Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §27.9.6.pr

Inapplicability of the Speech to Separated Usufruct

Passage 4065 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

It explains that if the ownership of a land and its usufruct belong to different persons, the restriction of the Speech regarding division does not apply because no co-ownership exists.

[IDEM libro secundo de omnibus tribunalibus. ] §27.9.6.prSed si forte alius proprietatem fundi habeat, alius usum fructum, magis est, ut cesset haec pars orationis, quae de diuisione loquitur: nulla enim communio est.
[THE SAME, in the second book on All Tribunals.] But if, as it may happen, one person has the ownership of the land and another the usufruct, it is more reasonable that this part of the Speech, which speaks of division, does not apply; for there is no co-ownership.

Notes

  1. §27.9.6.prmagis est, ut — An impersonal construction `magis est` followed by an `ut`-clause with the subjunctive, meaning "it is more reasonable that..." or "it is more likely that...".
  2. §27.9.6.prcesset — Third-person singular present subjunctive of `cessare` (to cease, to be inactive/inapplicable), not to be confused with `cedere`. In juristic Latin, it is a standard term meaning that a law, speech, or remedy "does not apply" or "ceases to have effect."

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §27.9.6.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:27.9.6.pr

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.