- 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-lat1:7.4.29.pr-7.4.29.2
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-13
The text discusses whether a usufruct is lost when the owner of the property sells the land or the usufruct without reserving the holder's rights, and addresses the legal protection of a trust beneficiary.
[ULPIANUS libro septimo decimo ad Sabinum.]
[ULPIANUS in the seventeenth book on Sabinus.]
Pomponius quaerit, si fundum a me proprietarius conduxerit eumque fundum uendiderit Seio non deducto usu fructu,1 an usum fructum per emptorem retineam. et ait, licet proprietarius mihi pensionem soluerit, 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.2 quamquam si a me conductum usum fructum quis alii locauerit, retinetur usus fructus: sed si proprietarius eum locasset suo nomine, dicendum amitti: non enim meo nomine fruitur colonus.
Pomponius asks whether, if the owner of the property has leased the land from me and has sold that land to Seius without deducting the usufruct, I retain the usufruct through the purchaser. And he says that, although the owner of the property has paid me the rent, the usufruct is nevertheless lost, because the purchaser did not enjoy the property in my name, but in his own. Obviously, the owner of the property is liable to me under the lease for the amount of my interest in that not having happened. Although if anyone has sublet to another the usufruct which he leased from me, the usufruct is retained; but if the owner of the property had leased it in his own name, it must be said to be lost, for the tenant does not enjoy it in my name.
Sed si emptum a me usum fructum proprietarius uendidisset, amitterem usum fructum, quaerendum est. et puto amitti, quoniam et hic non ut a me empto3 fruitur fundi emptor.
But it must be asked whether, if the owner of the property had sold the usufruct bought from me, I would lose the usufruct. And I think it is lost, because here too the purchaser of the land does not enjoy it as if bought from me.
Idem Pomponius quaerit, si legatum mihi usum fructum rogatus sim tibi restituere,4 an per te frui uidear nec amittatur usus fructus. et ait dubitare se de hac quaestione: sed est uerius, quod Marcellus notat, nihil hanc rem fideicommissario nocere: suo enim nomine utilem actionem eum habiturum.
The same Pomponius asks whether, if I have been requested to restore to you a usufruct bequeathed to me, I am deemed to enjoy it through you, so that the usufruct is not lost. And he says that he is in doubt on this question; but it is more correct, as Marcellus notes, that this matter does not prejudice the beneficiary of the trust; for he will have an analogous action in his own name.
- 7.4.29.prnon deducto usu fructu
Ablative absolute, meaning "without the usufruct having been deducted/reserved."
- 7.4.29.prquanti mea interfuit id factum non esse
Construction of the impersonal verb "interest". The genitive "quanti" expresses value/price, and the possessive "mea" (ablative feminine singular) indicates the person concerned ("to me"). The accusative with infinitive clause "id factum non esse" (that this had not happened) acts as the subject of "interfuit".
- 7.4.29.1non ut a me empto
The ablative noun "usu fructu" is understood as the object of the deponent verb "fruitur" (which governs the ablative), with the perfect passive participle "empto" agreeing with it. It means "not enjoying it as if [the usufruct] were bought from me."
- 7.4.29.2si legatum mihi usum fructum rogatus sim tibi restituere
The perfect subjunctive passive "rogatus sim" is followed by the infinitive "restituere" (to restore). "legatum mihi usum fructum" (the usufruct bequeathed to me) is the direct object of "restituere".