Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §39.2.26.pr

Lawful Land Use and Withholding of Neighboring Benefits

Passage 6150 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Proculus argues that performing a lawful act on one's own property, such as raising building heights or diverting water, does not constitute causing "damage" in a legal sense even under a prior stipulation, but is merely withholding a benefit, a view with which Ulpian agrees.

[ULPIANUS libro octogensimo primo ad edictum. ] §39.2.26.prProculus ait, cum quis iure quid in suo faceret, quamuis promississet damni infecti uicino, non tamen eum teneri ea stipulatione: ueluti si iuxta mea aedificia habeas aedificia eaque iure tuo altius tollas, aut si in uicino tuo agro cuniculo uel fossa aquam meam auoces: quamuis enim et hic aquam mihi abducas et illic luminibus officias, tamen ex ea stipulatione actionem mihi non competere, scilicet quia non debeat uideri is damnum facere, qui eo ueluti lucro, quo adhuc utebatur, prohibetur, multumque interesse, utrum damnum quis faciat, an lucro, quod adhuc faciebat, uti prohibeatur.
[ULPIANUS in the eighty-first book on the Edict.] Proculus says that when anyone does something lawfully on his own property, although he has promised for threatened damage to his neighbor, he is nevertheless not bound by that stipulation: as for instance, if you have buildings next to my buildings and you raise them higher in your own right, or if on your neighboring land you divert my water by a channel or a ditch: for although in the latter case you draw away water from me and in the former you obstruct my light, yet an action does not lie for me on that stipulation, namely because he ought not to be deemed to cause damage who is barred from what may be called a benefit which he has hitherto enjoyed, and there is a great difference between someone causing damage and being barred from enjoying a benefit which he has hitherto made.
mihi uidetur uera esse Proculi sententia.
The opinion of Proculus seems to me to be correct.

Notes

  1. §39.2.26.prdamni infecti — Genitive forms of the noun 'damnum' and the adjective 'infectus' (not yet done). Here it refers to the security or stipulation for threatened/future damage (stipulatio damni infecti), functioning as a genitive of relation or object describing what was promised under 'promississet'.
  2. §39.2.26.pret hic ... et illic — A contrast made by the adverbs 'hic' (here, in this closer case) and 'illic' (there, in that further case). Contextually, 'hic' refers to the immediately preceding case of diverting water, while 'illic' refers to the earlier mentioned case of obstructing light by raising a building.
  3. §39.2.26.prutrum damnum quis faciat, an lucro, quod adhuc faciebat, uti prohibeatur — A double indirect question introduced by 'utrum... an...'. The first clause is 'whether someone causes damage (accusative damnum)', and the second is 'or is barred (prohibeatur) from enjoying (uti) the benefit (ablative lucro, modified by 'quod adhuc faciebat') which they hitherto made'. 'lucro' is in the ablative case governed by the deponent verb 'uti'.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §39.2.26.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:39.2.26.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.