[IDEM libro secundo responsorum. ] §3.5.26.prEx duobus fratribus uno quidem suae aetatis, alio uero minore annis, cum haberent communia praedia rustica, maior frater in saltu communi habenti habitationes paternas ampla aedificia aedificauerat: cumque eundem saltum cum fratre diuideret, sumptus sibi quasi re meliore ab eo facta desiderabat fratre minore iam legitimae aetatis constituto.
[THE SAME, Opinions, book two] Of two brothers, one being of age and the other a minor, when they owned common rural estates, the elder brother had built grand buildings on the common tract of land which contained ancestral dwellings; and when he divided the same tract of land with his brother, the minor brother being now of full legal age, he demanded the expenses incurred by him on the ground that the property had been improved.
Herennius Modestinus respondit ob sumptus nulla re urguente, sed uoluptatis causa factos eum de quo quaeritur actionem non habere.
Herennius Modestinus replied that for expenses incurred under no urgent necessity but for the sake of pleasure, the person in question has no action.
§3.5.26.1Titium, si pietatis respectu sororis aluit filiam, actionem hoc nomine contra eam non habere respondi.
I replied that if Titius, out of affection, maintained his sister's daughter, he has no action on this account against her.