built, he is not otherwise to be compelled to restore, except insofar as account is taken of his expenses.
Sub condicione usus fructus fundi a te herede titio legatus est: tu fundum mihi vendidisti et tradidisti detracto usu fructu: quaero, si non extiterit condicio, aut extiterit et interiit usus fructus, ad quem pertineat. respondit: intellego te de usu fructu quaerere qui legatus est: itaque si condicio eius legati extiterit, dubium non est, quin ad legatarium is usus fructus pertineat et si aliquo casu ab eo amissus fuerit, ad proprietatem fundi revertatur: quod si condicio non extiterit, usus fructus ad heredem pertinebit, ita ut in eius persona omnia eadem serventur, quae ad amittendum usum fructum pertinent et servari solent. ceterum in eiusmodi venditione spectandum id erit, quod inter ementem vendentemque convenerit, ut, si apparuerit legati causa eum usum fructum exceptum esse, etiamsi condicio non extiterit, restitui a venditore emptori debeat.
Under a condition the usufruct of a farm was bequeathed by you, the heir, to Titius: you sold and delivered the farm to me with the usufruct deducted; I ask, if the condition has not come into existence, or has come into existence and the usufruct has perished, to whom it pertains. he responded: I understand you to be asking about the usufruct which was bequeathed: and so, if the condition of that legacy has come into existence, there is no doubt that that usufruct pertains to the legatee; and if by some chance it has been lost by him, it reverts to the proprietorship of the farm. But if the condition has not come into existence, the usufruct will pertain to the heir, such that in his person all the same things are observed which pertain to the forfeiture of a usufruct and are wont to be observed. Moreover, in a sale of this sort, one must look to what has been agreed between buyer and seller, so that, if it shall appear that on account of the legacy that usufruct was excepted, even if the condition has not come into existence, it ought to be restored by the vendor to the purchaser.
An usus fructus nomine actio municipibus dari debeat, quaesitum est: periculum enim esse videbatur, ne perpetuus fieret, quia neque morte nec facile capitis deminutione periturus est, qua ratione proprietas inutilis esset futura semper abscedente usu fructu. sed tamen placuit dandam esse actionem. unde sequens dubitatio est, quousque tuendi essent in eo usu fructu municipes: et placuit centum annos tuendos esse municipes, quia is finis vitae longaevi hominis est.
It has been asked whether an action under the name of a usufruct ought to be given to the municipes: for there seemed to be a danger lest it become perpetual, since it would perish neither by death nor easily by capitis deminutio, with the result that ownership would be useless, the usufruct always standing apart. Nevertheless, it was decided that the action should be given. Whence the following doubt arises, how long the municipes ought to be protected in that usufruct: and it was decided that the municipes are to be protected for 100 years, because that is the limit of a long-lived man’s life.
Dominus fructuario praedium, quod ei per usum fructum serviebat, legavit, idque praedium aliquamdiu possessum legatarius restituere filio, qui causam inofficiosi testamenti recte pertulerat, coactus est: mansisse fructus ius integrum ex post facto apparuit.
The owner bequeathed to the usufructuary the estate which had served him by usufruct, and the legatee, having possessed that estate for some time, was compelled to restore it to the son, who had rightly carried the action of an undutiful will; it appeared ex post facto that the right of usufruct had remained intact.
Defuncta fructuaria mense decembri iam omnibus fructibus, qui in his agris nascuntur, mense octobri per colonos sublatis quaesitum est, utrum pensio heredi fructuariae solvi deberet, quamvis fructuaria ante kalendas martias, quibus pensiones inferri debeant, decesserit, an dividi debeat inter heredem fructuariae et rem publicam, cui proprietas legata est. respondi rem publicam quidem cum colono nullam actionem habere, fructuariae vero heredem sua die secundum ea quae proponerentur integram pensionem percepturum.
After the fructuary died in the month of December, when already all the fruits that arise on these fields had been removed by the coloni in the month of October, the question was asked whether the rent ought to be paid to the heir of the fructuary, although the fructuary died before the Kalends of March, on which rents ought to be paid in, or whether it ought to be divided between the heir of the fructuary and the commonwealth, to which the ownership has been bequeathed. I replied that the commonwealth indeed has no action against the colonus, but that the heir of the fructuary, on the due day, according to the terms set forth, will receive the full rent.
" sempronio do lego ex redactu fructuum holeris et porrinae, quae habeo in agro farrariorum, partem sextam". quaeritur, an his verbis usus fructus legatus videatur. respondi non usum fructum, sed ex eo quod redactum esset partem legatam.
" to Sempronius I give and bequeath, from the realized proceeds of the fruits of vegetables and leeks, which I have in the field of the spelt‑growers, a sixth part." The question is raised whether by these words a usufruct seems to have been bequeathed. I replied: not a usufruct, but that a part from what had been realized was bequeathed.
Si fundus, cuius usus fructus petitur, non a domino possideatur, actio redditur. et ideo si de fundi proprietate inter duos quaestio sit, fructuarius nihilo minus in possessione esse debet satisque ei a possessore cavendum est, quod non sit prohibiturus frui eum, cui usus fructus relictus est, quamdiu de iure suo probet. sed si ipsi usufructuario quaestio moveatur, interim usus fructus eius differtur: sed caveri de restituendo eo, quod ex his fructibus percepturus est, vel si satis non detur, ipse frui permittitur.
If a farm, the usufruct of which is sought, is not possessed by the owner, an action is afforded. And therefore, if there is a dispute between two persons about the ownership of the farm, the usufructuary ought nonetheless to be in possession, and security must be given him by the possessor that he will not prevent from enjoying the one to whom the usufruct has been left, so long as he proves his right. But if a dispute is raised against the usufructuary himself, meanwhile his usufruct is deferred; but security is to be taken for restoring that which he is going to receive from these fruits; or, if security is not given, he himself is permitted to enjoy.
Usufructuarius novum rivum parietibus non potest imponere. aedificium inchoatum fructuarium consummare non posse placet, etiamsi eo loco aliter uti non possit, sed nec eius quidem usum fructum esse: nisi in constituendo vel legando usu fructu hoc specialiter adiectum sit, ut utrumque ei liceat.
The usufructuary cannot impose a new water-channel upon the walls. It is held that the usufructuary cannot consummate a building that has been begun, even if he cannot otherwise use that place; nor indeed is there a usufruct of it—unless, in constituting or bequeathing the usufruct, this has been specially adjoined, that both be permitted to him.
Si vivariis inclusae ferae in ea possessione custodiebantur, quando usus fructus coepit, num exercere eas fructuarius possit, occidere non possit? alias si quas initio incluserit operis suis vel post sibimet ipsae inciderint delapsaeve fuerint, hae fructuarii iuris sint? commodissime tamen, ne per singula animalia facultatis fructuarii propter discretionem difficilem ius incertum sit, sufficit eundem numerum per singula quoque genera ferarum finito usu fructu domino proprietatis adsignare, qui fuit coepti usus fructus tempore.
If wild animals enclosed in vivaria were being kept on that holding when the usufruct began, is it that the usufructuary may exercise them but may not kill them? Otherwise, if any he enclosed at the outset by his own works, or later have of themselves fallen in or slipped down to him, let these be of the usufructuary’s right. Most conveniently, however, lest as to individual animals the entitlement of the usufructuary be uncertain on account of difficult discretion, it suffices, upon the usufruct being finished, to assign to the owner of the property the same number, for each kind of wild animal, as there was at the time the usufruct commenced.
Cum fructuarius paratus est usum fructum derelinquere, non est cogendus domum reficere, in quibus casibus et usufructuario hoc onus incumbit. sed et post acceptum contra eum iudicium parato fructuario derelinquere usum fructum dicendum est absolvi eum debere a iudice.
When the usufructuary is ready to relinquish the usufruct, he is not to be compelled to repair the house, even in those cases in which this burden lies upon the usufructuary. But even after a judgment has been received against him, if the usufructuary is ready to relinquish the usufruct, it must be said that he ought to be absolved by the judge.
Vetus fuit quaestio, an partus ad fructuarium pertineret: sed bruti sententia optinuit fructuarium in eo locum non habere: neque enim in fructu hominis homo esse potest. hac ratione nec usum fructum in eo fructuarius habebit. quid tamen si fuerit etiam partus usus fructus relictus, an habeat in eo usum fructum?
There was an old question, whether the offspring pertained to the usufructuary: but the opinion of Brutus prevailed, that the usufructuary has no place in this; for a human cannot be among the fruits of a human. By this reasoning the usufructuary will not have a usufruct in him either. Yet what if a usufruct of the offspring has also been left—does he have a usufruct in him?
Vel inutilium alia summittere, ut post substituta fiant propria fructuarii, ne lucro ea res cedat domino. et sicut substituta statim domini fiunt, ita priora quoque ex natura fructus desinunt eius esse: nam alioquin quod nascitur fructuarii est et cum substituit, desinit eius esse.
Or to plant other shoots of the useless ones, so that, after substitutes have been set in, they may become the usufructuary’s own, lest that matter turn to the owner’s profit. And just as the substitutes at once become the owner’s, so the earlier ones also, by the nature of fruits, cease to be his: for otherwise what is produced belongs to the usufructuary, and when he sets in a substitute, it ceases to be his.
Interim tamen, quamdiu summittantur et suppleantur capita quae demortua sunt, cuius sit fetus quaeritur. et iulianus libro tricensimo quinto digestorum scribit pendere eorum dominium, ut, si summittantur, sint proprietarii, si non summittantur, fructuarii: quae sententia vera est.
Meanwhile, however, so long as the heads that have died are sent in and made up, the question is asked whose the offspring is. And Julian, in the 35th book of the Digest, writes that their dominion hangs in suspense, such that, if substitutions are sent in, the proprietors have it; if they are not sent in, the usufructuaries do: which opinion is true.
Item si forte eo tempore, quo fetus editi sunt, nihil fuit quod summitti deberet, nunc et ^ est^ post editionem: utrum ex his quae edentur summittere debebit, an ex his quae edita sunt, videndum est. puto autem verius ea, quae pleno grege edita sunt, ad fructuarium pertinere, sed posteriorem gregis casum nocere debere fructuario.
Likewise, if by chance at the time when the offspring were born there was nothing that had to be made up, but now there ^ is^ after the delivery: it must be considered whether he ought to make up from those which will be born, or from those which have been born. However, I think it truer that those which were born when the herd was full belong to the usufructuary, but that a later mishap of the herd ought to harm the usufructuary.
Si dominus nudae proprietatis usum fructum legaverit, verum est, quod maecianus scripsit libro tertio quaestionum de fideicommissis, valere legatum: et si forte in vita testatoris vel ante aditam hereditatem proprietati accesserit, ad legatarium pertinere. plus admittit maecianus, etiamsi post aditam hereditatem accessisset usus fructus, utiliter diem cedere et ad legatarium pertinere.
If the owner of the bare proprietas has bequeathed the usufruct, it is true, as Maecianus wrote in the third book of his Questions on Fideicommissa, that the legacy is valid; and if perchance in the testator’s lifetime or before the inheritance has been entered the usufruct has acceded to the ownership, it belongs to the legatee. Maecianus goes further: even if the usufruct should have acceded after the inheritance has been entered, the day beneficially accrues and it belongs to the legatee.
Denique apud iulianum libro trigensimo quinto digestorum quaeritur, si communi servo usus fructus sit relictus et utrique domino adquisitus, an altero repudiante vel amittente usum fructum alter totum habeat: et putat ad alterum pertinere, et licet dominis usus fructus non aequis partibus, sed pro dominicis adquiratur, tamen persona ipsius, non dominorum inspecta ad alterum ex dominis pertinere, non proprietati accedere.
Finally, in Julian, in the thirty-fifth book of the Digest, the question is raised, if a usufruct is left to a common slave and is acquired for each owner, whether, if one of them repudiates or loses the usufruct, the other has the whole; and he thinks it pertains to the other; and although for the owners the usufruct is acquired not in equal parts but in proportion to their ownerships, nevertheless, considering the person of the slave himself, not that of the owners, it pertains to the other of the owners, and does not accede to the proprietorship.
Idem ait et si communi servo et separatim titio usus fructus legatus sit, amissum ab altero ex sociis usum fructum non ad titium, sed ad solum socium pertinere debere quasi solum coniunctum: quae sententia vera est: nam quamdiu vel unus utitur, potest dici usum fructum in suo statu esse. idem est, si duobus coniunctim et alteri separatim usus fructus esset relictus.
He likewise says that, if the usufruct has been bequeathed to a slave common to the partners and, separately, to Titius, the usufruct lost by one of the partners ought to pertain not to Titius, but to the partner alone, as though conjoined to him alone: which opinion is true; for so long as even one makes use, the usufruct can be said to be in its proper status. The same holds, if the usufruct had been left jointly to two and separately to another.
Interdum tamen etsi non sint coniuncti, tamen usus fructus legatus alteri adcrescit: ut puta si mihi fundi usus fructus separatim totius et tibi similiter fuerit relictus. nam, ut et celsus libro octavo decimo digestorum et iulianus libro tricensimo quinto scribit, concursu partes habemus: quod et in proprietate contingeret: nam altero repudiante alter totum fundum haberet. sed in usu fructu hoc plus est, quia et constitutus et postea amissus nihilo minus ius adcrescendi admittit: omnes enim auctores apud plautium de hoc consenserunt et, ut celsus et iulianus eleganter aiunt, usus fructus cottidie constituitur et legatur, non, ut proprietas, eo solo tempore quo vindicatur.
Sometimes, however, even if they are not conjoined, nevertheless the legated usufruct accretes to the other: for instance, if to me the usufruct of a farm “separately of the whole,” and to you likewise, has been left. For, as both Celsus in the eighteenth book of the Digest and Julianus in the thirty‑fifth write, by concurrence we have shares; which would also happen in proprietorship: for if the one repudiates, the other would have the whole farm. But in usufruct there is this further point, because even when it has been established and afterwards lost, nonetheless it admits the right of accretion: for all the authorities with Plautius have agreed about this; and, as Celsus and Julianus elegantly say, a usufruct is constituted and bequeathed daily, not, like proprietorship, only at that single time at which it is vindicated.
Unde celsus libro octavo decimo scribit, si duo fundi domini deducto usu fructu proprietatem tradiderint, uter eorum amiserit, usum fructum ad proprietatem redire, sed non ad totam, sed cuiusque usum fructum ei parti accedere, quam ipse tradiderit: ad eam enim partem redire debet, a qua initio divisus est.
Whence Celsus in the eighteenth book writes that, if two owners of an estate, the usufruct having been deducted, have conveyed the ownership, then, whichever of them has lost it, the usufruct returns to the ownership; but not to the whole, rather the usufruct of each accedes to that part which he himself conveyed: for it ought to return to that part from which it was at the beginning divided.
Non solum autem si duobus usus fructus legetur, est ius adcrescendi, verum et si alteri usus fructus, alteri fundus legatus est: nam amittente usum fructum altero, cui erat legatus, magis iure adcrescendi ad alterum pertinet quam redit ad proprietatem. nec novum: nam et si duobus usus fructus legetur et apud alterum sit consolidatus, ius adcrescendi non perit neque ei, apud quem consolidatus est, neque ab eo, et ipse quibus modis amitteret ante consolidationem, isdem et nunc amittet, et ita et neratio et aristoni videtur et pomponius probat.
Not only, moreover, if a usufruct is bequeathed by legacy to two persons is there a right of accrual, but also if to one the usufruct, to the other the estate is bequeathed: for when the one to whom it had been bequeathed loses the usufruct, it pertains to the other by the right of accrual rather than returning to the ownership. Nor is this novel: for even if a usufruct is bequeathed to two and has been consolidated with the one, the right of accrual does not perish, neither for him with whom it has been consolidated nor against him; and he himself will now lose it by the same modes by which he would have lost it before the consolidation; and thus it seems to neratio and to aristoni, and pomponius approves.
Si tibi proprietas fundi legata fuerit, mihi autem et maevio et tibi fundi eiusdem usus fructus, habebimus ego et maevius trientes in usu fructu, unus triens proprietate miscebitur. sive autem ego sive maevius capite minuti fuerimus, triens inter te et alterutrum nostrum dividetur, ita ut semissem in usu fructu habeat is, qui ex nobis capite minutus non fuerat, ad te proprietas cum parte dimidia usus fructus pertineat:
If the ownership of the estate has been bequeathed to you, but to me and to maevius and to you the usufruct of that same estate, I and maevius will have two thirds in usufruct, one third will be merged with the ownership. And if either I or maevius should be reduced in civil status (capitis deminutio), the third will be divided between you and either one of us, so that the one of us who had not been reduced in civil status has one half in usufruct, and to you there pertains the ownership together with a half share of the usufruct:
Sed si cui proprietas deducto usu fructu legata sit et mihi pars usus fructus, videndum erit, an inter me et heredem ius adcrescendi versetur: et verum est, ut, quisquis ^ quiquis^ amiserit, ad proprietatem revertetur.
But if ownership, the usufruct having been deducted, has been bequeathed to someone, and to me a part of the usufruct, it will have to be considered whether the right of accretion is in play between me and the heir: and it is true that, whoever ^ quiquis^ shall have lost [his share], it reverts to the ownership.
Si mihi usus fructus fundi pure, tibi sub condicione legatus sit, potest dici totius fundi usum fructum ad me pertinere interim et, si capite minutus fuero, totum amittere: sed si extiterit condicio, totum usum fructum ad te pertinere, si forte capite deminutus sum, ceterum cum in meo statu maneo, communicandum usum fructum.
If the usufruct of the estate has been bequeathed to me outright, and to you under a condition, it can be said that meanwhile the usufruct of the whole estate pertains to me, and that, if I should be reduced in status (capitis deminutio), I lose the whole; but if the condition comes to pass, the whole usufruct pertains to you, if perchance I have suffered capitis deminutio; otherwise, when I remain in my own status, the usufruct is to be shared.
Si quis attio et heredibus suis usum fructum legaverit, dimidiam attius, dimidiam heredes habebunt: quod si ita scriptum sit " attio et seio cum heredibus meis", tres partes fient, ut unam habeant heredes, tertiam attius, tertiam seius: nec enim interest ita legetur " illi et illi cum maevio" an ita " illi et illi et maevio".
If someone has bequeathed a usufruct to attio and his heirs, attio will have half, the heirs half: but if it is written thus " attio and seio with my heirs", three parts will be made, so that the heirs have one, a third attio, a third seius: for it makes no difference whether it is read thus " those and those with maevio" or thus " those and those and maevio".
Si mulieri cum liberis suis usus fructus legetur, amissis liberis ea usum fructum habet: sed et matre mortua liberi eius nihilo minus usum fructum habent iure adcrescendi. nam et iulianus libro trigensimo digestorum ait idem intellegendum in eo, qui solos liberos heredes scripserit, licet non ut legatarios eos nominaverit, sed ut ostenderet magis velle se matrem ita frui, ut liberos secum habeat fruentes. sed et pomponius quaerit: quid si mixti fuerint liberi et extranei heredes?
If a usufruct is left as a legacy to a woman together with her children, if the children are lost, she has the usufruct; but also, if the mother has died, her children nonetheless have the usufruct by the right of accretion. For Julianus in Book 30 of the Digest says that the same is to be understood in the case of one who has instituted only the children as heirs, although he did not designate them as legatees, but rather to show that he wished the mother to enjoy in such a way that she should have the children enjoying with her. But Pomponius also asks: what if children and outsiders have been mixed as heirs?
Interdum pars usus fructus et non habenti partem suam, sed amittenti adcrescit: nam si usus fructus duobus fuerit legatus et alter lite contestata amiserit usum fructum, mox et collegatarius, qui litem contestatus non erat, usum fructum amisit, partem dimidiam dumtaxat, quam amisit qui litem contestatus est adversus eum qui se liti optulit, a possessore consequitur: pars enim collegatarii ipsi adcrescit, non domino proprietatis: usus fructus enim personae adcrescit et si fuerit amissus.
Sometimes a part of a usufruct accrues not to one having his own share, but to one who is losing it: for if a usufruct has been bequeathed to two, and one, after litis contestatio, has lost the usufruct, then the co‑legatee also, who had not joined issue, lost the usufruct; he obtains from the possessor only the half part, namely the part which the one who joined issue lost against the man who offered himself to the suit: for the share accrues to the co‑legatee himself, not to the owner of the property: for a usufruct accrues to the person even if it has been lost.
Cum singulis ab heredibus singulis eiusdem rei fructus legatur, fructuarii separari videntur non minus, quam si aequis portionibus duobus eiusdem rei fructus legatus fuisset: unde fit, ut inter eos ius adcrescendi non sit,
When by each of the heirs a separate usufruct of the same thing is bequeathed to a separate person, the usufructuaries are deemed to be separated no less than if the usufruct of the same thing had been bequeathed to two in equal portions: whence it results that there is no right of accrual between them,
Quamquam usus fructus ex fruendo consistat, id est facto aliquo eius qui fruitur et utitur, tamen semel cedit dies: aliter atque si cui in menses vel in dies vel in annos singulos quid legetur: tunc enim per dies singulos vel menses vel annos dies legati cedit. unde quaeri potest, si usus fructus cui per dies singulos legetur vel in annos singulos, an semel cedat: et puto non cedere simul, sed per tempora adiecta, ut plura legata sint: et ita libro quarto digestorum Marcellus probat in eo, cui alternis diebus usus fructus legatus est.
Although a usufruct consists in enjoying, that is, in some act of the one who enjoys and uses, nevertheless the day accrues at once; otherwise than if something is bequeathed to someone by months or by days or by single years: for then, day by day or month by month or year by year, the day of the legacy accrues. Whence it can be asked, if a usufruct is bequeathed to someone by individual days or by individual years, whether it accrues at once; and I think it does not accrue all at once, but over the added periods, so that there are several legacies; and thus Marcellus establishes in Book 4 of the Digest, in the case of one to whom a usufruct was bequeathed on alternate days.
Dies autem usus fructus, item usus non prius cedet quam hereditas adeatur: tunc enim constituitur usus fructus, cum quis iam frui potest. hac ratione et si servo hereditario usus fructus legetur, iulianus scribit, quamvis cetera legata hereditati adquirantur, in usu fructu tamen personam domini exspectari, qui uti et frui possit.
But the day on which the usufruct, and likewise the use, will vest does not arrive before the inheritance is entered upon; for the usufruct is constituted then, when someone can already enjoy it. On this reasoning, even if a usufruct over an hereditary slave is bequeathed, Julian writes that, although the other legacies are acquired by the inheritance, nevertheless in the case of a usufruct the person of the owner is awaited, who can use and enjoy.
Non solum autem usus fructus ante aditam hereditatem dies non cedit, sed nec actio de usu fructu: idemque et si ex die fuerit legatus usus fructus: denique scaevola ait agentem ante diem usus fructus nihil facere, quamvis alias qui ante diem agit, male agit.
Not only does the day not accrue for the usufruct before the inheritance is entered upon, but neither does an action concerning the usufruct lie; and the same holds even if the usufruct has been bequeathed “from a day” (subject to a term). Finally, Scaevola says that one who sues before the day with respect to the usufruct accomplishes nothing, although otherwise he who sues before the day acts improperly.
Non solum usum fructum amitti capitis minutione constat, sed et actionem de usu fructu. et parvi refert, utrum iure sit constitutus usus fructus an vero tuitione praetoris: proinde traditus quoque usus fructus, item in fundo vectigali vel superficie non iure constitutus capitis minutione amittitur.
It is established not only that a usufruct is lost by capitis deminution, but also the action concerning the usufruct. And it matters little whether the usufruct has been constituted by law or rather by the praetor’s protection: accordingly, a usufruct transferred by delivery as well, likewise one not constituted by law on a vectigalian fund or on a superficies, is lost by capitis deminution.
Si tibi fundus ex die legatus est et usum fructum mihi rogatus es restituere, videndum erit, si capite minutus fuero intra diem legato tuo insertum, ne forte salvus sit mihi usus fructus, quasi ante diem cedentem capitis minutio interveniat: quod benigne dici poterit.
If a fundus has been bequeathed to you ex die, and you have been asked to restore the usufruct to me, it will have to be considered whether, if I should undergo capitis deminutio within the day inserted in your legacy, perhaps the usufruct remains safe for me, as though the capitis deminutio were to intervene before the day accrues; which can be said with a liberal construction.
Usque adeo autem capitis minutio eum demum usum fructum peremit, qui iam constitutus est, ut si in singulos annos vel menses vel dies legatus sit, is demum amittitur, qui iam processit et, si forte in annos singulos legatus est, illius dumtaxat anni usus fructus amittetur et si in menses, eius mensis, si in dies, eius diei.
Indeed, capitis deminutio extinguishes only that usufruct which has already been established, such that if it has been bequeathed for individual years or months or days, only that portion is lost which has already run; and if perchance it has been bequeathed for single years, the usufruct of that year only will be lost; and if for months, of that month; if for days, of that day.
Si duobus separatim alternis annis usus fructus relinquatur, continuis annis proprietas nuda est, cum, si legatarium unum substituas, cui alternis annis legatus sit usus fructus, plena sit apud heredem proprietas eo tempore, quo ius fruendi legatario non est. quod si ex duobus illis alter decedat, per vices temporum plena proprietas erit: neque enim adcrescere alteri quicquam potest, quoniam propria quisque tempora non concurrente altero fructus integri habuit.
If the usufruct is left to two persons separately for alternate years, then through the continuous run of years the ownership is bare; whereas, if you appoint one legatee in substitution, to whom the usufruct is bequeathed for alternate years, the ownership is full in the heir at the time when the legatee has no right of enjoying. But if one of those two dies, the ownership will be full by turns of time; for nothing can accrue to the other, since each had his own periods, with the fruits entire, the other not running concurrently.
Si non mors, sed capitis deminutio intercesserit, quia plura legata sunt, illius anni tantum, si modo ius fruendi habuit, fructus amissus erit: quod et in uno legatario, qui fructum in singulos annos accepit, defendendum est, ut commemoratio temporum repetitionis potestatem habeat.
If not death but a diminution of status (capitis deminutio) has intervened, since several legacies have been left, only the fruits of that year—provided he had the right of enjoyment—will be lost; and this likewise must be maintained in the case of a single legatee who received the fruit year by year, so that the reckoning of the times may have the power of repetition (recovery).
Cum singulis fructus alternis annis legatur, si consentiant in eundem annum, impediuntur, quod non id actum videtur, ut concurrerent: multum etenim refert, duobus simul alternis annis legetur ( quod sane ultra primum annum procedere non poterit, non magis quam si uni legatus ita fuisset) an singulis alternis annis: nam si concurrere volent, aut impedient invicem propter voluntatem aut, si ea non refragabitur, singulorum annorum fructus vacabit.
When the fruits are bequeathed to individuals in alternate years, if they agree upon the same year, they are impeded, because it does not seem to have been intended that they should concur: for it makes much difference, whether they are to be bequeathed to two at the same time in alternate years ( which indeed will not be able to proceed beyond the first year, no more than if it had been thus bequeathed to one) or to individuals in alternate years: for if they will to concur, either they will hinder one another on account of the intention, or, if that will not oppose, the fruits of the several years will be vacant.
Sicut in annos singulos usus fructus legari potest, ita et capitis minutione amissus legari potest, ut adiciatur: " quotiensque capite minutus erit, ei lego", vel sic " quotiens amissus erit": et tunc, si capitis minutione amittatur, repetitus videbitur. unde tractatum est, si cui quamdiu vivat usus fructus legatus sit, an videatur repetitus, quotiens amissus est? quod et maecianus temptat: et puto repetitum videri.
Just as a usufruct can be bequeathed for each single year, so too a usufruct lost by capitis deminutio can be bequeathed, with this added: "whenever he shall be subjected to capitis deminutio, I bequeath it to him," or thus, "whenever it shall have been lost": and then, if it is lost through capitis deminutio, it will seem to have been repeated. Whence it has been discussed whether, if a usufruct has been bequeathed to someone for as long as he lives, it is to be seen as repeated whenever it has been lost—this Maecianus also attempts; and I think it appears to be repeated.
Haec autem repetitio, quae fit post amissum capitis minutione usum fructum, quaeritur an et ius adcrescendi secum salvum habeat: ut puta titio et maevio usus fructus legatus est et, si titius capite minutus esset, eidem usum fructum legavit: quaesitum est, si titius ex repetitione usum fructum haberet, an inter eos ius adcrescendi salvum esset. et papinianus libro septimo decimo quaestionum scribit salvum esse, perinde ac si alius esset titio in usu fructu substitutus: hos enim tametsi non verbis, re tamen coniunctos videri.
This repetition, which is made after a usufruct has been lost through capitis deminution, raises the question whether it also keeps the right of accretion safe with it: for instance, a usufruct is bequeathed to Titius and Maevius, and, if Titius were capite minutus, the same usufruct is bequeathed to him; it was asked whether, if Titius had the usufruct by repetition, the right of accretion would remain intact between them. And Papinian, in the seventeenth book of the Questions, writes that it is preserved, just as if another had been substituted to Titius in the usufruct: for these men, although not by words, yet in fact are seen to be conjoined.
Idem papinianus quaerit, si titio et maevio usu fructu legato in repetitione usus fructus non totum, sed partem titio relegasset, an viderentur coniuncti. et ait, si quidem titius amiserit, totum socio adcrescere: quod si maevius amisisset, non totum adcrescere, sed partem ad eum, partem ad proprietatem redire. quae sententia habet rationem: neque enim potest dici eo momento, quo quis amittit usum fructum et resumit, etiam ipsi quicquam ex usu fructu adcrescere: placet enim nobis ei qui amittit usum fructum ex eo quod amittit nihil adcrescere.
the same Papinian asks, if, a usufruct having been bequeathed to Titius and Maevius, upon a repetition of the usufruct he had re-bequeathed not the whole, but a part to Titius, whether they should be regarded as conjoined. and he says that, if indeed Titius should lose it, the whole accrues to his partner; but if Maevius had lost it, not the whole accrues, but a part to him, and a part returns to the ownership. which opinion has a rationale: for it cannot be said that at the very moment at which someone loses the usufruct and resumes it, anything from the usufruct also accrues to himself: for it pleases us that to him who loses the usufruct there accrues nothing from that which he loses.
Rei mutatione interire usum fructum placet: veluti usus fructus mihi aedium legatus est, aedes corruerunt vel exustae sunt: sine dubio extinguitur. an et areae? certissimum est exustis aedibus nec areae nec cementorum usum fructum deberi.
It is the settled view that by a change of the thing the usufruct perishes: for example, a usufruct of a house has been bequeathed to me, the house has collapsed or has been burned: without doubt it is extinguished. And of the site? It is most certain that, the house having been burned, a usufruct is owed neither of the site nor of the building materials.
Non tamen, si arvi usus fructus legetur et ibi vineae sint positae vel contra, puto extingui. certe silvae usu fructu legato si silva caesa illic sationes fuerint factae, sine dubio usus fructus extinguitur.
Nevertheless, if a usufruct of arable land is bequeathed and vines have been planted there, or conversely, I do not think it is extinguished. Certainly, if a usufruct of a woodland is bequeathed, and the wood has been felled and plantings have been made there, without doubt the usufruct is extinguished.
In navis quoque usu fructu sabinus scribit, si quidem per partes refecta sit, usum fructum non interire: si autem dissoluta sit, licet isdem tabulis nulla praeterea adiecta restaurata sit, usum fructum extinctum: quam sententiam puto veriorem. nam et si domus fuerit restituta, usus fructus extinguitur.
In the usufruct of a ship as well, Sabinus writes that, if indeed it has been repaired in parts, the usufruct does not perish; but if it has been broken up, even if it has been restored with the same planks, nothing besides having been added, the usufruct is extinguished: which opinion I judge truer. For even if a house has been restored, the usufruct is extinguished.
Quadrigae usu fructu legato si unus ex equis decesserit, an extinguatur usus fructus quaeritur. ego puto multum interesse, equorum an quadrigae usus fructus sit legatus: nam si equorum, supererit in residuis, si quadrigae, non remanebit, quoniam quadriga esse desiit:
With a legacy of usufruct of a quadriga, if one of the horses has deceased, the question is whether the usufruct is extinguished. i think it makes much difference whether the usufruct of the horses or of the quadriga has been bequeathed: for if of the horses, it will survive in the remaining ones; if of the quadriga, it will not remain, since it has ceased to be a quadriga:
Si fructuarius messem fecit et decessit, stipulam, quae in messe iacet, heredis eius esse labeo ait, spicam, quae terra teneatur, domini fundi esse fructumque percipi spica aut faeno caeso aut uva adempta aut excussa olea, quamvis nondum tritum frumentum aut oleum factum vel vindemia coacta sit. sed ut verum est, quod de olea excussa scripsit, ita aliter observandum de ea olea, quae per se deciderit, iulianus ait: fructuarii fructus tunc fieri, cum eos perceperit, bonae fidei autem possessoris, mox quam a solo separati sint.
If a usufructuary has made the harvest and has died, Labeo says that the straw which lies in the harvested swath belongs to his heir, but that the ear which is held by the earth belongs to the owner of the estate; and that the fruit is deemed to be perceived by the ear [of grain], or by hay cut, or by a grape plucked, or by an olive shaken down, although the grain has not yet been threshed, nor the oil made, nor the vintage gathered. But, as what he wrote about the shaken-down olive is true, so, Julian says, it must be observed otherwise concerning an olive which has fallen of its own accord: the fruits of the usufructuary become his when he has perceived them; whereas for a possessor in good faith, they become his as soon as they have been separated from the soil.
Si sub condicione mihi legatus sit usus fructus medioque tempore sit penes heredem, potest heres usum fructum alii legare: quae res facit, ut, si condicio extiterit mei legati, usus fructus ab herede relictus finiatur. quod si ego usum fructum amisero, non revertetur ad legatarium, cui ab herede pure legatus fuerat, quia ex diversis testamentis ius coniunctionis non contingit.
If a usufruct has been bequeathed to me under a condition and in the meantime is in the heir’s possession, the heir can bequeath the usufruct to another: this brings it about that, if the condition of my legacy comes to pass, the usufruct left by the heir is terminated. But if I should lose the usufruct, it will not revert to the legatee to whom it had been bequeathed purely by the heir, because from different testaments the right of conjunction does not arise.
Si tibi fundi usus fructus pure, proprietas autem sub condicione titio legata fuerit, pendente condicione dominium proprietatis adquisieris, deinde condicio extiterit, pleno iure fundum titius habebit neque interest, quod detracto usu fructu proprietas legata sit: enim dum proprietatem adquiris, ius omne legati usus fructus amisisti.
If the usufruct of a farm has been bequeathed to you purely, but the property to Titius under a condition, then while the condition is pending you will have acquired ownership of the property; thereafter, if the condition comes to pass, Titius will have the farm with full right, nor does it matter that the property was bequeathed with the usufruct subtracted: for while you acquire the property, you lost all the right of the legacy of the usufruct.
Si servo hereditario ante aditam hereditatem legatus usus fructus fuisset, magis placet adita hereditate eum usum fructum ad te transire nec interire quasi mutato dominio, quia nec dies ante cesserit, quam tu heres extiteris.
If, before the inheritance is entered upon, the usufruct of a slave belonging to the inheritance had been bequeathed, the preferable view is that, when the inheritance is entered, that usufruct passes to you and does not perish as though the ownership had been changed, because the day had not yet accrued before you became heir.
Is qui usum fructum habet si tantum utatur, quia existimet se usum tantum habere, an usum fructum retineat? et si quidem sciens se usum fructum habere tantum uti velit, nihilo minus et frui videtur: si vero ignoret, puto eum amittere fructum: non enim ex eo quod habet utitur, sed ex eo quod putavit se habere.
He who has a usufruct—if he should only use, because he supposes that he has only a use—does he retain the usufruct? And if indeed, knowing that he has a usufruct, he should wish to use only, he nevertheless seems also to enjoy; but if he is ignorant, I think he loses the usufruct: for he does not use by reason of what he has, but by reason of what he supposed he had.
Si mulieri usus domus legatus sit et illa trans mare profecta sit et constituto tempore ad amittendum usum afuerit, maritus vero domo usus fuerit, retinetur nihilo minus usus, quemadmodum si familiam suam in domu reliquisset eaque peregrinaretur. et hoc magis dicendum est, si uxorem in domu reliquerit maritus, cum ipsi marito usus domus legatus sit.
If the use of a house has been bequeathed to a woman and she has set out across the sea and, at the time appointed for forfeiting the use, has been absent, but the husband has used the house, the use is nonetheless retained, just as if she had left her household in the house and she herself were traveling abroad. And this is to be said all the more if the husband has left his wife in the house, when the use of the house has been bequeathed to the husband himself.
Si ager, cuius usus fructus noster sit, flumine vel mari inundatus fuerit, amittitur usus fructus, cum etiam ipsa proprietas eo casu amittatur: ac ne piscando quidem retinere poterimus usum fructum. sed quemadmodum, si eodem impetu discesserit aqua, quo venit, restituitur proprietas, ita et usum fructum restituendum dicendum est.
If a field, the usufruct of which is ours, is flooded by a river or the sea, the usufruct is lost, since the ownership itself in that case is lost: and not even by fishing will we be able to retain the usufruct. But just as, if the water departs with the same impetus with which it came, the ownership is restored, so too it must be said that the usufruct is to be restored.
Cum usum fructum horti haberem, flumen hortum occupavit, deinde ab eo recessit: ius quoque usus fructus restitutum esse labeoni videtur, quia id solum perpetuo eiusdem iuris mansisset. ita id verum puto, si flumen inundatione hortum occupavit: nam si alveo mutato inde manare coeperit, amitti usum fructum existimo, cum is locus alvei publicus esse coeperit, neque in pristinum statum restitui posse.
When I had the usufruct of a garden, a river occupied the garden, then receded from it: Labeo also seems to think that the right of usufruct was restored, because that soil would have remained perpetually under the same right. I thus consider this true if the river occupied the garden by inundation: for if, with its channel changed, it began to flow there, I judge the usufruct to be lost, since that place has begun to be the public riverbed, nor can it be restored to its pristine state.
Pomponius quaerit, si fundum a me proprietarius conduxerit eumque fundum vendidit seio non deducto usu fructu, an usum fructum per emptorem retineam. et ait, licet proprietarius mihi pensionem solverit, tamen usum fructum amitti, quia non meo nomine, sed suo fruitus est emptor: teneri plane mihi ex locato proprietarium, quanti mea interfuit id factum non esse. quamquam si a me conductum usum fructum quis alii locaverit, retinetur usus fructus: sed si proprietarius eum locasset suo nomine, dicendum amitti: non enim meo nomine fruitur colonus.
Pomponius asks: if the proprietor has leased an estate from me and has sold that estate to Seius without the usufruct being deducted, do I retain the usufruct through the buyer? And he says that, although the proprietor has paid me the rent, nevertheless the usufruct is lost, because the buyer has enjoyed not in my name but in his own; plainly the proprietor is liable to me on the letting (ex locato), for as much as it was in my interest that this not be done. Although, if someone who has leased the usufruct from me were to lease it to another, the usufruct is retained; but if the proprietor had leased it in his own name, it must be said to be lost: for the colonus (tenant-farmer) does not enjoy in my name.
Idem pomponius quaerit, si legatum mihi usum fructum rogatus sim tibi restituere, an per te frui videar nec amittatur usus fructus. et ait dubitare se de hac quaestione: sed est verius, quod Marcellus notat, nihil hanc rem fideicommissario nocere: suo enim nomine utilem actionem eum habiturum.
the same pomponius asks, if a usufruct has been bequeathed to me and I have been requested to restore it to you, whether I am deemed to enjoy through you and the usufruct is not lost. and he says that he is in doubt about this question: but it is truer, as Marcellus notes, that this matter does not harm the fideicommissary at all: for he will have an utile action in his own name.
Si pecuniae sit usus fructus legatus vel aliarum rerum, quae in abusu consistunt, nec cautio interveniat, videndum, finito usu fructu an pecunia quae data sit, vel ceterae res, quae in absumptione sunt, condici possint. sed si quidem adhuc constante usu fructu cautionem quis velit condicere, dici potest omissam cautionem posse condici incerti condictione: sed si finito usu fructu ipsam quantitatem, sabinus putat posse condici: quam sententiam et celsus libro octavo decimo digestorum probat: quae mihi non inarguta videtur.
If a usufruct of money has been bequeathed, or of other things which consist in consumption, and no security has been furnished, the question arises whether, when the usufruct is finished, the money that was given, or the other things which are for consumption, can be recovered by condictio. But if, while the usufruct is still subsisting, someone wishes to bring a claim for the security, it can be said that the omitted security can be claimed by a condictio incerti; but if, when the usufruct has ended, the very amount is sued for, Sabinus thinks it can be recovered; and Celsus approves this opinion in book 18 of the Digesta; which does not seem to me unshrewd.
Si tibi decem milia legata fuerint, mihi eorundem decem milium usus fructus, fient quidem tua tota decem milia: sed mihi quinque numerari debebunt ita, ut tibi caveam tempore mortis meae aut capitis deminutionis restitutum iri. nam et si fundus tibi legatus fuisset et mihi eiusdem fundi usus fructus, haberes tu quidem totius fundi proprietatem, sed partem cum usu fructu, partem sine usu fructu, et non heredi, sed tibi caverem boni viri arbitratu.
If ten thousand have been bequeathed to you, and to me the usufruct of the same ten thousand, the whole ten thousand will indeed become yours; but five must be counted out to me, on condition that I give you security that, at the time of my death or of capitis deminutio, they will be restored. For even if a farm had been bequeathed to you and to me the usufruct of the same farm, you would indeed have the ownership of the whole farm, but part with usufruct and part without usufruct; and I would give security, not to the heir, but to you, by the arbitrament of a good man.
Si vini olei frumenti usus fructus legatus erit, proprietas ad legatarium transferri debet et ab eo cautio desideranda est, ut, quandoque is mortuus aut capite deminutus sit, eiusdem qualitatis res restituatur, aut aestimatis rebus certae pecuniae nomine cavendum est, quod et commodius est. idem scilicet de ceteris quoque rebus, quae usu continentur, intellegemus.
If the usufruct of wine, oil, or grain has been bequeathed, proprietorship must be transferred to the legatee, and security is to be required from him, that whenever he has died or has been capitis deminutus, things of the same quality shall be restored; or, the things having been appraised, security shall be given in the name of a fixed sum of money—which is also more convenient. We will understand the same, of course, with respect to the other things as well which are comprised under use.
Tribus heredibus institutis usum fructum quindecim milium titio legavit et duos ex heredibus iussit pro legatario satisdare: placebat utile esse cautionis quoque legatum nec refragari senatus consultum, quia cautio non impediretur, et esse alterum legatum velut certi, alterum incerti. usus fructus itaque nomine partem pecuniae petendam ab eo, qui satis accepit a coherede, incertique cum eodem agendum, si satis non dedisset. eum vero, qui satis praestitit ac propter moram coheredis satis non accepit, neque fructus nomine interim teneri propter senatus consultum neque actione incerti, quia coheredi satisdedit.
With three heirs instituted, he bequeathed to Titius the usufruct of 15000 and ordered two of the heirs to give surety for the legatee. It was held that a legacy of security (cautio) also was effective, and that the senatus consultum did not gainsay it, because the security would not be impeded; and that one legacy was, as it were, of a certain thing, the other of an uncertain. Therefore, under the heading of the usufruct, a part of the money is to be demanded from him who has received surety from his coheir, and for the uncertain an action is to be brought against that same person, if he should fail to give surety. But the one who has furnished surety and, on account of his coheir’s delay, has not received surety, is to be held neither in the meantime under the head of the fruits by reason of the senatus consultum, nor by an action for the uncertain, because he gave surety to his coheir.
we also consider this proper: that the legatee be compelled to promise. but when the usufruct has ended, if the coheirs are convened by reason of the suretyship, they will not bring an action of mandate; for they did not undertake a mandate, but complied with the will; finally, they are released by the legacy of the security. concerning that matter, neither was it to be long debated that the second legacy, that is, of the security, seems to belong not to the heirs, but to him to whom the usufruct of the money has been left, for whom the testator wished to provide, and whose interest he believed it was that sureties be sought not at his peril.
Si usus tantum pecuniae legatus sit, quia in hac specie usus appellatione etiam fructum contineri magis accipiendum est, stipulatio ista erit interponenda. et quidam aiunt non ante hanc interponi stipulationem, quam data fuerit pecunia: ego autem puto, sive antea sive postea pecunia data sit, tenere stipulationem.
If only the use (usus) of money has been bequeathed, since in this species the appellation “use” is rather to be taken to contain even the fruit (fructus), this stipulation must be interposed. And some say that this stipulation is not to be interposed before the money has been given: but I think that, whether the money has been given before or after, the stipulation holds.
Cum pecunia erat relicta titio ita, ut post mortem legatarii ad maevium rediret, quamquam adscriptum sit, ut usum eius titius haberet, proprietatem tamen ei legatam et usus mentionem factam, quia erat restituenda ab eo pecunia post mortem eius, divi severus et antoninus rescripserunt.
When money had been left to Titius in such a way that, after the death of the legatee, it would return to Maevius, although it had been added that Titius should have the use of it, nevertheless the proprietorship had been bequeathed to him and a mention of use made, because the money was to be restored by him after his death—so the deified Severus and Antoninus wrote in a rescript.
Si fundo fructuario servitus debeatur, Marcellus libro octavo apud iulianum labeonis et nervae sententiam probat existimantium servitutem quidem eum vindicare non posse, verum usum fructum vindicaturum ac per hoc vicinum, si non patiatur eum ire et agere, teneri ei, quasi non patiatur uti frui.
If a servitude is owed to a fundus held in usufruct, Marcellus in the eighth book, as reported by Julian, approves the opinion of Labeo and Nerva, who considered that he cannot vindicate the servitude, but will vindicate the usufruct; and through this the neighbor, if he does not allow him to go and to drive, is held liable to him, as if he does not allow him to use and enjoy.
Usus fructus legatus adminiculis eget, sine quibus uti frui quis non potest: et ideo si usus fructus legetur, necesse est tamen ut sequatur eum aditus, usque adeo, ut, si quis usum fructum loci leget ita, ne heres cogatur viam praestare, inutiliter hoc adiectum videatur: item si usu fructu legato iter ademptum sit, inutilis est ademptio, quia semper sequitur usum fructum.
A bequeathed usufruct needs appurtenances, without which one cannot use and enjoy; and therefore, if a usufruct is bequeathed, it is necessary that access follow it—indeed, to such an extent that, if someone bequeaths the usufruct of a place with the proviso that the heir not be compelled to provide a road, this addition appears ineffectual. Likewise, if, with the usufruct bequeathed, a right of way is taken away, the deprivation is ineffectual, because it always follows the usufruct.
Si ab herede ex testamento fundi usus fructus petitus sit, qui arbores deiecisset aut aedificium demolitus esset aut aliquo modo deteriorem usum fructum fecisset aut servitutes imponendo aut vicinorum praedia liberando, ad iudicis religionem pertinet, ut inspiciat, qualis ante iudicium acceptum fundus fuerit, ut usufructuario hoc quod interest ab eo servetur.
If the usufruct of a fundus is claimed from an heir under a testament, and he has felled trees or demolished a building, or has in some way made the usufruct worse—either by imposing servitudes or by freeing the neighbors’ praedia—it pertains to the judge’s conscientious duty to inspect what the fundus was like before accepting the case, so that what the interest (the difference in value) amounts to may be preserved to the usufructuary from him.
Qui usum fructum traditum sibi ex causa fideicommissi desiit in usu habere tanto tempore, quanto, si legitime eius factus esset, amissurus eum fuerit, actionem ad restituendum eum habere non debet: est enim absurdum plus iuris habere eos, qui possessionem dumtaxat usus fructus, non etiam dominium adepti sint.
He who has ceased to have in use, for so long a time, the usufruct that was delivered to him on the ground of a fideicommissum, such that, if he had become its lawfully constituted usufructuary, he would have lost it, ought not to have an action for restoring it: for it is absurd that those who have acquired merely the possession of the usufruct, and not dominion as well, should have more right.
Fundus detracto usu fructu legatus est titio et eiusdem fundi usus fructus sempronio sub condicione: dixi interim cum proprietate usum fructum esse, licet placeat, cum detracto usu fructu fundus legatur, apud heredem usum fructum esse: quia pater familias cum detracto usu fructu fundum legat et alii usum fructum sub condicione, non hoc agit, ut apud heredem usus fructus remaneat.
An estate, with the usufruct deducted, has been bequeathed to Titius, and the usufruct of the same estate to Sempronius under a condition: I have said meanwhile that the usufruct is with the ownership, although it is the view that, when an estate is bequeathed with the usufruct deducted, the usufruct is in the heir: for when a paterfamilias bequeaths an estate with the usufruct deducted and the usufruct to another under a condition, he is not aiming at this, that the usufruct remain with the heir.
Uti frui ius sibi esse solus potest intendere, qui habet usum fructum, dominus autem fundi non potest, quia qui habet proprietatem, utendi fruendi ius separatum non habet: nec enim potest ei suus fundus servire: de suo enim, non de alieno iure quemque agere oportet. quamquam enim actio negativa domino competat adversus fructuarium, magis tamen de suo iure agere videtur quam alieno, cum invito se negat ius esse utendi fructuario vel sibi ius esse prohibendi. quod si forte qui agit dominus proprietatis non sit, quamvis fructuarius ius utendi non habet, vincet tamen iure, quo possessores sunt potiores, licet nullum ius habeant.
Only he who has a usufruct can allege that the right to use and enjoy (uti frui) is his; but the owner of the land cannot, because he who has the proprietorship does not have a separate right of using and enjoying: for his own land cannot serve him; for each ought to proceed on his own right, not on another’s right. For although a negative action lies for the owner against the usufructuary, nevertheless he seems to be proceeding more on his own right than on another’s, when he asserts that the usufructuary has no right of using against his will, or that he himself has the right of prohibiting. But if perchance the one who sues is not the owner in title, although the usufructuary has no right of using, he will nevertheless prevail by the rule whereby possessors are the stronger, although they have no right.
Utrum autem adversus dominum dumtaxat in rem actio usufructuario competat an etiam adversus quemvis possessorem, quaeritur. et iulianus libro septimo digestorum scribit hanc actionem adversus quemvis possessorem ei competere: nam et si fundo fructuario servitus debeatur, fructuarius non servitutem, sed usum fructum vindicare debet adversus vicini fundi dominum.
whether, however, an in rem action is available to the usufructuary only against the owner, or also against any possessor, is asked. and Julian, in the seventh book of the Digesta, writes that this action is available to him against any possessor: for even if a servitude is owed to the estate held in usufruct, the usufructuary ought to vindicate not the servitude, but the usufruct, against the owner of the neighboring estate.
Sed et si forte tempore usus fructus amissus est alio quidem possidente, alio autem liti se offerente, non sufficit eum usum fructum iterum renovare, verum cavere quoque eum de evictione usus fructus oportet: quid enim si servum aut fundum is qui possidebat pignori dedit isque ab eo qui pignori accepit iure uti prohibetur? debebit itaque habere cautum.
But also, if by lapse of time the usufruct has been lost, one person indeed being in possession and another offering himself to the suit, it does not suffice to renew that usufruct again; rather, he must also give security concerning eviction of the usufruct. For what if the one who was in possession gave the slave or the farm in pledge, and the usufructuary is prohibited by the one who accepted it in pledge from exercising the right? Accordingly, he ought to have a guarantee in place.
Sicut fructuario in rem confessoriam agenti fructus praestandi sunt, ita et proprietatis domino, si negatoria actione utatur: sed in omnibus ita demum, si non sit possessor qui agat ( nam et possessori competunt): quod si possident, nihil fructuum nomine consequentur. quid ergo officium erit iudicis quam hoc, ut securus consequatur fructuarius fruendi licentiam, proprietatis dominus, ne inquietetur?
Just as fruits must be furnished to a usufructuary bringing a real confessory action, so also to the owner of the property, if he employs the negatory action: but in all cases only then, if there is not a possessor who brings the action (for they also lie for the possessor): and if they are in possession, they will obtain nothing under the name of fruits. What then will be the duty of the judge other than this: that the usufructuary may safely obtain the license of enjoying, and that the owner of the property not be disturbed?
Domus usus relictus est aut marito aut mulieri: si marito, potest illic habitare non solus, verum cum familia quoque sua. an et cum libertis, fuit quaestionis, et celsus scripsit, et cum libertis: posse hospitem quoque recipere, nam ita libro octavo decimo digestorum scripsit, quam sententiam et tubero probat. sed an etiam inquilinum recipere possit, apud labeonem memini tractatum libro posteriorum, et ait labeo eum, qui ipse habitat, inquilinum posse recipere: idem et hospites et libertos suos.
The use of the house was left either to the husband or to the wife: if to the husband, he can live there not alone, but also with his household. Whether also with freedmen was a question, and Celsus wrote: also with freedmen; that he can likewise receive a guest, for thus he wrote in the eighteenth book of the Digest, which opinion Tubero also approves. But whether he can also receive a tenant, I remember treated by Labeo in the Later Books, and Labeo says that he who himself inhabits can receive a tenant: likewise guests and his own freedmen.
Ceterum sine eo ne hos quidem habitare posse. proculus autem de inquilino notat non belle inquilinum dici, qui cum eo habitet. secundum haec et si pensionem percipiat, dum ipse quoque inhabitet, non erit ei invidendum: quid enim si tam spatiosae domus usus sit relictus homini mediocri, ut portiuncula contentus sit?
Moreover, without him not even these can inhabit. Proculus, however, notes about the lodger that it is not well to call a lodger one who lives with him. In accordance with these things, even if he collects rent, provided that he himself also inhabits, it is not to be begrudged him: for what if the use of so spacious a house has been left to a man of moderate means, so that he is content with a small portion?
Mulieri autem si usus relictus sit, posse eam et cum marito habitare quintus mucius primus admisit, ne ei matrimonio carendum foret, cum uti vult domo. nam per contrarium quin uxor cum marito possit habitare, nec fuit dubitatum. quid ergo si viduae legatus sit, an nuptiis contractis post constitutum usum mulier habitare cum marito possit?
But if a right of use has been left to a woman, that she is able also to dwell with her husband, quintus mucius was the first to admit, lest she have to be without matrimony, since she wishes to use the house. For, conversely, that a wife can dwell with her husband, there was no doubt. What then if it has been bequeathed to a widow: after nuptials have been contracted, once the use has been constituted, can the woman dwell with her husband?
Si habitatio legetur, an perinde sit atque si usus, quaeritur. et effectu quidem idem paene esse legatum usus et habitationis et papinianus consensit libro octavo decimo quaestionum. denique donare non poterit, sed eas personas recipiet, quas et usuarius: ad heredem tamen nec ipsa transit nec non utendo amittitur nec capitis deminutione.
If a habitation is bequeathed, the question is whether it is the same as if “use” (usus) were [bequeathed]. And indeed as to effect the legacy of use and of habitation is almost the same, and Papinian concurred in the eighteenth book of the Questions. Finally, he will not be able to donate it, but he will admit those persons whom the holder of use (usuarius) also [may]. However, it itself does not pass to the heir, nor is it lost by not using, nor by capitis deminutio.
Sed si sic relictus sit: " illi domus usus fructus habitandi causa", utrum habitationem solam an vero et usum fructum habeat, videndum. et proculus et neratius putant solam habitationem legatam, quod est verum. plane si dixisset testator " usum habitandi causa", non dubitaremus, quin valeret.
But if it has been left thus: " to him the usufruct of a house for the sake of dwelling", it must be considered whether he has only habitation, or indeed both habitation and usufruct. and proculus and neratius think that only habitation has been bequeathed, which is true. plainly, if the testator had said " use for the sake of dwelling", we would not doubt that it would be valid.
Si usus fundi sit relictus, minus utique esse quam fructum longeque nemo dubitat. sed quid in ea causa sit, videndum. et labeo ait habitare eum in fundo posse dominumque prohibiturum illo venire: sed colonum non prohibiturum nec familiam, scilicet eam, quae agri colendi causa illic sit: ceterum si urbanam familiam illo mittat, qua ratione ipse prohibetur, et familiam prohibendam eiusdem rationis est.
If the usus of a farm has been bequeathed, it is certainly less than the fructus, and by far no one doubts this. But what the position is in that case must be examined. And Labeo says that he can inhabit the farm and will prevent the owner from coming there; but he will not prevent the colonus nor the familia, namely that which is there for the sake of cultivating the field: however, if he should send an urban familia there, by the same reasoning by which he himself is prohibited, the familia is likewise to be prohibited.
Praeter habitationem quam habet, cui usus datus est deambulandi quoque et gestandi ius habebit. sabinus et cassius et lignis ad usum cottidianum et horto et pomis et holeribus et floribus et aqua usurum, non usque ad compendium, sed ad usum, scilicet non usque ad abusum: idem nerva, et adicit stramentis et sarmentis etiam usurum, sed neque foliis neque oleo neque frumento neque frugibus usurum. sed sabinus et cassius et labeo et proculus hoc amplius etiam ex his quae in fundo nascuntur, quod ad victum sibi suisque sufficiat sumpturum et ex his quae nerva negavit: iuventius etiam cum convivis et hospitibus posse uti: quae sententia mihi vera videtur: aliquo enim largius cum usuario agendum est pro dignitate eius, cui relictus est usus.
Besides the dwelling which he has, the one to whom a use has been given will also have the right of walking about and of being carried (riding). sabinus and cassius [hold] that he will use wood for everyday use, and the garden, and fruits, and vegetables, and flowers, and water, not for profit but for use—namely, not to the point of abuse. the same [view is held by] nerva, and he adds that he will also use straw and brushwood, but that he will not use leaves nor oil nor grain nor produce. but sabinus and cassius and labeo and proculus, further, [hold] that even from those things which grow on the estate he may take what suffices for nourishment for himself and his own, including from those things which nerva denied. iuventius also [says] that he can use it together with dinner-companions and guests; which opinion seems true to me: for one ought to deal somewhat more liberally with a user, in proportion to the dignity of the person to whom the use has been left.
but he will use these, as I suppose, only in the villa; but as for fruits and vegetables and flowers and firewood, it must be considered whether he is to use them only in the same place or whether they can also be carried into the town for him: but it is better to take it that they are also to be carried into town, for the burden of these is not heavy, if they abound on the estate.
Sed si pecoris ei usus relictus est, puta gregis ovilis, ad stercorandum usurum dumtaxat labeo ait, sed neque lana neque agnis neque lacte usurum: haec enim magis in fructu esse. hoc amplius etiam modico lacte usurum puto: neque enim tam stricte interpretandae sunt voluntates defunctorum.
But if the use of livestock has been left to him—say, of a sheep-flock—Labeo says he will use it only for manuring, but will not use the wool, nor the lambs, nor the milk: for these are rather in the fruits. Moreover, I think he will use even a small amount of milk: for the wishes of the deceased are not to be interpreted so strictly.
Equitii quoque legato usu videndum, ne et domare possit et ad vehendum sub iugo uti. et si forte auriga fuit, cui usus equorum relictus est, non puto eum circensibus his usurum, quia quasi locare eos videtur: sed si testator sciens eum huius esse instituti et vitae reliquit, videtur etiam de hoc usu sensisse.
In the case also of a legacy of the use of a horse, it must be considered that he may not both break it in and use it for hauling under a yoke. And if perchance he was a charioteer, to whom the use of the horses has been left, I do not think he should use them for the circus-games, because he appears, as it were, to be leasing them out; but if the testator, knowing him to be of this profession and way of life, left it, he seems to have intended even this use.
Si usus ministerii alicui fuerit relictus, ad suum ministerium utetur et ad liberorum coniugisque, neque videbitur alii concessisse, si simul cum ipsis utatur: quamquam, si filio familias usus servi sit relictus vel servo, patri dominove adquisitus ipsius dumtaxat usum exigat, non etiam eorum qui sunt in potestate.
If the use of a service has been bequeathed to someone, he may employ it for his own service and for that of his children and spouse, nor will he be seen to have granted it to another if he uses it together with them; however, if the use of a slave has been bequeathed to a son-in-power or to a slave, although it is acquired for the father or the owner, it demands only the use of that person himself, not also of those who are under the father’s or owner’s power.
Operas autem servi usuarii non locabit neque alii utendo concedet, et ita labeo: quemadmodum enim concedere alii operas poterit, cum ipse uti debeat? idem tamen labeo putat, si fundum conduxerit quis, usuarium servum posse ibi operari: quid enim interest, in qua re opera eius utatur? quare et si lanam conduxerit usuarius expediendam, poterit etiam per usuarias ancillas opus perficere, idemque, si vestimenta texenda redemerit vel insulam vel navem fabricandam, poterit ad haec operis uti usuarii: nec offendetur illa sabini sententia ancillae usu dato ad lanificium eam non mitti nec ex operis mercedem capi, sed sibi lanam facere iure cogere: sibi enim facere videtur, qui non operas eius locavit, sed opus quod conduxit expediit.
But he will neither lease out the services of a slave held in use nor grant them to another for use—and so Labeo: for how will he be able to concede the services to another, when he himself ought to use them? Yet the same Labeo thinks that, if someone has leased a farm, a slave held in use can work there: for what does it matter in what matter he employs that labor? Wherefore, even if the holder of use has taken wool on hire to be prepared, he will also be able to complete the work through maidservants held in use; and likewise, if he has taken on by contract garments to be woven, or a tenement or a ship to be constructed, he will be able to employ for these works the labor of those held in use. Nor is that opinion of Sabinus disturbed, that, when the use of a maidservant has been granted, she is not to be sent to wool-working nor is hire to be taken from her labor, but he may by right compel her to make the wool for himself: for he seems to make it for himself who has not leased out her services, but has dispatched the work which he contracted for.
Per servum usuarium si stipuler vel per traditionem accipiam, an adquiram, quaeritur, si ex re mea vel ex operis eius. et si quidem ex operis eius, non valebit, quoniam nec locare operas eius possumus: sed si ex re mea, dicimus servum usuarium stipulantem vel per traditionem accipientem mihi adquirere, cum hac opera eius utar.
If through a slave held in usus I should stipulate or receive by delivery, the question is whether I acquire—whether from my property or from his services. And if indeed it is from his services, it will not be valid, since we cannot even lease out his services; but if from my property, we say that the slave held in usus, when stipulating or receiving by delivery, acquires for me, since I make use of this service of his.
Usus fructus an fructus legetur, nihil interest, nam fructui et usus inest, usui fructus deest: et fructus quidem sine usu esse non potest, usus sine fructu potest. denique si tibi fructus deducto usu legatus sit, inutile esse legatum pomponius libro quinto ad sabinum scribit: et si forte usu fructu legato fructus adimatur, totum videri ademptum scribit: sed si fructus sine usu, usum videri constitutum, qui et ab initio constitui potest. sed si usu fructu legato usus adimatur, aristo scribit nullam esse ademptionem: quae sententia benignior est.
whether a usufruct or a fructus be bequeathed, it makes no difference, for to fructus use is inherent, to use fructus is lacking: and indeed fructus cannot exist without use, use can exist without fructus. finally, if a fructus be bequeathed to you with the use deducted, Pomponius writes in the fifth book to Sabinus that the legacy is ineffectual: and if by chance, when a usufruct has been bequeathed, the fructus is taken away, he writes that the whole is seen as adeemed: but if fructus [be left] without use, the use is seen as established, which also can be established from the beginning. but if, when a usufruct has been bequeathed, the use is taken away, Aristo writes that there is no ademption: which opinion is the kinder.
Fundi usu legato licebit usuario et ex penu quod in annum dumtaxat sufficiat capere, licet mediocris praedii eo modo fructus consumantur: quia et domo et servo ita uteretur, ut nihil alii fructuum nomine superesset.
When the use of a farm has been bequeathed, it will be permitted to the user also to take from the pantry whatever suffices only for a year, although in that way the fruits of a moderate estate are consumed: because he would likewise use a house and a slave such that nothing would be left for another under the name of fruits.
Sicuti is, cui usus fundi legatus est, quo minus dominus agri colendi causa ibi versetur, prohibere non potest ( alioquin et frui dominum prohibebit), ita nec heres quicquam facere debet, quo minus is cui usus legatus est utatur, ut bonus pater familias uti debet.
Just as he to whom the usus of a farm has been bequeathed cannot prohibit the owner of the land from being there for the purpose of cultivating it ( otherwise he would also prohibit the owner from enjoying it), so neither ought the heir to do anything to prevent the person to whom the usus has been bequeathed from using it, as a good paterfamilias ought to use it.
Dominus proprietatis etiam invito usufructuario vel usuario fundum vel aedes per saltuarium vel insularium custodire potest: interest enim eius fines praedii tueri. eaque omnia dicenda sunt, quolibet modo constitutus usus fructus vel usus fuerit.
The owner of the property, even with the usufructuary or the user unwilling, can have the land or the house guarded through a ranger (saltuarius) or a building-superintendent (insularius): for it is in his interest to protect the boundaries of the estate. And all these things are to be said, in whatever way the usufruct or the use has been constituted.
Filio familias vel servo aedium usu legato et utile legatum esse existimo et eodem modo persecutionem eius competituram, quo competeret, si fructus quoque legatus esset. itaque non minus absente quam praesente filio servove pater dominusve in his aedibus habitabit.
If the use of a house has been bequeathed to a son-in-power or to a slave, I consider it also a useful legacy, and that an action for it will lie in the same way as it would lie if the fruits likewise had been bequeathed. Therefore, no less with the son or slave absent than present, the father or master will dwell in these premises.
Si domus usus legatus sit sine fructu, communis refectio est rei in sartis tectis tam heredis quam usuarii. videamus tamen, ne, si fructum heres accipiat, ipse reficere debeat, si vero talis sit res, cuius usus legatus est, ut heres fructum percipere non possit, legatarius reficere cogendus est: quae distinctio rationem habet.
If the use of a house is bequeathed without the fructus, the refection of the thing for keeping it in repair (sarta tecta) is common to both the heir and the user. Let us, however, consider this: if the heir receives the fruits, he himself ought to repair; but if the thing of which the use is bequeathed is such that the heir cannot take the fruits, the legatee must be compelled to repair—a distinction that has good reason.
Divus hadrianus, cum quibusdam usus silvae legatus esset, statuit fructum quoque eis legatum videri, quia nisi liceret legatariis caedere silvam et vendere, quemadmodum usufructuariis licet, nihil habituri essent ex eo legato.
The deified Hadrian, when to certain persons an usus silvae had been bequeathed, decided that the fruits also were to be regarded as bequeathed to them, because unless it were permitted to the legatees to cut the woodland and to sell it, just as it is permitted to usufructuaries, they would have nothing from that legacy.
Licet tam angustus est legatarius, cui domus usus legatus est, ut non possit occupare totius domus usum, tamen eis quae vacabunt proprietarius non utetur, quia licebit usuario aliis et aliis temporibus tota domo uti, cum interdum domini quoque aedium, prout temporis condicio exigit, quibusdam utantur, quibusdam non utantur.
Although the legatee to whom the use of a house is bequeathed is so limited that he cannot occupy the use of the whole house, nevertheless the proprietor shall not use those parts which will be vacant, because it will be permissible for the user at different times to use the whole house, since even the owners of a dwelling, as the condition of the time requires, sometimes use certain parts and sometimes do not use others.
Illud sciendum est ad fideicommissa etiam aptari eam debere. plane et si ex mortis causa donatione usus fructus constituatur, exemplo legatorum debebit haec cautio praestari: sed et si ex alia quacumque causa constitutus fuerit usus fructus, idem dicendum est.
It should be known that this security ought also to be adapted to fideicommissa. Clearly, even if a usufruct is constituted by a donation mortis causa, following the example of legacies this caution must be furnished; but even if the usufruct has been constituted from any other cause whatsoever, the same must be said.
Habet autem stipulatio ista duas causas, unam, si aliter quis utatur quam vir bonus arbitrabitur, aliam de usu fructu restituendo: quarum prior statim committetur, quam aliter fuerit usus, et saepius committetur, sequens committetur finito usu fructu.
But this stipulation has two causes: one, if anyone uses otherwise than a “good man” would arbitrate; the other, about restoring the usufruct. Of these, the former is incurred at once, as soon as he has used otherwise, and it may be incurred repeatedly; the latter is incurred when the usufruct is terminated.
Sed quod diximus id quod inde exstabit restitutu iri, non ipsam rem stipulatur proprietarius ( inutiliter enim rem suam stipulari videretur), sed stipulatur restitutu iri quod inde exstabit. interdum autem inerit proprietatis aestimatio, si forte fructuarius, cum possit usucapionem interpellare, neglexit: omnem enim rei curam suscipit.
But, as we have said, that what will result therefrom is to be restored: the proprietor does not stipulate the thing itself (for to stipulate one’s own thing would seem useless), but he stipulates that what will result therefrom is to be restored. Sometimes, however, an estimation of proprietorship will enter, if perchance the usufructuary, although he can interpellate (interrupt) usucapion, has neglected to do so: for he undertakes the entire care of the thing.
Si heres alienaverit proprietatem et postea amittatur usus fructus, an ex stipulatu agere possit, videamus. et fortius dici potest ipso iure non committi stipulationem, quia neque heredi successoribusve eius restitui potest neque is cui potest, id est ad quem pervenit proprietas, pertinet ad stipulationem: sed is ad quem pervenit tempore quaesiti dominii sibi prospicere alia cautione debet: quod etsi non fecerit, nihilo minus in rem actione uti potest.
If the heir has alienated the ownership and afterwards the usufruct is lost, let us see whether he can sue ex stipulatu. And it can be said more strongly that, ipso iure, no breach of the stipulation is committed, because it can be restored neither to the heir or his successors, nor is the person to whom it can be (restored)—that is, the one to whom the ownership has come—a party to the stipulation. But the person to whom it has come, at the time of the acquisition of ownership, ought to look out for himself by another security (cautio); and even if he has not done this, nonetheless he can make use of the action in rem.
Si fructuarius proprietatem adsecutus fuerit, desinit quidem usus fructus ad eum pertinere propter confusionem: sed si ex stipulatu cum eo agatur, aut ipso iure inutiliter agi dicendum est, si viri boni arbitrium huc usque porrigitur, aut in factum excipere debebit.
If the usufructuary shall have acquired the ownership, the usufruct indeed ceases to pertain to him on account of confusion; but if he is proceeded against ex stipulatu, either it must be said that the action is ipso iure ineffectual, if the discretion of a good man extends this far, or he ought to plead an exception in factum.
Si usus fructus nomine re tradita satisdatum non fuerit, proculus ait posse heredem rem vindicare, et si obiciatur exceptio de re usus fructus nomine tradita, replicandum erit. quae sententia habet rationem: sed et ipsa stipulatio condici poterit.
If, the thing having been delivered under the name of usufruct, security has not been given, Proculus says the heir can vindicate the thing; and if an exception is objected that the thing was delivered under the name of usufruct, there will have to be a replication. Which opinion has reason; but also an action by condictio can be brought on the stipulation itself.
Si tibi usus fructus et mihi proprietas legata sit, mihi cavendum est: sed si mihi sub condicione proprietas legata sit, quidam et marcianus et heredi et mihi cavendum esse putant: quae sententia vera est. item si mihi legata sit et, cum ad me pertinere desierit, alii, et hic utrisque cavendum ut supra placuit. quod si duobus coniunctim usus fructus legatus sit, et invicem sibi cavere debebunt et heredi in casum illum: " si ad socium non pertineat usus fructus, heredi reddi".
If the usufruct has been bequeathed to you and the ownership to me, I must give security; but if the ownership has been bequeathed to me under a condition, certain persons—and Marcian as well—think that both the heir and I must give security: which opinion is true. Likewise, if it has been bequeathed to me and, when it has ceased to pertain to me, to another, here too both must give security, as has been approved above. But if the usufruct has been bequeathed jointly to two, they must give security to each other and to the heir for that contingency: " if the usufruct does not pertain to the partner, to be returned to the heir".
Si usus fructus mihi legatus sit eumque restituere sim titio rogatus, videndum est, quis debeat cavere, utrum titius an ego qui legatarius sum: an illud dicimus mecum heredem acturum, cum fideicommissario me agere debere? et est expeditius hoc dicere: si mihi spes aliqua durat usus fructus et, cum tu amiseris, potest ad me reccidere, hoc est ad legatarium, ita rem expediri, ut tu mihi, ego domino proprietatis caveam. quod si fideicommissarii causa usus fructus mihi relictus est nec est ulla spes ad me revertendi fructus, recta via fideicommissarium cavere oportet domino proprietatis.
If a usufruct has been bequeathed to me and I have been asked to restitute it to Titius, it must be considered who ought to give security—whether Titius or I, who am the legatee. Or do we say that the heir will take action against me, since I must take action against the fideicommissary? And it is more expedient to put it thus: if some hope of the usufruct endures for me and, when you lose it, it can fall back to me, that is, to the legatee, let the matter be arranged so that you give security to me, and I to the owner of the property. But if for the sake of the fideicommissary the usufruct has been left to me and there is no hope of the usufruct reverting to me, then, straightway, the fideicommissary ought to give security to the owner of the property.
Si servi, qui nobis communis erat, usum fructum tibi legavero, necessaria erit haec cautio heredi meo: quamvis enim de proprietate possit communi dividundo experiri, tamen causa usus fructus, qui tuus proprius est, ad officium communi dividundo iudicis non pertinebit.
If I have bequeathed to you the usufruct of a slave who was common to us, this security will be necessary for my heir: for although he can proceed concerning the ownership by the action communi dividundo, nevertheless the matter of the usufruct, which is your own proper right, will not pertain to the office of the judge in communi dividundo.
Si vasorum ipsorum usus fructus relictus sit, non erit cautio senatus consulti necessaria, sed illa sola " boni viri arbitratu usurum fruiturum". si igitur tradita sunt fruendi causa, nemo dubitat non fieri eius qui accepit: non enim ideo traduntur, ut dominium recedat ab eo qui tradit, sed ut utatur fruatur legatarius. ergo cum non fiant fructuarii vasa, vindicari a proprietario possunt cautione non data. videndum est de condictione, an possit locum habere: et proditum est neminem rem suam nisi furi condicere posse.
If the usufruct of the vessels themselves has been left, the security of the senatus consultum will not be necessary, but only that one, " according to the judgment of a good man he will use and enjoy." if therefore they have been delivered for the purpose of enjoyment, no one doubts that they do not become the property of the one who received them: for they are not delivered for this reason, that ownership should withdraw from the one who delivers, but that the legatee may use and enjoy. therefore, since the vessels do not become the usufructuary’s, they can be vindicated by the proprietor if the security has not been given. it must be considered about the condictio whether it can have a place; and it has been handed down that no one can bring a condictio for his own thing except against a thief.