- 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-lat1:7.4.24.pr-7.4.24.2
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-13
The passage distinguishes the restoration or loss of a usufruct depending on whether the inundation of a garden by a river is a temporary flood or a permanent change of channel, applying the same rule to rights of way and noting that the replacement of topsoil does not affect land ownership.
[IAUOLENUS libro tertio ex posteriorum Labeonis.]
[JAVOLENUS in the third book of Epitomes of Labeo’s Posterior Works.]
Cum usum fructum horti haberem, flumen hortum occupauit, deinde ab eo recessit: ius quoque usus fructus restitutum esse Labeoni uidetur, quia id solum perpetuo eiusdem iuris1 mansisset. ita id uerum puto, si flumen inundatione hortum occupauit: nam si alueo mutato inde manare coeperit, amitti usum fructum existimo, cum is locus aluei publicus esse coeperit, neque in pristinum statum restitui posse.2
When I had the usufruct of a garden, a river inundated the garden and then receded from it: it seems to Labeo that the right of usufruct also was restored, because that soil itself had remained continuously of the same legal status. I think this is true only if the river inundated the garden by a temporary flood: for if, by a change of its channel, it has begun to flow through there, I think that the usufruct is lost, since that place of the channel has begun to be public property and cannot be restored to its former state.
Idem iuris in itinere et actu custodiendum esse ait Labeo: de quibus rebus ego idem quod in usu fructu sentio.
Labeo says that the same rule of law must be observed in the case of a right of way on foot and a right of way for driving beasts or vehicles: concerning which matters I hold the same opinion as in the case of a usufruct.
LABEO. Nec si summa terra sublata ex fundo meo et alia regesta esset, idcirco meum solum esse desinit, non magis quam stercorato agro.3
LABEO. Even if the topsoil should be removed from my land and other soil deposited there, the ground does not on that account cease to be mine, any more than in the case of a manured field.
- 7.4.24.preiusdem iuris
Genitive of quality (genitivus qualitatis), showing that the soil itself, even during the inundation, continuously maintained the same legal status or character as private property.
- 7.4.24.prneque in pristinum statum restitui posse
This accusative and infinitive clause is coordinated with the preceding amitti usum fructum as the object of existimo ("I think that..."), meaning "I think that the usufruct is lost, and that it cannot be restored to its former state."
- 7.4.24.2non magis quam stercorato agro
Ablative of comparison or ablative absolute. It draws a comparison with a manured field where, despite the addition or mixing of foreign substances (manure), the soil does not cease to belong to its owner.