- 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-lat1:7.2.1.pr-7.2.1.4
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-13
This text discusses the conditions under which the right of accrual (ius adcrescendi) applies to bequeathed usufructs, focusing on joint vs. several bequests, legacy to a common slave, and legacies with deducted usufructs.
[ULPIANUS libro septimo decimo ad Sabinum.]
[ULPIANUS libro septimo decimo ad Sabinum.]
Quotiens usus fructus legatus est, ita inter fructuarios est ius adcrescendi, si coniunctim sit usus fructus relictus: ceterum si separatim unicuique partis rei usus fructus sit relictus, sine dubio ius adcrescendi cessat.
Whenever a usufruct is bequeathed, the right of accrual exists among the usufructuaries only if the usufruct is left to them jointly; but if a usufruct of a part of a thing is left to each of them separately, the right of accrual undoubtedly ceases.
Denique apud Iulianum libro trigensimo quinto digestorum quaeritur, si communi seruo usus fructus sit relictus et utrique domino adquisitus, an altero repudiante uel 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 inspecta1 ad alterum ex dominis pertinere, non proprietati accedere.
Finally, in the thirty-fifth book of Julian’s Digests, the question is raised whether, if a usufruct is left to a common slave and acquired by both masters, one of them by repudiating or losing the usufruct leaves the other to have the whole; and he thinks that it belongs to the other, and although the usufruct is acquired by the masters not in equal shares, but according to their mastership shares, yet, looking to the person of the slave himself and not of the masters, it belongs to the other of the masters and does not accrue to the ownership.
Idem ait et si communi seruo 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 uera est: nam quamdiu uel unus utitur, potest dici usum fructum in suo statu esse. idem est, si duobus coniunctim et alteri separatim usus fructus esset relictus.
The same author says that even if a usufruct is bequeathed to a common slave and separately to Titius, the usufruct lost by one of the co-owners must belong not to Titius, but to the other co-owner alone, as being the only one joined; which opinion is true: for as long as even one of them enjoys it, the usufruct can be said to be in its own state. The same is true if a usufruct was left to two jointly and to another separately.
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 octauo 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 uindicatur. cum primum itaque non inueniet alter eum, qui sibi concurrat, solus utetur in totum, nec refert, coniunctim an separatim relinquatur.
Sometimes, however, even if they are not joined, a bequeathed usufruct nevertheless accrues to the other: as for instance, if the usufruct of a whole estate is left to me separately, and similarly to you. For, as Celsus writes in the eighteenth book of his Digests and Julian in his thirty-fifth, we have shares by concurrence; which would also happen in the case of ownership: for if one repudiated, the other would have the whole estate. But in the case of a usufruct there is something more, because even if established and afterwards lost, it nevertheless admits the right of accrual; for all authors in Plautius have agreed on this point, and, as Celsus and Julian elegantly say, a usufruct is established and bequeathed daily, not, like ownership, only at the time when it is claimed. As soon as, therefore, one does not find anyone to concur with him, he alone will enjoy the whole, and it does not matter whether it is left jointly or separately.
Idem Iulianus libro trigensimo quinto digestorum scripsit, si duobus heredibus institutis deducto usu fructu2 proprietas legetur, ius adcrescendi heredes non habere: nam uideri usum fructum constitutum, non per concursum diuisum:
The same Julian wrote in the thirty-fifth book of his Digests that if, after two heirs are appointed, the ownership is bequeathed with the deduction of the usufruct, the heirs do not have the right of accrual; for the usufruct is considered to have been established, not divided by concurrence:
- 7.2.1.1persona ipsius, non dominorum inspecta
An ablative absolute construction meaning "the person of the slave himself, not of the masters, being inspected (considered)". The perfect passive participle inspecta (feminine singular ablative) agrees with its subject persona.
- 7.2.1.4duobus heredibus institutis deducto usu fructu
A double ablative absolute construction where both duobus heredibus institutis ("two heirs having been appointed") and deducto usu fructu ("the usufruct having been deducted") set the condition for the main verb legetur ("ownership is bequeathed").