[ULPIANUS libro quadragensimo secundo ad Sabinum. ] §39.2.37.prNam si non fuit, utique demolire eum oportuit nec debet, si quid damni ex hac causa attigit, is qui demolitus est teneri, nisi sumptuose aut parum bonus nouus paries sit restitutus.
[ULPIANUS in the forty-second book on Sabinus.] For if it was not [fit], it was certainly necessary to demolish it, and the one who demolished it ought not to be held liable, even if any damage has occurred from this cause, unless the new wall has been restored in an excessively expensive manner or is not sufficiently good.
quod si fuerit idoneus paries, qui demolitus est, in actionem damni infecti uenit id, quanti interfuit actoris eum parietem stare: merito, nam si non debuit demoliri, restituere eum debet proprio sumptu.
But if the wall which was demolished was fit, there comes into the action for threatened damage (damnum infectum) the amount of the plaintiff's interest in having that wall remain standing. This is with good reason, for if it ought not to have been demolished, he must restore it at his own expense.
sed et si qui reditus ob demolitionem amissus est, consequenter restitui eum Sabinus uoluit.
Moreover, Sabinus held that if any rent was lost because of the demolition, it should consequently be restored.
si forte habitatores migrauerunt aut non tam commode habitare possunt, imputari id aedificatori potest.
If, for instance, the tenants have moved out or cannot live there so comfortably, this can be imputed to the builder.