[PAULUS libro quadragesimo nono ad edictum. ] §39.3.11.prSupra iter alienum arcus aquae ducendae causa non iure fiet: nec is, cui iter actus debetur, pontem, qua possit ire agere, iure extruet.
[PAULUS libro quadragesimo nono ad edictum.] An arch built over another's pathway for the purpose of drawing water will not be constructed lawfully; nor will he, to whom the right of way or drive is owed, lawfully construct a bridge over which he can go or drive.
at si specus (non cuniculum) sub riuo aget, aqua corrumpetur, quia suffosso eo aqua manabit et riuus siccatur.
But if he drives a channel (not a pipe) under a watercourse, the water will be spoiled, because if it is undermined, the water will flow away and the watercourse will dry up.
§39.3.11.1Cassius ait, siue ex communi fundo siue communi aqua noceat, uel unum cum uno agere posse uel unum separatim cum singulis uel separatim singulos cum uno uel singulos cum singulis.
Cassius says that whether the injury from common land or common water causes harm, either one person can sue one, or one separately with each individual, or each individual separately with one, or each individual with each individual.
si unus egerit et restitutio operis litisque aestimatio facta sit, ceterorum actionem euanescere: item si cum uno actum sit et si praestiterit, ceteros liberari idque, quod sociorum nomine datum sit, per arbitrum communi diuidundo reciperari posse.
If one person sues and restoration of the work and estimation of the suit are made, the actions of the others disappear; likewise, if a suit is brought against one and he makes performance, the others are released, and that which has been paid on behalf of the co-owners can be recovered through an arbitrator for dividing common property.
§39.3.11.2Et ex sociis non utique cum eo agendum qui opus fecerit nec minus eum quoque damnum restituere debere, qui auctor operis fuit, apud Ferocem Proculus ait: si cum uno dominorum actum sit, qui opus non fecerit, debere eum opus restituere sua impensa, quia communi diuidundo actionem habet.
And Proculus says, in his comments on Ferox, that action is not by all means to be brought against that one of the partners who did the work, and that he who was the author of the work is no less bound to restore the damage. If suit is brought against one of the owners who did not do the work, he ought to restore the work at his own expense, because he has an action for dividing common property.
sed sibi magis placere patientiam dumtaxat eum praestare oportere, quia sua culpa actor id patiatur, qui non agit cum eo, a quo opus factum sit.
But Proculus says that it is more pleasing to him that he ought only to guarantee sufferance (non-interference), because it is by his own fault that the plaintiff suffers this, since he does not sue the person by whom the work was done.
et est iniquum eum, qui non fecit, id restituere oportere, quoniam communi diuidundo agere potest: quid enim fiet, si socius eius soluendo non fuerit?
And it is unfair that he who did not do it should be obliged to restore it, on the ground that he can sue for dividing common property; for what will happen if his partner is insolvent?
§39.3.11.3Officium autem iudicis inter duos accepti quale futurum sit, dubitare se Iulianus ait, si forte unius fundus fuerit cui aqua noceat, si uero in quo opus factum sit, plurium et cum uno eorum agatur: utrum et eius damni nomine, quod post litem contestatam datum sit, et operis non restituti in solidum condemnatio fieri debeat, quemadmodum, cum serui communis nomine noxali iudicio cum uno agitur, condemnatio in solidum fiet, quoniam quod praestiterit, potest a socio recipere? an uero is cum quo agitur pro parte sua et damni dati et operis non restituti nomine damnandus sit, ut in actione damni infecti fiat, cum eius praedii, ex quo damnum metuatur, plures domini sint et cum uno eorum agatur? licet opus, ex quo damnum futurum sit, indiuiduum sit et ipsae aedes solumque earum non potest pro parte dumtaxat damnum dare, nihilo minus eum cum quo agitur pro sua parte condemnari.
Moreover, Julian says he is in doubt as to what the duty of the judge accepted between two parties will be, if by chance the land of one person is that which the water harms, but the land on which the work was done belongs to several, and action is brought against one of them: whether condemnation ought to be made in solidum both on account of the damage done after the joinder of issue and on account of the work not being restored, just as, when action is brought against one owner in a noxal action on account of a common slave, condemnation is made in solidum, because he can recover what he has paid from his partner? Or whether he against whom the action is brought ought to be condemned for his own share, both on account of the damage done and on account of the work not being restored, as is done in the action for threatened damage, when there are several owners of the estate from which damage is feared, and action is brought against one of them? Even though the work from which damage is feared is indivisible, and the building itself and its soil cannot cause damage only in part, nevertheless he against whom action is brought is condemned for his share.
magisque existimat id seruandum in. aquae pluuiae arcendae actione, quod in actione damni infecti, quia utrubique non de praeterito, sed de futuro damno agitur.
And he rather thinks that this rule should be observed in the action for warding off rainwater which is observed in the action for threatened damage, because in both cases the action is not for past but for future damage.
§39.3.11.4Quod si is fundus, cui aqua pluuia nocet, plurium sit, agere quidem uel singulos posse: sed damni, quod post litem contestatam datum sit, non amplius parte sua consecuturum: item si opus restitutum non fuerit, non amplius, quam quod pro parte eorum interfuerit opus restitui, condemnationem fieri oportere.
But if that land which the rainwater harms belongs to several, indeed individual owners can sue; but on account of the damage done after joinder of issue, they will obtain no more than their own share. Likewise, if the work has not been restored, condemnation ought to be made for no more than what it was in their interest for their share that the work be restored.
§39.3.11.5Si ex priuato agro in agrum communem aqua immittatur, Ofilius ait socium cum eo agere posse:
If water is discharged from private land into common land, Ofilius says that a partner can bring an action against him.
§39.3.11.6Trebatius existimat, si de eo opere agatur, quod manu factum sit, omnimodo restituendum id esse ab eo, cum quo agitur: si uero ui fluminis agger deletus sit aut glarea iniecta aut fossa limo repleta, tunc patientiam dumtaxat praestandam.
Trebatius thinks that if the action is about a work made by hand, it must by all means be restored by him against whom action is brought; but if a dike is destroyed by the force of the river, or gravel is cast up, or a ditch is filled with mud, then only sufferance (patientia) must be guaranteed.