- 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-lat1:8.5.6.pr-8.5.6.7
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-14
The text discusses the existence of a servitude when an intermediate owner builds higher, the determination of who possesses the right in court, and the allocation of repair duties and the possibility of abandonment in support servitudes, presenting the opinions of Servius, Labeo, and Papinian.
[ULPIANUS libro septimo decimo ad edictum.]
[ULPIANUS, book 17 on the Edict.]
Et si forte qui medius est, quia seruitutem non debebat, altius extulerit aedificia sua, ut iam ego non uidear luminibus tuis obstaturus, si aedificauero, frustra intendes ius mihi non esse ita aedificatum habere inuito te:1 sed si intra tempus statutum rursus deposuerit aedificium suum uicinus, renascetur tibi uindicatio.
And if by chance the owner of the intermediate building, because he did not owe a servitude, should build his building higher, so that it now appears that I will not obstruct your light if I build, you will in vain claim that I have no right to keep it so built against your will; but if the neighbor pulls down his building again within the prescribed time, your claim (vindicatio) will be revived.
Sciendum tamen in his seruitutibus possessorem esse eum iuris et petitorem, et si forte non habeam aedificatum altius in meo, aduersarius meus possessor est: nam cum nihil sit innouatum, ille possidet et aedificantem me prohibere potest et ciuili actione et interdicto quod ui aut clam: idem et si lapilli iactu impedierit. sed et si patiente eo aedificauero, ego possessor ero effectus.
It must be known, however, that in these servitudes, there is a possessor of the right and a claimant; and if by chance I have not built higher on my property, my adversary is the possessor. For as long as no change has been made, he possesses, and he can prevent me from building both by a civil action and by the interdict ‘quod vi aut clam’; the same applies if he has prevented me by throwing a pebble. But if I have built while he tolerated it, I shall have become the possessor.
Etiam de seruitute, quae oneris ferendi causa imposita erit, actio nobis competit, ut et onera ferat et aedificia reficiat ad eum modum, qui seruitute imposita comprehensus est. et Gallus putat non posse ita seruitutem imponi, ut quis facere aliquid cogeretur,2 sed ne me facere prohiberet: nam in omnibus seruitutibus refectio ad eum pertinet, qui sibi seruitutem adserit, non ad eum, cuius res seruit. sed eualuit Serui sententia, in proposita specie ut possit quis defendere ius sibi esse cogere aduersarium reficere parietem ad onera sua sustinenda. Labeo autem hanc seruitutem non hominem debere, sed rem, denique licere domino rem derelinquere3 scribit.
An action is also available to us concerning a servitude which has been imposed for the purpose of bearing a burden, to the end that the adversary may bear the burden and repair the buildings in the manner specified when the servitude was imposed. And Gallus thinks that a servitude cannot be imposed in such a way that someone should be compelled to do something, but only that he should not prevent me from doing it; for in all servitudes, the repair belongs to him who claims the servitude for himself, not to him whose property serves. But the opinion of Servius prevailed, in the case proposed, that one can maintain that he has a right to compel his adversary to repair the wall to support his burdens. Labeo, however, writes that not the person but the thing owes this servitude, and consequently, it is lawful for the owner to abandon the property.
Haec autem actio in rem magis est quam in personam et non alii competit quam domino aedium et aduersus dominum, sicuti ceterarum seruitutium intentio.
This action, however, is in rem rather than in personam, and is not available to any other than the owner of the building and against the owner, just like the intention (claim) of other servitudes.
Si aedes plurium dominorum sint, an in solidum agatur, Papinianus libro tertio quaestionum tractat: et ait singulos dominos in solidum agere, sicuti de ceteris seruitutibus excepto usu fructu. sed non idem respondendum inquit, si communes aedes essent, quae onera uicini sustinerent.
If a building belongs to several owners, whether an action can be brought for the whole (in solidum) is discussed by Papinian in the third book of his Questions; and he says that individual owners can sue for the whole, just as in the case of other servitudes, with the exception of usufruct. But he says that the same answer must not be given if the common building were the one supporting the neighbor’s burdens.
Modus autem refectionis in hac actione ad eum modum pertinet, qui in seruitute imposita continetur: forte ut reficiat lapide quadrato uel lapide structili uel quouis alio opere, quod in seruitute dictum est.
Moreover, the manner of repair in this action pertains to that manner which is contained in the imposed servitude: for instance, whether he should repair with squared stone, or with built stone, or with any other work specified in the servitude.
Ueniunt et fructus in hac actione, id est commodum quod haberet, si onera aedium eius uicinus sustineret.
Fruits also come into this action, that is, the advantage which he would have had if the neighbor had supported the burdens of his building.
Parietem autem meliorem quidem, quam in seruitute impositum est, facere licet: deteriorem si facit, aut per hanc actionem aut per operis noui nuntiationem prohibetur.
However, it is permissible to make the wall better than what was imposed in the servitude; if one makes it worse, he is prevented either by this action or by the denunciation of a new work (operis novi nuntiatio).
- 8.5.6.prius mihi non esse ita aedificatum habere inuito te
This phrase is based on the formula of the negative action (actio negatoria) used to assert the absence of a servitude. ita aedificatum habere means "to keep it so built," where habere with the perfect participle aedificatum acts as an infinitive explaining the content of ius. inuito te is an ablative absolute ("against your will").
- 8.5.6.2non posse ita seruitutem imponi, ut quis facere aliquid cogeretur
The opinion of Gallus (Aquilius Gallus). The passive infinitive phrase seruitutem imponi acts as the subject of the impersonal posse, and the ut clause is a consecutive clause explaining the content of ita ("in such a manner"). This clearly illustrates the fundamental Roman law principle that a servitude cannot consist in a positive duty to act (servitus in faciendo consistere nequit).
- 8.5.6.2hanc seruitutem non hominem debere, sed rem, denique licere domino rem derelinquere
An accusative with infinitive (A.C.I.) construction summarizing Labeo's doctrine. hominem and rem are the subjects of debere (to owe), while hanc seruitutem is the object. The following clause licere domino features the dative domino with the impersonal infinitive licere, introducing the consequence that "it is permitted to the owner to abandon the thing."