[IDEM libro octauo ad Quintum Mucium. ] §23.3.66.prSi usus fructus fundi, cuius proprietatem mulier non habebat, dotis nomine mihi a domino proprietatis detur, difficultas erit post diuortium circa reddendum ius mulieri, quoniam diximus usum fructum a fructuario cedi non posse nisi domino proprietatis et, si extraneo cedatur, id est ei qui proprietatem non habeat, nihil ad eum transire, sed ad dominum proprietatis reuersurum usum fructum.
[THE SAME in the eighth book on Quintus Mucius.] If the usufruct of land, of which the woman did not have the ownership, is given to me as dowry by the owner of the ownership, there will be a difficulty after divorce regarding the restoration of the right to the woman, because we have said that a usufruct cannot be ceded by the usufructuary except to the owner of the ownership, and that, if it is ceded to a stranger, that is, to one who does not have the ownership, nothing passes to him, but the usufruct will return to the owner of the ownership.
quidam ergo remedii loco recte putauerunt introducendum, ut uel locet hunc usum fructum mulieri maritus uel uendat nummo uno, ut ipsum quidem ius remaneat penes maritum, perceptio uero fructuum ad mulierem pertineat.
Therefore, some have rightly thought that, by way of a remedy, it should be introduced that the husband either lease this usufruct to the woman or sell it for a single coin, so that the right itself indeed remains with the husband, but the perception of the fruits belongs to the woman.