- 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-lat1:8.5.8.pr-8.5.8.7
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-14
The text discusses litigation regarding the obligation to support neighboring buildings during wall repairs and the servitude of inserting beams. It also addresses the restrictions on the discharge of smoke or steam from a cheese-shop or baths, and whether such servitudes can be established.
[ULPIANUS libro septimo decimo ad edictum.]
[ULPIANUS, book 17 on the Edict.]
Sicut autem refection1 parietis ad uicinum pertinet, ita fultura aedificiorum uicini cui seruitus debetur, quamdiu paries reficitur, ad inferiorem uicinum non debet pertinere: nam si non uult superior fulcire, deponat, et restituet, cum paries fuerit restitutus. et hic quoque sicut in ceteris seruitutibus actio contraria2 dabitur, hoc est ius tibi non esse me cogere.
But just as the repair of a wall belongs to the neighbor, so the shoring up of the buildings of the neighbor to whom the servitude is owed, as long as the wall is being repaired, ought not to belong to the lower neighbor; for if the upper neighbor does not want to shore them up, let him demolish them, and he shall rebuild them when the wall has been rebuilt. And here too, as in other servitudes, a contrary action will be given, that is, “that you have no right to compel me.”
Competit mihi actio aduersus eum, qui cessit mihi talem seruitutem, ut in parietem eius tigna inmittere mihi liceat supraque ea tigna uerbi gratia porticum ambulatoriam facere superque eum parietem columnas structiles imponere, quae tectum porticus ambulatoriae sustineant.
An action is available to me against him who has granted me such a servitude that I am permitted to insert beams into his wall, and upon those beams, for example, to construct a gallery, and upon that wall to place masonry columns which support the roof of the gallery.
Distant autem hae actiones inter se, quod superior quidem locum habet etiam ad compellendum uicinum reficere parietem meum, haec uero locum habet ad hoc solum, ut tigna suscipiat, quod non est contra genera seruitutium.
However, these actions differ from one another, in that the former indeed lies also to compel the neighbor to repair my wall, whereas this latter lies for this purpose alone, that he should support the beams, which is not contrary to the nature of servitudes.
Sed si quaeritur, quis possessoris, quis petitoris partes sustineat, sciendum est possessoris partes sustinere, si quidem tigna immissa sint, eum, qui seruitutem sibi deberi ait, si uero non sunt immissa, eum qui negat.
But if it is asked who should sustain the role of possessor and who of seeker, it must be known that, if the beams are indeed inserted, he who claims that the servitude is owed to him sustains the role of possessor; but if they are not inserted, he who denies it.
Et si quidem is optinuerit, qui seruitutem sibi defendit, non debet ei seruitus cedi, siue recte pronuntiatum est, quia habet, siue perperam, quia per sententiam non debet seruitus constitui, sed quae est declarari.3 plane si non utendo amisit dolo malo domini aedium post litem contestatam, restitui ei oportet, quemadmodum placet in domino aedium.
And if indeed he who defends the servitude for himself prevails, the servitude ought not to be ceded to him, whether the judgment was pronounced correctly, because he has it, or incorrectly, because a servitude ought not to be established by a judgment, but declared as existing. Clearly, if he lost it by non-use after the joinder of issue through the malice of the owner of the building, it ought to be restored to him, just as is approved in the case of the owner of the building.
Aristo Cerellio Uitali respondit non putare se ex taberna casiaria fumum in superiora aedificia iure immitti posse, nisi ei rei seruitutem talem admittit. idemque ait: et ex superiore in inferiora non aquam, non quid aliud immitti licet: in suo enim alii hactenus facere licet, quatenus nihil in alienum immittat,4 fumi autem sicut aquae esse immissionem: posse igitur superiorem cum inferiore agere ius illi non esse id ita facere. Alfenum denique scribere ait posse ita agi ius illi non esse in suo lapidem caedere, ut in meum fundum fragmenta cadant. dicit igitur Aristo eum, qui tabernam casiariam a Minturnensibus conduxit, a superiore prohiberi posse fumum immittere, sed Minturnenses ei ex conducto teneri: agique sic posse dicit cum eo, qui eum fumum immittat, ius ei non esse fumum immittere. ergo per contrarium agi poterit ius esse fumum immittere: quod et ipsum uidetur Aristo probare. sed et interdictum uti possidetis poterit locum habere, si quis prohibeatur, qualiter uelit, suo uti.
Aristo replied to Cerellius Vitalis that he did not think smoke could be lawfully discharged from a cheese-shop into the upper buildings, unless such a servitude was admitted for that purpose. And he said the same: neither water nor anything else may be discharged from an upper into a lower property; for a person is permitted to act on his own property only to the extent that he discharges nothing onto another’s, and the discharge of smoke is just like that of water. Therefore, the upper owner can bring an action against the lower owner, asserting that the latter has no right to do so. Finally, he said that Alfenus writes that an action can be brought to the effect that a neighbor has no right to cut stone on his own land in such a way that fragments fall onto my land. Aristo therefore says that he who has hired a cheese-shop from the citizens of Minturnae can be prohibited by the upper owner from discharging smoke, but the citizens of Minturnae are liable to him on the lease; and he says that an action can be brought against him who discharges the smoke, asserting that he has no right to discharge smoke. Therefore, conversely, an action can be brought asserting that there is a right to discharge smoke, which Aristo himself also seems to approve. But the interdict uti possidetis will also be able to apply, if anyone is prevented from using his own property as he pleases.
Apud Pomponium dubitatur libro quadragensimo primo lectionum, an quis possit ita agere licere fumum non grauem, puta ex foco, in suo facere aut non licere. et ait magis non posse agi, sicut agi non potest ius esse in suo ignem facere aut sedere aut lauare.
In Pomponius, book 41 of his Readings, it is doubted whether anyone can bring an action asserting that it is permitted to produce non-excessive smoke, for example from a hearth, on his own property, or that it is not permitted. And he says that it is rather the case that an action cannot be brought, just as an action cannot be brought asserting a right to make a fire, to sit, or to bathe on one’s own property.
Idem in diuersum probat: nam et in balineis, inquit, uaporibus cum Quintilla cuniculum pergentem in Ursi Iuli5 instruxisset, placuit potuisse tales seruitutes imponi.
The same writer approves the opposite; for he says that, when Quintilla had constructed in her baths a conduit for steam proceeding into the property of Julius Ursus, it was held that such servitudes could be imposed.
- 8.5.8.prrefection
A manuscript corruption, normally understood as the nominative refectio (or perhaps the ablative refectione or accusative refectionem). In this context, it functions as the subject meaning "the repair".
- 8.5.8.practio contraria
Not a counter-action in the general sense, but here refers to the "negatory action" (actio negatoria) by which a landowner asserts that the neighbor has no servitude over his property.
- 8.5.8.4non debet seruitus constitui, sed quae est declarari
This passage illustrates the legal principle that a judgment in an action in rem does not create (constitui) a new servitude, but merely declares (declarari) an already existing right.
- 8.5.8.5in suo enim alii hactenus facere licet, quatenus nihil in alienum immittat
The fundamental principle of neighbor law (immissio) in Roman law. Free activity within one's own property is permitted only to the extent (hactenus...quatenus) that it does not cause direct intrusion (such as smoke or water) onto another's property.
- 8.5.8.7cuniculum pergentem in Ursi Iuli
pergentem is a present participle modifying cuniculum (conduit or tunnel). Ursi Iuli is the genitive of the personal name Julius Ursus, with his property (fundum) being understood.