[ULPIANUS libro trigesimo secundo ad edictum. ] §10.3.23.prSi conuenerit inter te et socium tuum, ut alternis annis fructum perciperetis, et non patiatur te socius tui anni fructum percipere, uidendum, utrum ex conducto sit actio an uero communi diuidundo.
[ULPIANUS, On the Edict, book XXXII.] If it has been agreed between you and your partner that you should gather the fruits in alternate years, and your partner does not allow you to gather the fruits of your year, we must consider whether an action on lease or indeed an action for dividing common property lies.
eadem quaestio est et si socius, qui conuenerat, ut alternis annis frueretur, pecus immisit et effecit, ut futuri anni fructus, quos socium percipere oportuit, corrumperentur.
The same question arises also if the partner, who had agreed to enjoy the fruits in alternate years, has let in cattle and caused the fruits of the following year, which the other partner ought to have gathered, to be destroyed.
et puto magis communi diuidundo iudicium quam ex conducto locum habere (quae enim locatio est, cum merces non intercesserit?) aut certe actionem incerti ciuilem reddendam.
And I think that the action for dividing common property is more applicable than the action on lease (for what lease is there when no rent has intervened?), or at least a civil action for an uncertain amount must be granted.