[ULPIANUS libro septuagensimo ad edictum. ] §43.19.1.prPraetor ait: 'Quo itinere actuque priuato, quo de agitur, uel uia hoc anno nec ui nec clam nec precario ab illo usus es, quo minus ita utaris, uim fieri ueto'.
[ULPIANUS libro septuagensimo ad edictum.] The praetor says: 'In whatever way you have used, within this year, the private path, driftway, or road, about which this action is brought, without force, without secrecy, and without permission (precarium) from him, I forbid force to be used to prevent you from using it in that way.' This interdict is prohibitory, and pertains only to the protection of rustic servitudes.
§43.19.1.1Hoc interdictum prohibitorium est, pertinens ad tuendas rusticas tantummodo seruitutes. §43.19.1.2Hoc interdicto praetor non inquirit, utrum habuit iure seruitutem impositam an non, sed hoc tantum, an itinere actuque hoc anno usus sit non ui non clam non precario, et tuetur eum, licet eo tempore, quo interdictum redditur, usus non sit.
By this interdict, the praetor does not inquire whether he had a servitude legally imposed or not, but only this: whether he has used the path or driftway within this year without force, without secrecy, and without permission (precarium); and he protects him, even if at the time when the interdict is granted he is not using it.
siue igitur habuit ius uiae siue non habuit, in ea condicione est, ut ad tuitionem praetoris pertineat, si modo anno usus est uel modico tempore, id est non minus quam triginta diebus.
Whether, therefore, he had the right of way or not, he is in such a position that he falls under the protection of the praetor, provided only that he has used it during the year or for a moderate period, that is, for not less than thirty days.
neque ad praesens tempus refertur usus, quia plerumque itineribus uel uia non semper utimur, nisi cum usus exegerit ita.
Nor is the use referred to the present time, because for the most part we do not always use paths or a road, unless when use so requires.
§43.19.1.3Annui temporis spatio conclusit usum.
He restricted the use to a period of one year.
annum ex die interdicti retrorsum computare debemus.
We must calculate the year backward from the day of the interdict.
§43.19.1.4Si quis hoc interdicto utatur, sufficit alterutrum probare uel iter uel actum in usu habuisse.
If anyone uses this interdict, it is sufficient to prove either of the two, that he had either the path or the driftway in use.
§43.19.1.5Iulianus ait, quoad usque ingressus est, eo usque ei interdictum competere: quod uerum est.
Julianus says that the interdict is available to him to the extent of how far he entered; which is true.
§43.19.1.6Uiuianus recte ait eum, qui propter incommoditatem riui aut propterea, quia uia publica interrupta erat, per proximi uicini agrum iter fecerit, quamuis id frequenter fecit, non uideri omnino usum, itaque inutile esse interdictum, non quasi precario usum, sed quasi nec usum.
Vivianus rightly says that he who, on account of the inconvenience of a stream or because a public road was blocked, made his way through the land of his nearest neighbor, although he did this frequently, is not considered to have used it at all, and therefore the interdict is of no use—not as if he used it precariously, but as if he did not use it at all.
ergo secundum hoc neutro usus uidetur: multo enim minus illo usus est, per quem non iuit propter incommoditatem riui aut propterea, quia uia praerupta erat.
Therefore, according to this, he is deemed to have used neither: for he used much less that road through which he did not go on account of the inconvenience of the stream or because the road was steep.
idem erit dicendum et si non erat uia publica, sed iter priuatum: nam et hic eadem quaestio est.
The same must be said even if it was not a public road, but a private path; for here too there is the same question.
§43.19.1.7Is, cuius colonus aut hospes aut quis alius iter ad fundum fecit, usus uidetur itinere uel actu uel uia, et idcirco interdictum habebit: et haec ita Pedius scribit et adicit etiamsi ignorauit, cuius fundus esset, per quem iret, retinere eum seruitutem.
He whose tenant, guest, or anyone else has made a way to the estate is deemed to have used the path, driftway, or road, and therefore will have the interdict; and Pedius writes thus, and adds that even if he did not know whose estate it was through which he went, he retains the servitude.
§43.19.1.8Si quis autem, cum putaret fundum ad se pertinere, suo nomine iter fecerit amicus meus, utique sibi, non mihi interdictum adquisisse intellegitur.
But if anyone, while thinking that the estate belonged to him, being a friend of mine, made a way in his own name, he is understood to have acquired the interdict for himself indeed, and not for me.
§43.19.1.9Si quis propter inundationem usus non sit itinere actuque hoc anno, cum superiore usus sit, potest repetita die hoc interdicto uti per in integrum restitutionem ex illa parte 'si qua mihi iusta causa esse uidebitur'. sed et si per uim hoc ei contigerit, in integrum eum restitui oportere Marcellus probat.
If anyone, on account of a flood, has not used the path or driftway this year, though he used it in the preceding year, he can, by putting back the date (repetita die), use this interdict through restitution to the original state (in integrum restitutio) based on that clause 'if any just cause shall appear to me.' But Marcellus approves that even if this happened to him by force, he ought to be restored to his original state.
praeterea et aliis casibus interdictum repetita die competit, ex quibus in integrum quis restitutionem impetrare solet.
Moreover, in other cases also, the interdict is available by putting back the date, in which cases one is accustomed to obtain restitution to the original state.
§43.19.1.10Praeterea sciendum est, si dilatione data aduersario futurum est, ut causa interdicti mei deterior fiat, aequissimum esse repetita die reddi interdictum.
Furthermore, it must be known that if, because a delay has been granted to the adversary, the case of my interdict is going to be made worse, it is most equitable that the interdict be granted by putting back the date.
§43.19.1.11Si tibi fundum precario concessero, cui uia debebatur, deinde tu a domino fundi precario rogaueris, ut ea uia ad eum fundum utaris: an noceat tibi exceptio, si aduersus eum uelis interdicere, a quo precario uiam rogasti? et magis est, ut noceat, idque colligi potest ex eo, quod Iulianus scribit in specie huiusmodi.
If I have granted you precariously an estate to which a road was owed, and then you have asked precariously from the owner of the land that you might use that road to that estate: will the exception harm you if you wish to bring the interdict against him from whom you asked the road precariously? It is more likely that it will harm you, and this can be gathered from what Julianus writes in a case of this kind.
quaerit enim, si ego tibi fundum precario dedero, cui uia debebatur, et tu rogaueris precario, ut ea uia utaris: nihilo minus utile interdictum mihi esse, quia, sicuti me precarium rei meae non tenet, ita nec per te precario possidere intellegor: quotiens enim colonus meus aut is, cui precario fundum dedi, uia utitur, ego ire intellegor, propter quod et recte dico me itinere usum.
For he asks, if I have given you precariously an estate to which a road was owed, and you have asked precariously to use that road: nonetheless the beneficial interdict is available to me, because, just as a precarium of my own property does not bind me, so also I am not understood to possess precariously through you; for as often as my tenant or he to whom I gave the estate precariously uses the road, I am understood to go, because of which I also rightly say that I have used the path.
quae ratio, inquit, efficit, ut et, si ego uiam precario rogauero et tibi fundum precario dedero, quamuis hac mente ieris, quasi fundo meo deberetur, inutile esset interdictum et precario eo itinere usus esse uidear, non immerito: non enim opinio tua, sed mea quaerenda est. tu tamen, credo, poteris interdicto uti, etsi de hoc nihil scribat Iulianus.
'Which reasoning,' he says, 'brings it about that even if I have asked for the road precariously and given you the estate precariously, although you went with this mind, as if it were owed to my estate, the interdict would be useless and I would be seen to have used that path precariously, and not without reason; for it is not your opinion but mine that must be sought.' You, however, I believe, will be able to use the interdict, even if Julianus writes nothing about this.
§43.19.1.12Si quis supra dicto tempore anni non ui non clam non precario itinere usus sit, uerum postea non sit usus, sed clam precarioue, uidendum est, an ei noceat.
If anyone has used the path within the above-mentioned period of the year without force, without secrecy, and without permission (precarium), but afterwards has not used it, or has used it secretly or precariously, it must be seen whether this harms him.
et magis est, ut nihil ei noceat, quod attinet ad interdictum:
And it is more likely that it does not harm him at all as far as the interdict is concerned.