[LABEO libro secundo posteriorum a Iauoleno epitomatorum. ] §33.2.31.prIs qui fundum tecum communem habebat usum fructum fundi uxori legauerat: post mortem eius tecum heres arbitrum communi diuidundo petierat.
[LABEO, From the Second Book of his Posthumous Works, Epitomized by Javolenus.] A man who held a land in common with you had bequeathed the usufruct of the land to his wife. After his death, the heir had petitioned for an arbitrator for dividing the common property with you.
Blaesus ait Trebatium respondisse, si arbiter certis regionibus fundum diuisisset, eius partis, quae tibi optigerit, usum fructum mulieri nulla ex parte deberi, sed eius, quod heredi optigisset, totius usum fructum eam habituram.
Blaesus says that Trebatius answered that if the arbitrator had divided the land by specific regions, the usufruct of that part which fell to you was not due to the woman in any part, but she would have the usufruct of the whole of that which had fallen to the heir.
ego hoc falsum puto: nam cum ante arbitrum communi diuidundo coniunctus pro indiuiso ex parte dimidia totius fundi usus fructus mulieris fuisset, non potuisse arbitrum inter alios iudicando alterius ius mutare: quod et receptum est.
I think this is false; for, since before the arbitrator for dividing the common property, the usufruct of the woman had been joined undivided in respect of a half-share of the whole land, the arbitrator could not, by judging between other parties, change the right of a third party; and this has also been accepted.