[PAULUS libro quadragensimo nono ad edictum. ] §39.3.2.prIn summa tria sunt, per quae inferior locus superiori seruit, lex, natura loci, uetustas: quae semper pro lege habetur, minuendarum scilicet litium causa.
[PAULUS libro quadragensimo nono ad edictum.] In short, there are three things by which a lower place serves a higher one: law, the nature of the place, and antiquity; which is always held in place of law, namely, for the sake of diminishing lawsuits.
§39.3.2.1Apud Labeonem proponitur fossa uetus esse agrorum siccandorum causa nec memoriam extare, quando facta est: hanc inferior uicinus non purgabat: sic fiebat, ut ex restagnatione eius aqua fundo nostro noceret.
In Labeo's writings, a case is proposed where there is an old ditch for the purpose of draining fields, and no memory exists of when it was made; the lower neighbor was not cleaning this ditch; thus it happened that, from the backing up of its water, the water caused harm to our field.
dicit igitur Labeo aquae pluuiae arcendae cum inferiore agi posse, ut aut ipse purgaret aut te pateretur in pristinum statum eam redigere.
Labeo therefore says that an action for keeping off rain water can be brought against the lower neighbor, so that either he himself should clean it or he should permit you to restore it to its former state.
§39.3.2.2Praeterea si in confinio fossa sit neque purgari uicinus patiatur eam partem quae tibi accedat, posse te magis aquae pluuiae arcendae Labeo ait.
Furthermore, if there is a ditch on the boundary and the neighbor does not permit that part which borders you to be cleaned, Labeo says that you can all the more bring an action for keeping off rain water.
§39.3.2.3Cassius autem scribit, si qua opera aquae mittendae causa publica auctoritate facta sint, in aquae pluuiae arcendae actionem non uenire in eademque causa esse ea, quorum memoriam uetustas excedit.
On the other hand, Cassius writes that if any works have been made by public authority for the purpose of letting out water, they do not come under the action for keeping off rain water, and those works whose memory antiquity exceeds are in the same situation.
§39.3.2.4Apud Ateium uero relatum est eam fossam, ex qua ad inferiorem fundum aqua descendit, cogendum esse uicinum purgare, siue extet fossae memoria siue non extet: quod et ipse puto probandum.
But in Ateius's writings, it is reported that regarding that ditch from which water flows down to the lower field, the neighbor must be compelled to clean it, whether a memory of the ditch exists or does not exist; which I myself also think should be approved.
§39.3.2.5Item Uarus ait: aggerem, qui in fundo uicini erat, uis aquae deiecit, per quod effectum est, ut aqua pluuia mihi noceret.
Likewise Varus says: the force of water destroyed a dike which was on the neighbor's field, through which it was brought about that rain water harmed me.
Uarus ait, si naturalis agger fuit, non posse me uicinum cogere aquae pluuiae arcendae actione, ut eum reponat uel reponi sinat, idemque putat et si manu factus fuit neque memoria eius exstat: quod si exstet, putat aquae pluuiae arcendae actione eum teneri.
Varus says that if it was a natural dike, I cannot compel the neighbor by the action for keeping off rain water to restore it or to permit it to be restored, and he thinks the same even if it was man-made and no memory of it exists; but if it does exist, he thinks he is liable under the action for keeping off rain water.
Labeo autem, si manu factus sit agger, etiamsi memoria eius non exstat, agi posse ut reponatur: nam hac actione neminem cogi posse, ut uicino prosit, sed ne noceat aut interpellet facientem, quod iure facere possit.
Labeo, however, says that if the dike was man-made, even if no memory of it exists, an action can be brought so that it may be restored; for by this action no one can be compelled to benefit a neighbor, but they can be compelled not to cause harm or not to obstruct the one who is doing what he can lawfully do.
quamquam tamen deficiat aquae pluuiae arcendae actio, attamen opinor utilem actionem uel interdictum mihi competere aduersus uicinum, si uelim aggerem restituere in agro eius, qui factus mihi quidem prodesse potest, ipsi uero nihil nociturus est: haec aequitas suggerit, etsi iure deficiamur.
Nevertheless, although the action for keeping off rain water may fail, still I think that a useful action or an interdict is available to me against the neighbor, if I should wish to restore the dike on his field, which, once made, can indeed benefit me, but will cause no harm to him; equity suggests this, even if we are unsupported by law.
§39.3.2.6Apud Namusam relatum est, si aqua fluens iter suum stercore obstruxerit et ex restagnatione superiori agro noceat, posse cum inferiore agi, ut sinat purgari: hanc enim actionem non tantum de operibus esse utilem manu factis, uerum etiam in omnibus, quae non secundum uoluntatem sint.
In Namusa's writings, it is reported that if flowing water has blocked its course with refuse and, from its backing up, causes harm to the higher field, an action can be brought against the lower neighbor so that he may permit it to be cleaned; for this action is useful not only concerning man-made works, but also in all matters which are not according to will.
Labeo contra Namusam probat: ait enim naturam agri ipsam a se mutari posse et ideo, cum per se natura agri fuerit mutata, aequo animo unumquemque ferre debere, siue melior siue deterior eius condicio facta sit.
Labeo approves the opposite of Namusa's view; for he says that the nature of a field can change by itself, and therefore, when the nature of a field has been changed by itself, everyone ought to bear it with an even mind, whether its condition has been made better or worse.
idcirco et si terrae motu aut tempestatis magnitudine soli causa mutata sit, neminem cogi posse, ut sinat in pristinam locum condicionem redigi.
Therefore, even if by an earthquake or by the magnitude of a storm the state of the soil has been changed, no one can be compelled to permit it to be restored to its former condition.
sed nos etiam in hunc casum aequitatem admisimus.
But we have admitted equity even in this case.
§39.3.2.7Idem Labeo ait, si in agro tuo aquarum concursus locum excauauit, aquae pluuiae arcendae actione agi non posse tecum a uicinis: plane si fossam iure factam aut cuius memoria non exstat, agi tecum posse aquae pluuiae arcendae, ut reficias.
The same Labeo says that if on your field the rush of waters has excavated a place, an action for keeping off rain water cannot be brought against you by your neighbors; clearly, if it is a ditch made lawfully, or one of which no memory exists, an action for keeping off rain water can be brought against you so that you may repair it.
§39.3.2.8Idem Labeo ait, cum quaeritur, an memoria exstet facto opere, non diem et consulem ad liquidum exquirendum, sed sufficere, si quis sciat factum esse, hoc est, si factum esse non ambigatur: nec utique necesse esse superesse qui meminerint, uerum etiam si qui audierint eos, qui memoria tenuerint.
The same Labeo says that when it is asked whether memory exists of a work having been made, the day and the consul do not need to be investigated to the exact point, but it is sufficient if anyone knows that it was made, that is, if there is no doubt that it was made; nor is it absolutely necessary that those who remember it survive, but it is also sufficient if there are those who have heard from those who kept it in memory.
§39.3.2.9Idem Labeo ait, si uicinus flumen torrentem auerterit, ne aqua ad eum perueniat, et hoc modo sit effectum, ut uicino noceatur, agi cum eo aquae pluuiae arcendae non posse: aquam enim arcere hoc esse curare, ne influat.
The same Labeo says that if a neighbor has diverted a torrent river so that water does not reach him, and in this way it has been brought about that harm is caused to his neighbor, an action for keeping off rain water cannot be brought against him; for to keep off water is to take care that it does not flow in.
quae sententia uerior est, si modo non hoc animo fecit, ut tibi noceat, sed ne sibi noceat.
This opinion is more true, provided he did not do this with the intention of harming you, but so that it might not harm himself.
§39.3.2.10Illud etiam uerum puto, quod Ofilius scribit, si fundus tuus uicino seruiat et propterea aquam recipiat, cessare aquae pluuiae arcendae actionem, sic tamen, si non ultra modum noceat.
I also think that what Ofilius writes is true: if your field is subject to a servitude to a neighbor and therefore receives water, the action for keeping off rain water ceases, yet only if it does not cause harm beyond measure.
cui consequens est, quod Labeo putat, si quis uicino cesserit ius ei esse aquam immittere, aquae pluuiae arcendae eum agere non posse.
Consequent to this is what Labeo thinks: if anyone has surrendered to a neighbor the right to project water, he cannot bring the action for keeping off rain water.