[PAULUS libro sexto ad Sabinum. ] §10.3.19.prArbor quae in confinio nata est, item lapis qui per utrumque fundum extenditur, quamdiu cohaeret fundo, e regione cuiusque finium utriusque sunt nec in communi diuidundo iudicium ueniunt: sed cum aut lapis exemptus aut arbor eruta uel succisa est, communis pro indiuiso fiet et ueniet in communi diuidundo iudicium: nam quod erat finitis partibus, rursus confunditur.
[PAULUS, On Sabinus, book VI.] A tree that has grown on a boundary, likewise a stone that extends through both estates, as long as it adheres to the estate, belongs to both according to the line of each boundary and does not come into an action for the division of common property; but when either the stone is removed or the tree is uprooted or cut down, it will become common in undivided shares and will come into the action for the division of common property; for what was in determined parts is mixed again.
qua re duabus massis duorum dominorum conflatis tota massa communis est, etiamsi aliquid ex prima specie separatum maneat: ita arbor et lapis separatus a fundo confundit ius dominii.
For which reason, when two masses belonging to two owners are melted together, the whole mass is common, even if something remains separated from its original appearance: thus a tree and a stone separated from the estate mixes the right of ownership.
§10.3.19.1De uestibulo communi binarum aedium arbiter communi diuidundo inuito utrolibet dari non debet, quia qui de uestibulo liceri cogatur, necesse habeat interdum totarum aedium pretium facere, si alias aditum non habeat.
Concerning a common vestibule of two houses, the arbiter of the division of common property ought not to award it to anyone against the will of either party, because he who is forced to bid for the vestibule would sometimes have to offer the price of the entire house if he has no other access.
§10.3.19.2Si per eundem locum uia nobis debeatur et in eam impensa facta sit, durius ait Pomponius communi diuidundo uel pro socio agi posse: quae enim communio iuris separatim intellegi potest? sed negotiorum gestorum agendum.
If a right of way is owed to us through the same place and expenses have been incurred on it, Pomponius says rather harshly that an action can be brought for the division of common property or on the partnership; for what community of right can be understood separately? But an action for management of affairs must be brought.
§10.3.19.3Iudex communi diuidundo, item familiae erciscundae de seruo qui in fuga est iubere debet liceri eos inter quos iudex est et tunc eum adiudicare, penes quem licitatio remansit: nec erit periculum, ne ex senatus consulto poena legis Fabiae committatur.
The judge in an action for the division of common property, likewise for the division of an inheritance, must order those between whom he is judge to bid on a slave who is in flight, and then award him to the one with whom the bidding remained; nor will there be any danger that the penalty of the Lex Fabia is incurred under the senatusconsultum.
§10.3.19.4Aquarum iter in iudicium communi diuidundo non uenire Labeo ait: nam aut ipsius fundi est et ideo in iudicium non uenit, aut separatum a fundo, diuisum tamen aut mensura aut temporibus.
Labeo says that a watercourse does not come into the action for the division of common property; for either it belongs to the estate itself and therefore does not come into the action, or it is separated from the estate, yet divided either by measure or by times.
sed possunt iura interdum et separata a fundo esse et nec mensura nec temporibus diuisa, ueluti cum is cuius fuerunt plures heredes reliquit: quod cum accidit, consentaneum est et ea in arbitrio familiae erciscundae uenire, nec uidere inquit Pomponius, quare minus in communi diuidundo quam familiae erciscundae iudicium ueniant.
But sometimes rights can be both separated from the estate and divided neither by measure nor by times, as when the person to whom they belonged has left several heirs; when this happens, it is reasonable that these also come into the arbitration of the division of an inheritance, and Pomponius says he does not see why they should come less into the action for the division of common property than for the division of an inheritance.
igitur in huiusmodi speciebus etiam in communi diuidundo iudicio uenit, ut praefata iura aut mensura aut temporibus diuidantur.
Therefore, in cases of this kind, it also comes into the action for the division of common property, so that the aforesaid rights may be divided either by measure or by times.