[PAULUS libro uicensimo tertio ad edictum. ] §10.1.4.prSed et loci unius contruersia in partes res scindi adiudicationibus potest, prout cuiusque dominium in eo loco iudex compererit.
[PAULUS, Book XXIII on the Edict.] But also in a dispute over a single place, the property can be divided into parts by adjudications, according as the judge finds each person's ownership in that place.
§10.1.4.1In iudicio finium regundorum etiam eius ratio fit quod interest.
In an action for regulating boundaries, account is also taken of the party's interest.
quid enim si quis aliquam utilitatem ex eo loco percepit, quem uicini esse appareat? non inique damnatio eo nomine fiet.
For what if someone has gathered some benefit from that place which appears to belong to his neighbor? Condemnation on that account will not be unjust.
sed et si mensor ab altero solo conductus sit, condemnatio erit facienda eius, qui non conduxit, in partem mercedis.
But also if a surveyor has been hired by one party alone, condemnation must be made of the one who did not hire him for a share of the fee.
§10.1.4.2Post litem autem contestatam etiam fructus uenient in hoc iudicio: nam et culpa et dolus exinde praestantur: sed ante iudicium percepti non omnimodo hoc in iudicium uenient: aut enim bona fide percepit, et lucrari eum oportet, si eos consumpsit, aut mala fide, et condici oportet.
But after joinder of issue, fruits also will come into this trial: for from that time both negligence and willful intent are made good; but those gathered before the trial will not in every case come into this trial: for either he gathered them in good faith, and he ought to make them his own if he consumed them, or in bad faith, and he ought to be sued for return.
§10.1.4.3Sed et si quis iudici non pareat in succidenda arbore uel aedificio in fine posito deponendo parteue eius, condemnabitur.
But also if anyone does not obey the judge in cutting down a tree or in removing a building placed on the boundary or a part of it, he shall be condemned.
§10.1.4.4Si dicantur termini deiecti uel exarati, iudex, qui de crimine cognoscot, etiam de finibus cognoscere potest.
If it is alleged that boundary marks have been thrown down or plowed up, the judge who takes cognizance of the crime can also take cognizance of the boundaries.
§10.1.4.5Si alter fundus duorum, alter trium sit, potest iudex uni parti adiudicare locum de quo quaeritur, licet plures dominos habeat, quoniam magis fundo quam personis adiudicari fines intelleguntur: hic autem cum fit adiudicatio pluribus, unusquisque portionem habebit, quam in fundo habet, et pro indiuiso qui communem fundum habent, inter se non condemnantur: neque enim inter ipsos accipi uidetur iudicium.
If one estate belongs to two persons, and the other to three, the judge can adjudicate the place in question to one party, although it has several owners, since boundaries are understood to be adjudicated to the estate rather than to the persons: but here, when adjudication is made to several persons, each one will have the share which he has in the estate, and those who hold the common estate undivided are not condemned among themselves; for no trial is deemed to be accepted between them.
§10.1.4.6Si communem fundum ego et tu habemus et uicinum fundum ego solus, an finium regundorum iudicium accipere possumus? et scribit Pomponius non posse nos accipere, quia ego et socius meus in hac actione aduersarii esse non possumus, sed unius loco habemur.
If you and I have a common estate, and I alone have a neighboring estate, can we accept a trial for regulating boundaries? And Pomponius writes that we cannot accept it, because my partner and I cannot be adversaries in this action, but we are regarded as one person.
idem Pomponius ne utile quidem iudicium dandum dicit, cum possit, qui proprium habeat, uel communem uel proprium fundum alienare et sic experiri.
The same Pomponius says that not even an equitable trial should be granted, since he who has the sole property can alienate either the common or the sole estate and thus make trial.
§10.1.4.7Non solum autem inter duos fundos, uerum etiam inter tres pluresue fundos accipi iudicium finium regundorum potest: ut puta singuli plurium fundorum confines sunt, trium forte uel quattuor.
An action for regulating boundaries can be accepted not only between two estates, but also between three or more estates: as, for example, if individual owners are coterminous with several estates, perhaps three or four.
§10.1.4.8Finium regundorum actio et in agris uectigalibus et inter eos qui usum fructum habent uel fructuarium et dominum proprietatis uicini fundi et inter eos qui iure pignoris possident competere potest.
An action for regulating boundaries can lie both in the case of provincial estates paying rent and between those who have the usufruct, or between a usufructuary and the owner of the neighboring estate, and between those who possess by right of pledge.
§10.1.4.9Hoc iudicium locum habet in confinio praediorum rusticorum: nam in confinio praediorum urbanorum displicuit, neque enim confines hi, sed magis uicini dicuntur et ea communibus parietibus plerumque disterminantur.
This action has place in the boundary of rustic estates: for it has been disapproved in the boundary of urban estates, since these are not called "confines" (coterminous) but rather "neighbors," and they are usually separated by common walls.
et ideo et si in agris aedificia iuncta sint, locus huic actioni non erit: et in urbe hortorum latitudo contingere potest, ut etiam finium regundorum agi possit.
And therefore, even if buildings are joined in the country, there will be no place for this action; and in the city, there may be such a width of gardens that an action for regulating boundaries can also be brought.
§10.1.4.10Siue flumen siue uia publica interuenit, confinium non intellegitur, et ideo finium regundorum agi non potest,
If either a river or a public road intervenes, it is not understood to be a boundary, and therefore an action for regulating boundaries cannot be brought,