[IDEM libro nono decimo ad edictum. ] §10.3.4.prPer hoc iudicium corporalium rerum fit diuisio, quarum rerum dominium habemus, non etiam hereditatis.
[THE SAME, from the nineteenth book on the Edict.] By means of this action, the division of corporeal things of which we have ownership is effected, and not that of an inheritance.
§10.3.4.1De puteo quaeritur an communi diuidundo iudicio agi possit: et ait Mela ita demum posse, si solum eius commune sit.
Regarding a well, the question is raised whether an action for partition of common property can be brought; and Mela says that this is possible only if the ground itself is held in common.
§10.3.4.2Hoc iudicium bonae fidei est: quare si una res indiuidisa relicta sit, ualebit utique et ceterarum diuisio et poterit iterum communi diuidundo agi de ea quae indiuidisa mansit.
This action is one of good faith; therefore, if one thing is left undivided, the division of the other things will certainly be valid, and an action for partition of common property can be brought again concerning that which remained undivided.
§10.3.4.3Sicut autem ipsius rei diuisio uenit in communi diuidundo iudicio, ita etiam praestationes ueniunt: et ideo si quis impensas fecerit, consequatur.
Just as the division of the thing itself comes within the action for partition of common property, so also do personal performances; and therefore, if anyone has incurred expenses, he should recover them.
sed si non cum ipso socio agat, sed cum herede socii, Labeo recte existimat impensas et fructus a defuncto perceptos uenire.
But if one brings the action not against the partner himself, but against the partner's heir, Labeo correctly thinks that the expenses and the fruits gathered by the deceased come within the action.
plane fructus ante percepti, quam res communis esset, uel sumptus ante facti in communi diuidundo iudicium non ueniunt.
Clearly, fruits gathered before the property became common, or expenses incurred before that time, do not come within the action for partition of common property.
§10.3.4.4Eapropter scribit Iulianus, si missi in possessionem damni infecti simus et ante, quam possidere iuberemur, ego insulam fulsero, sumptum istum communi diuidundo iudicio consequi me non posse.
For this reason, Julian writes that if we have been put into possession to secure against threatened damage, and before we were ordered to possess, I propped up the apartment building, I cannot recover that expense by the action for partition of common property.