- Source
- Digesta Iustiniani Augusti. Mommsen, Theodor & Krueger, Paul, editors. Berlin: Weidmann, 1870.
- Translation
- AI-generated (gemini-3.5-flash) — machine translation; may contain errors
- Languages
- 日本語 · English · 简体中文 · 한국어
- CTS URN
- urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:7.1.7.pr-7.1.7.3
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-12
On the bequest of usufruct of immovables and movables, this chunk discusses the scope of the duty to repair buildings (distinguishing between ordinary maintenance and collapse through old age) and whether the usufructuary can make decorative repairs.
[ULPIANUS libro septimo decimo ad Sabinum.]
[ULPIAN, On Sabinus, book 17]
Usu fructu legato omnis fructus rei ad fructuarium pertinet. et aut rei soli aut rei mobilis usus fructus legatur.
When a usufruct is bequeathed, all the fruits of the thing belong to the usufructuary. And the usufruct of either an immovable or a movable thing may be bequeathed.
Rei soli, ut puta aedium, usu fructu legato quicumque reditus est, ad usufructuarium pertinet quaeque obuentiones sunt ex aedificiis, ex areis et ceteris, quaecumque aedium sunt. unde etiam mitti eum in possessionem uicinarum aedium causa damni infecti placuit, et iure dominii possessurum eas aedes,1 si perseueretur non caueri, nec quicquam amittere finito usu fructu. hac ratione Labeo scribit nec aedificium licere domino te inuito altius tollere, sicut nec areae usu fructu legato potest in area aedificium poni: quam sententiam puto ueram.
When the usufruct of an immovable thing, for instance, of a house, is bequeathed, whatever income there is belongs to the usufructuary, as well as whatever revenues arise from the buildings, from the vacant plots, and other things, whatever belongs to the house. Hence it has also been held that he should be placed in possession of neighboring houses because of threatened damage, and that he will possess those houses by right of ownership if the failure to give security persists, and will not lose anything upon the termination of the usufruct. For this reason Labeo writes that the owner is not permitted to raise the building higher against your will, just as when the usufruct of a vacant plot is bequeathed, a building cannot be erected on the plot; which opinion I believe to be true.
Quoniam igitur omnis fructus rei ad eum pertinet, reficere quoque eum aedes per arbitrum cogi Celsus scribit libro octauo decimo digestorum, hactenus tamen, ut sarta tecta habeat: si qua tamen uetustate corruissent, neutrum cogi reficere, sed si heres refecerit, passurum fructuarium uti.2 unde Celsus de modo sarta tecta habendi quaerit, si quae uetustate corruerunt reficere non cogitur: modica igitur refectio ad eum pertinet, quoniam et alia onera adgnoscit usu fructu legato: ut puta stipendium uel tributum uel salarium uel alimenta ab ea re relicta. et ita Marcellus libro tertio decimo scribit.
Since, therefore, all the fruits of the thing belong to him, Celsus writes in the eighteenth book of his Digests that he can also be compelled by an arbitrator to repair the house, but only so far as to keep it in good repair; however, if any parts should fall down through old age, neither is compelled to rebuild them, but if the heir rebuilds them, he must allow the usufructuary to use them. Hence Celsus inquires into the manner of keeping in good repair, if he is not compelled to rebuild what has fallen down through old age: therefore, moderate repairs belong to him, since he also acknowledges other burdens when a usufruct is bequeathed, such as a land tax, or tribute, or salary, or maintenance left charged on that property. And Marcellus writes to this effect in his thirteenth book.
Cassius quoque scribit libro octauo iuris ciuilis fructuarium per arbitrum cogi reficere, quemadmodum adserere cogitur arbores: et Aristo notat haec uera 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 uoluptatis causa ut tectoria et pauimenta et similia facere,3 neque autem ampliare nec utile detrahere posse,
Cassius also writes in the eighth book of his Civil Law that the usufructuary is compelled by an arbitrator to make repairs, just as he is compelled to plant trees; and Aristo notes that this is true. Neratius, however, in the fourth book of his Parchments, says that the usufructuary cannot be prevented from making repairs, because he cannot be prevented from plowing or cultivating; and that he will not only make necessary repairs, but may also make them for the sake of pleasure, such as plastering, paving, and the like, but he cannot enlarge the building or remove anything useful.
- 7.1.7.1iure dominii possessurum eas aedes
possessurum is a future active participle forming an infinitive phrase with esse omitted, as part of the accusative-with-infinitive construction introduced by the impersonal placuit. Its subject accusative is the preceding eum (the usufructuary).
- 7.1.7.2passurum fructuarium uti
passurum [esse] is a future infinitive whose subject accusative is heres (the heir), who is also the subject of the conditional clause. The overall meaning is that if the heir rebuilds, he must (or will) allow the usufructuary to use it.
- 7.1.7.3nec solum necessarias refectiones facturum, sed etiam uoluptatis causa ut tectoria et pauimenta et similia facere
An indirect discourse governed by ait (Neratius says). The word facturum is a future infinitive with [esse] omitted, having [fructuarium] as its subject. On the other hand, facere either depends on prohiberi non posse (cannot be prevented) or is a present infinitive directly governed by ait. The former interpretation ('neither can he be prevented from making...') is adopted here.
Translated by Gemini 3.5 Flash (published 2026-07-12) · Revision history (1, latest 2026-09-22)
- 2026-09-22 AI review — source 1