[ULPIANUS libro septuagensimo primo ad edictum. ] §43.24.13.prDenique si arbores in fundo, cuius usus fructus ad Titium pertinet, ab extraneo uel a proprietario succisae fuerint, Titius et lege Aquilia et interdicto quod ui aut clam cum utroque eorum recte experietur.
Finally, if trees on land the usufruct of which belongs to Titius should be cut down by a stranger or by the owner, Titius will rightly proceed against either of them both under the Lex Aquilia and by the interdict on force or stealth.
§43.24.13.1Labeo scribit, si filio prohibente opus factum sit, et te habere interdictum, ac si te prohibente opus factum est, et filium tuum nihilo minus.
Labeo writes that if a work has been done despite the son's prohibition, you also have the interdict, just as if the work had been done despite your prohibition, and your son has it nonetheless.
§43.24.13.2Idem ait aduersus filium familias in re peculiari neminem clam uideri fecisse: namque, si scit eum filium familias esse, non uidetur eius celandi gratia fecisse, quem certus est nullam secum actionem habere.
The same author says that, in a matter concerning the peculium, no one is deemed to have acted by stealth against a filius familias; for if one knows that he is a filius familias, he is not deemed to have acted for the sake of concealing it from him, who he is certain has no action against him.
§43.24.13.3Si ex sociis communis fundi unus arbores succiderit, socius cum eo hoc interdicto experiri potest, cum ei competat, cuius interest.
If one of the partners of a common land has cut down trees, the partner can proceed against him with this interdict, since it is available to whoever has an interest.
§43.24.13.4Unde apud Seruium amplius relatum est, si mihi concesseris, ut ex fundo tuo arbores caedam, deinde eas alius ui aut clam ceciderit, mihi hoc interdictum competere, quia ego sim cuius interest: quod facilius erit admittendum, si a te emi uel ex aliquo contractu hoc consecutus sim, ut mihi caedere liceat.
Hence, it is further reported in Servius that if you have permitted me to cut down trees from your land, and then another person has cut them down by force or stealth, this interdict is available to me, because I am the one who has an interest; which will be more readily admitted if I bought this from you or obtained by some contract the right to cut them down.
§43.24.13.5Quaesitum est, si, cum praedium interim nullius esset, aliquid ui aut clam factum sit, an postea dominio ad aliquem deuoluto interdicto locus sit: ut puta hereditas iacebat, postea adiit hereditatem Titius, an ei interdictum competat? et est apud Uiuianum saepissime relatum heredi competere hoc interdictum eius, quod ante aditam hereditatem factum sit, nec referre Labeo ait, quod non scierit, qui heredes futuri essent: hoc enim posse quem causari etiam post aditam hereditatem.
The question was asked whether, if some work was done by force or stealth while an estate in the meantime belonged to no one, there is room for the interdict after the ownership has later devolved upon someone; for instance, the inheritance was vacant, and Titius later entered upon the inheritance: is the interdict available to him? And it is very frequently reported in Vivianus that this interdict is available to the heir for what was done before the entry upon the inheritance, and Labeo says it does not matter that the doer did not know who the future heirs would be, for anyone could make this excuse even after the entry upon the inheritance.
ne illud quidem obstare Labeo ait, quod eo tempore nemo dominus fuerit: nam et sepulchri nemo dominus fuit et tamen, si quid in eo fiat, experiri possum quod ui aut clam.
Labeo says that not even the fact that no one was owner at that time stands in the way; for indeed no one is the owner of a tomb, and yet if anything is done to it, I can proceed by the interdict on force or stealth.
accedit his, quod hereditas dominae locum obtinet.
Added to this is the fact that the inheritance occupies the position of a mistress.
et recte dicetur heredi quoque competere et ceteris successoribus, siue ante, quam successerit, siue postea aliquid sit ui aut clam admissum.
And it will rightly be said that the interdict is available also to the heir and other successors, whether something was committed by force or stealth before or after he succeeded.
§43.24.13.6Si colonus meus opus fecerit, si quidem me uolente uel ratum habente, perinde est atque si procurator meus fecisset, in quo placet, siue ex uoluntate mea fecerit, teneri me, siue ratum habuero, quod procurator fecit.
If my tenant has done some work, if indeed with my consent or my ratification, it is just as if my procurator had done it, regarding whom it is accepted that I am liable, whether he did it from my will, or I ratified what the procurator did.
§43.24.13.7Iulianus ait: si colonus arborem, de qua controuersia erat, succiderat uel quid aliud opus fecerit, si quidem iussu domini id factum sit, ambo tenebuntur, non ut patientiam praestent, sed ut impensam quoque ad restituendum praebeant: si autem dominus non iusserit, colonus quidem tenebitur, ut patientiam et impensam praestet, dominus uero nihil amplius quam patientiam praestare cogendus erit.
Julian says: if a tenant has cut down a tree about which there was a dispute or has done any other work, if indeed it was done by order of the owner, both will be liable, not just to yield submission to the restoration, but also to provide the expense for restoring it; but if the owner did not order it, the tenant indeed will be liable to yield submission and provide the expense, but the owner will be compelled to do nothing more than yield submission.