[IAUOLENUS libro sexto ex posterioribus Labeonis. ] §23.5.18.prUir in fundo dotali lapidicinas marmoreas aperuerat: diuortio facto quaeritur, marmor quod caesum neque exportatum esset cuius esset et impensam in lapidicinas factam mulier an uir praestare deberet.
[IAUOLENUS, From the Posthumous Works of Labeo, Book VI.]\n\nA husband had opened marble quarries on a dotal estate: a divorce having taken place, the question arises, to whom the marble which had been quarried but not carried away belongs, and whether the wife or the husband ought to pay for the expense incurred on the quarries.
Labeo marmor uiri esse ait: ceterum uiro negat quidquam praestandum esse a muliere, quia nec necessaria ea impensa esset et fundus deterior esset factus.
Labeo says that the marble belongs to the husband; but he denies that anything should be paid to the husband by the wife, because that expense was not necessary, and the estate had been made worse.
ego non tantum necessarias, sed etiam utiles impensas praestandas a muliere existimo nec puto fundum deteriorem esse, si tales sunt lapidicinae, in quibus lapis crescere possit. §23.5.18.1Si per mulierem mora fieret, quo minus aestimationem partis fundi uiro solueret et fundum reciperet, cum hoc pactum erat: fructus interim perceptos ad uirum pertinere ait Labeo.
I think that not only necessary but also useful expenses ought to be paid by the wife, and I do not think that the estate is made worse if the quarries are of such a nature that stone can grow in them.\n\nIf there should be delay on the part of the wife, preventing her from paying the valuation of a part of the estate to her husband and recovering the estate, when this had been agreed upon: Labeo says that the fruits gathered in the meantime belong to the husband.
puto potius pro portione fructus uirum habiturum, reliquos mulieri restituturum: quo iure utimur.
I think rather that the husband will keep the fruits in proportion, and return the rest to the wife: which is the rule of law we use.