Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §39.2.22.pr-39.2.22.1

Allocation of Threat Damage Costs Between Usufructuary and Owner

Passage 6145 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

This chunk regulates the fair distribution of expenses for threatened damage between the owner and the usufructuary, establishing a right of retention of the ground, and rules that a party seeking security must choose from whom to demand it.

[IDEM libro decimo ad Plautium. ] §39.2.22.prSi proprietarius de damno infecto repromississet uel forte aliquid praestitisset aut contra fructuarius aliquid praestitit, iniquum est alterum sine damno uti aedibus aut aedes habere.
[THE SAME, in the tenth book on Plautius.] If the owner had given a promise concerning threatened damage or had by chance made some payment, or if, on the other hand, the usufructuary made some payment, it is inequitable for the other to use the building or to hold the building without bearing any loss.
et si optulerit proprietarius aliquid, non est fructuario permittendum uti, nisi contulerit: idemque fructuario praestandum est, ut proprietarius cogatur ei conferre.
And if the owner has offered some contribution, the usufructuary should not be permitted to use the building unless he contributes; and the same must be provided for the usufructuary, so that the owner may be compelled to contribute to him.
ergo et solum retinebit fructuarius, si aedes ceciderint, donec praestetur ei damnum, ut, quod haberet uicinus missus in possessionem, id fructuarius habeat, qui damnum uicino sarciit.
Therefore, the usufructuary will also retain the ground, if the building falls down, until the loss is made good to him, so that the usufructuary who has repaired the damage for the neighbor may have what the neighbor, when put into possession, would have had.
eadem erunt et si minimum damnum detur.
The same will apply even if the smallest damage is caused.
§39.2.22.1PLAUTIUS. Si ab eo, quem dominum esse negarem, uellem sub hac exceptione 'si dominus non esset' satisdari, ab eo uero, quem dominum esse dicerem, pure repromitti, constitit non debere me impetrare, sed debere me eligere, a quo uelim mihi caueri.
PLAUTIUS. If I should wish to have security given under this exception, "if he were not the owner," by one whom I deny to be the owner, but to have an unconditional promise given by one whom I assert to be the owner, it has been settled that I ought not to obtain both, but that I must choose from whom I wish security to be given to me.

Notes

  1. 39.2.22.pralterum sine damno uti aedibus aut aedes habere — An accusative with infinitive clause functioning as the subject of the impersonal construction 'iniquum est'. The pronoun 'alterum' (the other) refers to the party who did not bear the expense. Corresponding to the preceding two alternative conditions, it contrasts the usufructuary's action 'uti aedibus' (to use the building) with the owner's state 'aedes habere' (to hold/own the building).
  2. 39.2.22.pridemque fructuario praestandum est, ut proprietarius cogatur ei conferre — In the gerundive construction 'idem... praestandum est' (the same must be provided), 'fructuario' is a dative of benefit. The clause 'ut proprietarius cogatur...' (so that the owner may be compelled...) functions as an appositional noun clause or a consecutive clause explaining the specific content of 'idem'.
  3. 39.2.22.1satisdari... repromitti — Both are present passive infinitives. They function as complements of the subjunctive imperfect 'uellem' (if I should wish), representing impersonal passive expressions meaning 'security to be given (by someone)' and 'a promise to be made (by someone)' in a legal context.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §39.2.22.pr-39.2.22.1. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:39.2.22.pr-39.2.22.1

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.