[IDEM libro uicensimo ad edictum. ] §10.3.7.prCommuni diuidundo iudicium locum habet et in uectigali agro.
[THE SAME, from the twentieth book on the Edict.] The action for partition of common property also has a place in the case of vectigal land.
uectigalis ager an regionibus diuidi possit, uidendum: magis autem debet iudex abstinere huiusmodi diuisione: alioquin praestatio uectigalis confundetur.
Whether vectigal land can be divided by boundaries must be considered; but the judge ought rather to abstain from this kind of division, otherwise the payment of the rent (vectigal) will be thrown into confusion.
§10.3.7.1Neratius scribit arbitrum, si regionibus fundum non uectigalem diuisum duobus adiudicauerit, posse quasi in duobus fundis seruitutem imponere.
Neratius writes that if the arbiter has adjudicated a non-vectigal tract of land divided by boundaries to two persons, he can impose a servitude, as if on two tracts of land.
§10.3.7.2Qui in rem Publicianam habent, etiam communi diuidundo iudicium possunt exercere.
Those who have the Publician action in rem can also exercise the action for partition of common property.
§10.3.7.3Ex quibusdam autem causis uindicatio cessat, si tamen iusta causa est possidendi, utile communi diuidundo competit, ut puta si ex causa indebiti soluti res possideatur.
Moreover, although the action for recovery of property ceases in certain cases, if there is nevertheless a just cause of possessing, an analogous action for partition of common property is available, as for example if property is possessed on the ground of the payment of what was not due.
§10.3.7.4Inter praedones autem hoc iudicium locum non habet, nec si precario possideant locum habebit nec si clam, quia iniusta est possessio ista, precaria uero iusta quidem, sed quae non pergat ad iudicii uigorem.
Among plunderers, however, this action has no place, nor will it have a place if they possess precariously, nor if secretly, because that possession is unlawful, whereas precario possession is indeed lawful, but it is of such a nature that it does not extend to the force of a lawsuit.
§10.3.7.5Iulianus scribit, si alter possessor prouocet, alter dicat eum ui possidere, non debere hoc iudicium dari nec post annum quidem, quia placuit etiam post annum in eum qui ui deiecit interdictum reddi.
Julian writes that if one of the possessors brings the action, and the other asserts that he possesses by force, this action ought not to be granted, even after a year, because it has been decided that even after a year, an interdict is granted against him who has ejected by force.
et si precario, inquit, dicat eum possidere, adhuc cessabit hoc iudicium, quia et de precario interdictum datur.
And if, he says, the other asserts that he possesses precariously, this action will still be unavailable, because an interdict is also granted concerning precario.
sed et si clam dicatur possidere qui prouocat, dicendum esse ait cessare hoc iudicium: nam de clandestina possessione competere interdictum inquit.
Furthermore, if he who brings the action is said to possess secretly, he says it must be held that this action is unavailable, for he says that an interdict is available concerning clandestine possession.
§10.3.7.6Si duo sint qui rem pignori acceperunt, aequissimum esse utile communi diuidundo iudicium dari.
If there are two persons who have accepted a thing in pledge, it is most equitable that an analogous action for partition of common property be granted.
§10.3.7.7Sed et si de usu fructu sit inter duos controuersia, dari debet.
But also, if there is a dispute between two persons concerning a usufruct, it ought to be granted.
§10.3.7.8Item si duo a praetore missi sint in possessionem legatorum: est enim iusta causa possidendi custodiae gratia.
Likewise, if two persons have been put into possession of legacies by the praetor, for there is a just cause of possessing for the sake of custody.
ergo et si duo uentres, idem erit dicendum: quod habet rationem.
Therefore, even if there are two unborn children, the same must be said, which is reasonable.
§10.3.7.9Plane si iam damni infecti missus iussus sit possidere, non erit huic utili iudicio locus, cum uindicationem habere possit.
Clearly, if someone put into possession on account of threatened damage has already been ordered to possess, there will be no room for this analogous action, since he can have the action for recovery of property.
§10.3.7.10Cum de usu fructu communi diuidundo iudicium agitur, iudex officium suum ita diriget, ut uel regionibus eis uti frui permittat: uel locet usum fructum uni ex illis: uel tertiae personae, ut hi pensiones sine ulla controuersia percipiant: uel si res mobiles sint, etiam sic poterit, ut inter eos conueniat caueantque per tempora se usuros et fruituros, hoc est ut apud singulos mutua uice certo tempore sit usus fructus.
When the action for partition of common property is brought concerning a common usufruct, the judge will direct his office in such a way that he either permits them to use and enjoy it by boundaries; or leases the usufruct to one of them; or to a third person, so that they may receive the rents without any dispute; or, if the property is movable, it can also be done in this way, that they agree among themselves and give security that they will use and enjoy it by turns, that is, so that the usufruct is with each of them in mutual turn for a certain time.
§10.3.7.11Neque colonis neque eis qui depositum susceperunt hoc iudicium competit, quamuis naturaliter possideant.
Neither tenants nor those who have accepted a deposit have this action, although they possess naturally.
§10.3.7.12Inter eos, qui pignori acceperunt, talis diuisio fieri debet, ut non uero pretio aestimetur pars, sed in tantum dumtaxat, quantum pro ea parte debetur, et adsignetur quidem pignus uni ex creditoribus, licentia tamen non denegatur debitori debitum offerre et pignus suum luere.
Among those who have accepted a thing in pledge, such a division ought to be made that the share is not estimated at its true price, but only for as much as is owed for that share, and indeed the pledge is assigned to one of the creditors, but permission is not denied to the debtor to offer the debt and redeem his pledge.
idemque dicitur et si possessor pignoris litis aestimationem pigneraticiam in rem agenti offerat.
And the same is said if the possessor of the pledge offers the litigation valuation to the person bringing the pledge action in rem.
§10.3.7.13Si debitor communis praedii partem pignori dedit et a domino alterius partis prouocatus creditor eius aut ab alio creditore alterius debitoris licendo superauit et debitor eius cui res fuit adiudicata uelit partem suam praedii reciperare soluto eo quod ipse debuit: eleganter dicitur non esse audiendum, nisi et eam partem paratus sit reciperare, quam creditor per adiudicationem emit.
If a debtor has given a share of a common estate in pledge, and his creditor, being challenged by the owner of the other share, or by another creditor of another debtor, has prevailed in bidding, and the debtor of him to whom the property was adjudicated wishes to recover his own share of the estate upon payment of what he himself owed, it is elegantly said that he ought not to be heard unless he is also ready to recover that share which the creditor bought through the adjudication.
nam et si partem uendideris rei et prius, quam traderes emptori, communi diuidundo iudicio prouocatus fueris aliaque pars tibi adiudicata sit, consequenter dicitur ex empto agi non posse, nisi totam rem suscipere fuerit paratus, quia haec pars beneficio alterius uenditori accessit: quin immo etiam ex uendito posse conueniri emptorem, ut recipiat totum: solum illud spectandum erit, num forte fraus aliqua uenditoris interuenit.
For even if you have sold a share of a thing, and before you delivered it to the buyer, you were challenged in an action for partition of common property and another share was adjudicated to you, it is consequently said that an action on purchase cannot be brought unless the buyer is ready to take the whole thing, because this share has accrued to the seller by the benefit of the other. Indeed, the buyer can even be sued under the action on sale to receive the whole; only this will have to be watched, whether by chance any fraud on the part of the seller has intervened.
sed et si distracta parte cesserit uictus licitatione uenditor, aeque, pretium ut restituat, ex empto tenebitur.
But also, if the seller, after the share has been sold, yields, having been defeated in bidding, he will equally be liable under the action on purchase to restore the price.
haec eadem et in mandato ceterisque huius generis iudiciis seruantur.
These same rules are also observed in mandate and other lawsuits of this kind.