- 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-lat1:7.5.5.pr-7.5.5.2
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-13
Ulpian discusses the scope of the senatusconsult regarding the usufruct of money and other consumable things, explaining that it also applies to another's property, and evaluates the availability of condictio for the omitted security or the sum itself, extending these rules to the right of use.
[ULPIANUS libro octauo decimo ad Sabinum.]
[ULPIAN in the eighteenth book on Sabinus.]
Hoc senatus consultum non solum ad eum pertinet, qui pecuniae usum fructum uel ceterarum rerum quas habuit1 legauit, uerum et si fuerint alienae.
This senatusconsult applies not only to him who bequeathed the usufruct of money, or of other things which he possessed, but also if they belonged to another.
Si pecuniae sit usus fructus legatus uel aliarum rerum, quae in abusu consistunt,2 nec cautio interueniat, uidendum, finito usu fructu an pecunia quae data sit uel ceterae res, quae in absumptione sunt, condici possint. sed si quidem adhuc constante usu fructu cautionem quis uelit condicere, dici potest omissam cautionem posse condici incerti condictione: sed si finito usu fructu ipsam quantitatem,3 Sabinus putat posse condici: quam sententiam et Celsus libro octauo decimo digestorum probat: quae mihi non inarguta uidetur.
If the usufruct of money or of other things which consist in consumption is bequeathed, and no security is provided, it must be considered whether, upon the termination of the usufruct, the money which was given, or the other things which are consumed, can be recovered by condictio. But if, while the usufruct is still lasting, someone wishes to demand the security by condictio, it can be said that the omitted security can be demanded by a condictio incerti; but if, after the termination of the usufruct, [he wishes to sue for] the actual sum of money, Sabinus thinks that it can be recovered by condictio; which opinion Celsus also approves in the eighteenth book of his Digests; and it seems to me not lacking in cleverness.
Quae in usu fructu pecuniae diximus uel ceterarum rerum, quae sunt in abusu, eadem et in usu dicenda sunt, nam idem continere usum pecuniae et usum fructum et Iulianus scribit et Pomponius libro octauo de stipulationibus.
What we have said regarding the usufruct of money or of other things which consist in consumption, must also be said of their use; for both Julian writes, and Pomponius in the eighth book on stipulations, that the use of money and its usufruct comprise the same.
- 7.5.5.prquas habuit
The relative pronoun quas is feminine plural accusative, and its antecedent is strictly the immediately preceding ceterarum rerum (feminine plural genitive). Grammatically, it does not modify the preceding pecuniae (feminine singular genitive). Thus, it is translated as 'other things which he possessed'.
- 7.5.5.1in abusu consistunt
In legal terminology, abusus refers to the 'consumption' (destruction through use) of things. Therefore, in abusu consistunt means 'consist in consumption' or 'are consumable things'.
- 7.5.5.1sed si finito usu fructu ipsam quantitatem
The verb phrase quis uelit condicere (or condicere) is omitted from the preceding clause sed si quidem adhuc constante usu fructu cautionem quis uelit condicere. Based on the contrastive structure (constante usu fructu vs. finito usu fructu, and cautionem vs. ipsam quantitatem), this ellipsis is supplied as 'if [someone wishes to sue for] the actual sum of money after the termination of the usufruct'.