[ULPIANUS libro septuagensimo ad edictum. ] §43.21.3.prSeruius autem scribit aliter duci aquam, quae ante per specus ducta est, si nunc per apertum ducatur: nam si operis aliquid faciat quis, quo magis aquam conseruet uel contineat, non impune prohiberi.
[ULPIANUS, from the seventieth book on the edict.] Servius, however, writes that water is drawn in a different way if water which was previously drawn through an underground channel is now drawn through an open one; for if anyone does some work to preserve or contain the water better, he cannot be blocked with impunity.
ego et in specu contra, si non maior utilitas uersetur aduersarii.
I, on the other hand, hold the opposite view also in the case of an underground channel, provided that no greater utility of the adversary is involved.
§43.21.3.1Seruius et Labeo scribunt, si riuum, qui ab initio terrenus fuit, quia aquam non continebat, cementicium uelit facere, audiendum esse: sed et si eum riuum, qui structilis fuit, postea terrenum faciat aut partem riui, aeque non esse prohibendum.
Servius and Labeo write that if someone wishes to make a channel concrete which was originally made of earth because it did not contain the water, his request should be heard; but also if he subsequently makes a channel of earth, or part of a channel, which was of masonry, he likewise should not be prevented.
mihi uidetur urguens et necessaria refectio esse admittenda.
It seems to me that urgent and necessary repair ought to be allowed.
§43.21.3.2Si quis nouum canalem uel fistulas in riuo uelit collocare, cum id numquam habuerit, utile ei hoc interdictum futurum Labeo ait.
Labeo says that if anyone wishes to install a new conduit or pipes in a channel, when he has never had them, this interdict will be useful (analogously applicable) to him.
nos et hic opinamur utilitatem eius qui ducit sine incommoditate eius cuius ager est spectandam.
We also are of the opinion here that the utility of the person who draws the water should be regarded, provided there is no disadvantage to the person whose land it is.
§43.21.3.3Si aqua in unum lacum conducatur et inde per plures ductus ducatur, hoc interdictum utile erit uolenti reficere ipsum lacum.
If water is collected into a single pool and is drawn from there through several conduits, this interdict will be useful (analogously applicable) to one who wishes to repair the pool itself.
§43.21.3.4Hoc interdictum ad omnes riuos pertinet, siue in publico siue in priuato sint constituti.
This interdict applies to all channels, whether they are established on public or private land.
§43.21.3.5Sed et si calidae aquae riuus sit, de hoc reficiendo competit interdictum.
But also if there is a channel of hot water, the interdict is available for repairing it.
§43.21.3.6Aristo et de cuniculo restituendo, per quem uapor trahitur, in balneariis uaporibus putat utilem actionem competere: et erit dicendum utile interdictum ex hac causa competere.
Aristo thinks that an analogously applicable action is available for restoring an underground passage through which vapor is drawn for baths; and it must be said that an analogously applicable interdict is available for this reason.
§43.21.3.7Isdem autem personis et in easdem interdictum hoc datur, quibus et in quas et de aqua interdicta redduntur, quae supra sunt enumerata.
Moreover, this interdict is granted to the same persons and against the same persons to whom and against whom the interdicts concerning water are granted, which have been enumerated above.
§43.21.3.8Si quis riuum reficienti opus nouum nuntiat, belle dictum est posse contemni operis noui nuntiationem: cum enim praetor ei uim fieri uetet, absurdum est per operis noui nuntiationem eum impediri.
If anyone serves a notice of a new work on someone who is repairing a channel, it has been finely said that the notice of a new work can be ignored; for since the praetor forbids force to be used against him, it is absurd for him to be hindered by a notice of a new work.
plane per in rem actionem dicendum est posse: aduersus eum uindicari ius ei non esse dubium non est.
Clearly, it must be said that this is possible through an action in rem; there is no doubt that the right can be claimed against him that he does not have the right.
§43.21.3.9De damno quoque infecto cauere eum debere minime dubitari oportet.
It must also not be doubted in the least that he ought to give security for damage not yet done.
§43.21.3.10Si quis eum exportare uehere, quae refectioni necessaria sunt, prohibeat, hoc interdictum ei competere Ofilius putat, quod est uerum.
If anyone should prevent him from carrying out or transporting what is necessary for the repair, Ofilius thinks that this interdict is available to him, which is true.