- 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-lat1:7.4.30.pr
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-13
Explains that the flesh and hide of a dead beast are not included in the fruits of the usufructuary, because the usufruct itself is extinguished upon the death of the beast.
[GAIUS libro septimo ad edictum prouinciale.]
[GAIUS in the seventh book on the provincial edict.]
Caro et corium mortui pecoris in fructu non est,1 quia mortuo eo2 usus fructus extinguitur.
The flesh and hide of a dead beast are not included in the fruits, because upon its death the usufruct is extinguished.
- 7.4.30.prin fructu non est
Although the subject consists of two elements, caro et corium (flesh and hide), the verb est is singular. This is either because it agrees with the nearest subject corium (neuter singular) by attraction, or because they are conceptualized together as a single entity (the remains of the dead beast).
- 7.4.30.prmortuo eo
Ablative absolute construction ("upon its death"). It consists of the pronoun eo, referring to the neuter noun pecus (beast), and mortuo, the perfect participle of mori. It provides the rationale that, since the usufruct itself is extinguished at the moment of the beast's death, the flesh and hide remaining after its death cannot belong to the usufructuary as "fruits."