[IDEM libro nono decimo ad edictum prouinciale. ] §39.2.20.prInter fructuarium et dominum proprietatis ita damni infecti cautio locum habet, si fructuarius quidem de soli uitio caueri sibi desideret, dominus uero proprietatis de operis uitio, si quid fructuarius aedificet: nam de ruina aedium neuter ab altero cautionem desiderare potest, fructuarius ideo, quia refectio aedium ad eius ipsius onus non pertinet, proprietarius ideo, quia usitata stipulatio, qua de re restituenda fructuarius cauet, ad hunc quoque casum porrigitur.
[THE SAME, in the nineteenth book on the Provincial Edict.] Security for threatened damage takes place between a usufructuary and the owner of the property only in this way: if the usufructuary indeed desires security to be given to him for a defect of the soil, while the owner of the property desires it for a defect of the work, if the usufructuary builds anything; for neither of them can demand security from the other for the ruin of a building—the usufructuary for this reason, because the repair of the building does not pertain to his own burden, and the owner for this reason, because the usual stipulation, by which the usufructuary gives security for the restoration of the property, is extended also to this case.