[ULPIANUS libro septuagensimo ad edictum. ] §43.19.3.prInde etiam illud Labeo scribit: si, cum a me recte uia utebaris, fundum uendidero, per quem utebaris, deinde emptor te prohibuit: licet clam uidearis ab eo uti (nam qui prohibitus utitur, clam utitur), tamen interdictum tibi competere intra annum, quia hoc anno non ui non clam non precario usus es. §43.19.3.1Item sciendum est non tantum eum clam uia uti, qui ipse prohibitus utitur, uerum eum quoque, per quem quis id ius retinebat, si eo prohibito, per quem retinebat, utatur.
[ULPIANUS, from the seventieth book on the Edict.]\n\nHence Labeo also writes: if, when you were rightly using the path under me, I sell the land through which you were using it, and then the buyer prohibits you; although you may seem to use it secretly (clam) with respect to him (for he who uses it when prohibited, uses it secretly), nevertheless the interdict is available to you within a year, because in this year you have used it not by force, not secretly, not precariously.\n\nLikewise, it must be known that not only does he use the path secretly who himself uses it when prohibited, but also he through whom someone retained that right, if he uses it when that person through whom he retained it is prohibited.
plane si ignoraui prohibitum et perseuero uti, nihil mihi nocere dicendum est. §43.19.3.2Si quis ab auctore meo ui aut clam aut precario usus est, recte a me uia uti prohibetur et interdictum ei inutile est, quia a me uidetur ui uel clam uel precario possidere, qui ab auctore meo uitiose possidet.
Clearly, if I was ignorant of the prohibition and continue to use it, it should be said that it does not harm me.\n\nIf anyone has used it by force, secretly, or precariously from my predecessor, he is rightly prohibited by me from using the path, and the interdict is useless to him, because he who possesses defectively from my predecessor is deemed to possess by force, secretly, or precariously from me.
nam et Pedius scribit, si ui aut clam aut precario ab eo sit usus, in cuius locum hereditate uel emptione alioue quo iure successi, idem esse dicendum: cum enim successerit quis in locum eorum, aequum non est nos noceri hoc, quod aduersus eum non nocuit, in cuius locum successimus. §43.19.3.3In hoc interdicto examinatur, quanti eius interesset uia non prohiberi siue itinere. §43.19.3.4Uti uidemur seruitutibus etiam per seruos uel colonos uel amicos uel etiam hospites et fere per eos omnes, qui nobis retinent seruitutes: sed enim per fructuarium quidem seruitus retinetur, per fructuarium autem interdictum hoc domino non competere Iulianus ait. §43.19.3.5Idem Iulianus scribit, si meus usus fructus in fundo tuo, proprietas uero tua fuerit et uterque nostrum per uicini fundum ierit, utile interdictum de itinere nos habere: et siue forte ab extraneo fructuarius prohibeatur, siue etiam a domino, sed et si dominus a fructuario, competet: nam et si quilibet prohibeat ire, interdictum aduersus eum competit. §43.19.3.6Hoc interdictum et ei competit, qui donationis causa fundi uacuam possessionem adeptus est. §43.19.3.7Si quis ex mandatu meo fundum emerit, aequissimum est mihi hoc interdictum dari 'ut ille usus est' qui mandatu meo emit. §43.19.3.8Sed et si quis usum fructum emit uel usum uel cui legatus est et traditus, uti hoc interdicto poterit. §43.19.3.9Hoc amplius et is, cui dotis causa fundus traditus est, experiri hoc interdicto poterit. §43.19.3.10Et generaliter ex omnibus causis, quae instar habent uenditionis uel alterius contractus, dicendum est hoc interdicto locum fore. §43.19.3.11Ait praetor: 'Quo itinere actuque hoc anno non ui non clam non precario ab alio usus es, quo minus id iter actumque, ut tibi ius esset, reficias, uim fieri ueto.
For Pedius also writes that if someone has used it by force, secretly, or precariously from the person into whose place I succeeded by inheritance, purchase, or any other right, the same must be said: for when anyone has succeeded to the place of those, it is not equitable that we should be harmed by that which did not harm the one into whose place we succeeded.\n\nIn this interdict, it is examined how much it was of interest to him not to be prohibited from the path or passage.\n\nWe are deemed to use servitudes also through slaves, tenants, friends, or even guests, and generally through all those who retain servitudes for us; but indeed, although a servitude is retained through a usufructuary, Julian says that this interdict through a usufructuary is not available to the owner.\n\nThe same Julian writes that if my usufruct is in your land, but the ownership is yours, and both of us have gone through a neighbor's land, we have a useful interdict regarding the passage; and whether the usufructuary is prohibited by a stranger, or even by the owner, or if the owner is prohibited by the usufructuary, it will be available; for if anyone at all prohibits going, the interdict is available against him.\n\nThis interdict is also available to him who has acquired vacant possession of land for the sake of a donation.\n\nIf anyone has bought a land by my mandate, it is most equitable that this interdict be given to me 'as he has used it' who bought it by my mandate.\n\nBut also if anyone has bought a usufruct or a use, or to whom it has been bequeathed and delivered, he will be able to use this interdict.\n\nFurthermore, he also to whom land has been delivered for the sake of a dowry will be able to try his case with this interdict.\n\nAnd generally, from all causes which have the likeness of a sale or another contract, it must be said that there will be a place for this interdict.\n\nThe praetor says: 'On whatever path and driveway you have used this year not by force, not secretly, not precariously from another, I forbid force to be used to prevent you from repairing that path and driveway as you had the right to do.
qui hoc interdicto uti uolet, is aduersario damni infecti, quod per eius uitium datum sit, caueat'. §43.19.3.12Utilitas suasit hoc quoque interdictum proponere: namque consequens erat eum qui itinere utitur interdictum proponere, ut refici iter possit: quemadmodum enim alias uti potest itinere uel actu commode, quam si refecerit? corrupto enim itinere minus commode frui aut agi potest. §43.19.3.13Hoc autem a superiori distat, quod illo quidem interdicto omnes uti possunt, qui hoc anno usi sunt: hoc autem interdicto eum demum uti posse, qui hoc anno usus est et ius sibi esse reficiendi oporteat.
Let him who wishes to use this interdict provide security to his adversary for damage not yet done which has been caused by his fault.'\n\nUtility persuaded to propose this interdict as well: for it was consequential that he who uses a path should be proposed an interdict so that the path can be repaired; for how else can he use a path or driveway conveniently than if he has repaired it? For if the path is damaged, it can be enjoyed or driven along less conveniently.\n\nBut this differs from the previous one in this: in that interdict indeed all who have used it this year can use it; but in this interdict only he can use it who has used it this year and ought to have the right of repairing.
ius autem esse uidetur ei, cui seruitus debetur.
And the right is deemed to belong to him to whom the servitude is owed.
itaque qui hoc interdicto utitur, duas res debet docere, et hoc anno se usum et ei seruitutem competere: ceterum si desit alterutrum, deficit interdictum, nec immerito.
Therefore, he who uses this interdict must prove two things, both that he has used it this year and that the servitude is available to him; otherwise, if either is lacking, the interdict fails, and not without reason.
qui enim uult ire agere, tantisper, quoad de seruitute constet, non debet de iure suo docere: quid enim perdit, qui eum patitur hoc facere, qui hoc anno fecit? enimuero qui uult reficere, aliquid noui facit neque debet ei in alieno permitti id moliri, nisi uere habet seruitutem. §43.19.3.14Fieri autem potest, ut qui ius eundi habeat et agendi, reficiendi ius non habeat, quia in seruitute constituenda cautum sit, ne ei reficiendi ius sit, aut sic, ut, si uelit reficere, usque ad certum modum reficiendi ius sit: merito ergo ad refectionem se praetor rettulit: 'ut tibi', inquit, 'ius est, reficias'. 'uti ius est' hoc est sic uti per seruitutem impositam licet. §43.19.3.15Reficere sic accipimus ad pristinam formam iter et actum reducere, hoc est ne quis dilatet aut producat aut deprimat aut exaggeret: aliud est enim reficere, longe aliud facere.
For he who wants to go or drive does not need to prove his right as long as the servitude is established; for what does he lose who allows him to do this who has done it this year? But indeed, he who wants to repair does something new, and he should not be permitted to undertake this on another's property unless he truly has the servitude.\n\nBut it can happen that he who has the right of going and driving does not have the right of repairing, because in establishing the servitude it was provided that he should not have the right of repairing, or in such a way that, if he wants to repair, he has the right of repairing only up to a certain limit: rightly, therefore, the praetor referred to the repair; 'repair,' he says, 'as you have the right.' 'As there is a right' means to use it in such a way as is permitted through the imposed servitude.\n\nWe understand 'to repair' as bringing back the path and driveway to its former shape, that is, so that no one widens, extends, lowers, or raises it; for it is one thing to repair, and a far different thing to make.\n\nIn Labeo, it is asked whether, if someone wants to make a new bridge for the sake of constructing a road, it should be permitted to him; and he says it should be permitted, as if construction of this kind were part of the repair.
§43.19.3.16Apud Labeonem quaeritur, si pontem quis nouum uelit facere uiae muniendae causa, an ei permittatur: et ait permittendum, quasi pars sit refectionis huiusmodi munitio. et ego puto ueram Labeonis sententiam, si modo sine hoc commeari non possit.
And I think Labeo's opinion is true, provided that without this, transit is impossible.