[ULPIANUS libro nono decimo ad edictum. ] §10.2.16.prEt puto officio iudicis contineri, ut, si uolent heredes a communione usus fructus discedere, morem eis gerat cautionibus interpositis. §10.2.16.1Iulianus ait, si alii fundum, alii usum fructum fundi iudex adiudicauerit, non communicari usum fructum. §10.2.16.2Usus fructus et ex certo tempore et usque ad certum tempus et alternis annis adiudicari potest. §10.2.16.3Id quod amnis fundo post litem contestatam alluit, aeque uenit in hoc iudicium. §10.2.16.4Sed et si dolo uel culpa quid in usum fructum ab uno ex heredibus factum sit, hoc quoque in iudicium uenire Pomponius ait: nam et omnia, quae quis in hereditate dolo aut culpa fecit, in iudicium familiae erciscundae ueniunt, sic tamen, si quasi heres fecerit.
[ULPIANUS, On the Edict, book 19]\n\nAnd I think that it is contained within the office of the judge that, if the heirs wish to depart from the co-ownership of a usufruct, he should comply with their wishes, security having been provided.\n\nJulianus says that if the judge has adjudicated the land to some and the usufruct of the land to others, the usufruct is not held in common.\n\nA usufruct can be adjudicated both from a certain time, and up to a certain time, and in alternate years.\n\nThat which the river washes onto the land after the joinder of issue comes equally into this trial.\n\nBut Pomponius says that even if anything has been done to the usufruct by one of the heirs through malice or negligence, this also comes into the trial; for indeed all things which anyone has done in the inheritance through malice or negligence come into the trial for dividing a family inheritance, provided, however, that he did so as heir.
et ideo si uiuo testatore unus ex heredibus pecuniam sustulerit, in familiae erciscundae iudicium ea non uenit, quia tunc nondum heres erat: ubi autem quasi heres fecit, etsi aliam praeterea quis actionem habeat, tamen teneri eum familiae erciscundae iudicio Iulianus scribit. §10.2.16.5Denique ait, si unus ex heredibus rationes hereditarias deleuerit uel interleuerit, teneri quidem lege Aquilia, quasi corruperit: non minus autem etiam familiae erciscundae iudicio. §10.2.16.6Item si seruus hereditarius propriam rem heredum unius subripuerit, Ofilius ait esse familiae erciscundae actionem et communi diuidundo furtique actionem cessare.
And therefore, if one of the heirs carried off money while the testator was still living, it does not come into the trial for dividing a family inheritance, because at that time he was not yet an heir; but where he did so as heir, Julianus writes that even if someone has another action besides, he is nevertheless held liable under the trial for dividing a family inheritance.\n\nFinally, he says that if one of the heirs has erased or altered the inheritance accounts, he is indeed held liable under the Lex Aquilia, as if he had damaged property, but no less also under the trial for dividing a family inheritance.\n\nLikewise, if a slave belonging to the inheritance has stolen the private property of one of the heirs, Ofilius says that the action for dividing a family inheritance lies, and the action for dividing common property and the action for theft are excluded.
quare agentem familiae erciscundae iudicio consecuturum, ut aut ei seruus adiudicetur aut litis aestimatio in simplum offeratur.
Therefore, the person suing under the trial for dividing a family inheritance will obtain either that the slave be adjudicated to him or that the single value of the suit be offered.