[ULPIANUS libro septuagensimo primo ad edictum. ] §43.24.7.prSi alius fecerit me inuito, tenebor ad hoc, ut patientiam praestem.
[ULPIANUS, from the seventy-first book on the edict.] If another person does a work against my will, I shall be held liable to this extent, to allow it to be done.
§43.24.7.1Neratius quoque scribit eum, cuius seruus ui aut clam fecit, aut sua impensa ex interdicto opus restituere debere aut patientiam restituendi praestare et seruum noxae dedere: plane si mortuo alienatoue seruo interdiceretur, patientiam dumtaxat praestare debere ait, ita ut et emptor eo interdicto possit conueniri, ut impensam praestet aut noxam det: dominoque operis sua impensa restituente aut damnato, quia non restitueret, emptorem liberari.
Neratius also writes that he whose slave did a work by force or secretly must either restore the work at his own expense under the interdict, or allow the restoration and surrender the slave as a noxa. Clearly, if the interdict is brought after the slave has died or been alienated, he says that the master only has to allow the restoration, so that the buyer also can be sued under that interdict to pay the expense or surrender the slave as a noxa. And if the owner of the work restores it at his own expense or is condemned because he did not restore it, the buyer is released.
eadem et si contra dominus serui uel opus restituisset uel litis aestimatione damnatus esset: quod si tantum noxae dedisset, aduersus dominum operis utiliter interdici.
The same applies if, conversely, the master of the slave either restored the work or was condemned in the estimation of the suit. But if he only surrendered the slave as a noxa, a useful interdict lies against the owner of the work.
§43.24.7.2Ait Iulianus: qui ante remissionem nuntiationis, contra quam prohibitus fuerit, opus fecerit, duobus interdictis tenebitur, uno, quod ex operis noui nuntiatione competit, altero quod ui aut clam.
Julian says: he who does a work before the waiver of the protest, against which he was prohibited, will be held liable under two interdicts: one which arises from the protest against a new work, and the other because of force or secrecy.
remissione autem facta intellegendus non erit ui aut clam facere, quamuis prohibeatur: licere enim debet aedificare ei, qui satisdederit, cum possessor hoc ipso constituatur: clamque facere nec ante remissionem nec postea existimandus est, cum is, qui opus nouum nuntiat, non possit uideri celatus et praeoccupatus, antequam controuersiam faceret.
However, once the waiver has been made, he should not be understood as acting by force or secretly, even if he is prohibited; for building ought to be permitted to him who has given security, since he is thereby established as the possessor. And he is not to be thought of as acting secretly, either before or after the waiver, since he who protests against a new work cannot be deemed to have been kept in the dark and forestalled before he made a dispute.
§43.24.7.3Bellissime apud Iulianum quaeritur, an haec exceptio noceat in hoc interdicto 'quod non tu ui aut clam feceris'? ut puta utor aduersus te interdicto quod ui aut clam, an possis obicere mihi eandem exceptionem: 'quod non tu ui aut clam fecisti'? et ait Iulianus aequissimum esse hanc exceptionem dare: nam si tu, inquit, aedificaueris ui aut clam, ego idem demolitus fuero ui aut clam et utaris aduersus me interdicto, hanc exceptionem profuturam.
A very fine question is raised in Julian, whether this exception hurts in this interdict: 'provided that you did not do it by force or secretly'? As for instance, I use the interdict 'what by force or secretly' against you; can you object to me the same exception: 'provided that you did not do it by force or secretly'? And Julian says that it is most equitable to grant this exception; for if you, he says, built by force or secretly, and I demolished the same by force or secretly, and you use the interdict against me, this exception will be of benefit.
quod non aliter procedere debet, nisi ex magna et satis necessaria causa: alioquin haec omnia officio iudicis celebrari oportet.
This ought not to proceed otherwise than for a great and sufficiently necessary cause; otherwise, all these matters should be celebrated by the office of the judge.
§43.24.7.4Est et alia exceptio, de qua Celsus dubitat, an sit obicienda: ut puta si incendii arcendi causa uicini aedes intercidi et quod ui aut clam mecum agatur aut damni iniuria.
There is also another exception, about which Celsus doubts whether it should be raised: as for instance, if for the sake of preventing a fire I demolished a neighbor's house, and an action is brought against me either because of force or secrecy, or for unlawful damage.
Gallus enim dubitat, an excipi oporteret: 'quod incendii defendendi causa factum non sit'? Seruius autem ait, si id magistratus fecisset, dandam esse, priuato non esse idem concedendum: si tamen quid ui aut clam factum sit neque ignis usque eo peruenisset, simpli litem aestimandam: si peruenisset, absolui eum oportere.
For Gallus doubts whether the exception ought to be raised: 'provided that it was not done for the sake of defending against a fire'. Servius, however, says that if a magistrate had done it, the exception should be given, but the same should not be granted to a private individual; nevertheless, if something was done by force or secretly and the fire did not reach that far, the estimation of the suit should be of the simple value; if it did reach, he ought to be acquitted.
idem ait esse, si damni iniuria actum foret, quoniam nullam iniuriam aut damnum dare uidetur aeque perituris aedibus.
He says the same applies if the action was brought for unlawful damage, since one is deemed to commit no injury or damage to houses that are equally bound to perish.
quod si nullo incendio id feceris, deinde postea incendium ortum fuerit, non idem erit dicendum, quia non ex post facto, sed ex praesenti statu, damnum factum sit nec ne, aestimari oportere Labeo ait.
But if you did it when there was no fire, and a fire broke out afterwards, the same should not be said, because Labeo says that whether damage has been done or not ought to be estimated not from a subsequent event, but from the present state of affairs.
§43.24.7.5Notauimus supra, quod, quamuis uerba interdicti late pateant, tamen ad ea sola opera pertinere interdictum placere, quaecumque fiant in solo.
We noted above that, although the words of the interdict are broad, it is nevertheless accepted that the interdict pertains only to those works which are done on the soil.
eum enim, qui fructum tangit, non teneri interdicto quod ui aut clam: nullum enim opus in solo facit.
For he who touches fruit is not held liable under the interdict 'what by force or secretly'; for he does no work on the soil.
at qui arbores succidit, utique tenebitur, et qui harundinem et qui salictum: terrae enim et quodammodo solo ipsi corrumpendo manus infert.
But he who cuts down trees will certainly be held liable, as well as he who cuts reeds or a willow-grove; for he lays hands on the earth and, in a way, on the soil itself to damage it.
idem et in uineis succisis.
The same applies to cut vines.
ceterum qui fructum aufert, furti debet conueniri.
Otherwise, he who carries away fruit ought to be sued for theft.
itaque si quid operis in solo fiat, interdictum locum habet.
Therefore, if any work is done on the soil, the interdict has a place.
in solo fieri accipimus et si quid circa arbores fiat, non si quid circa fructum arborum.
We understand 'to be done on the soil' to include if something is done about trees, but not if something is done about the fruit of trees.
§43.24.7.6Si quis aceruum stercoris circa agrum pinguem disiecerit, cum eo 'quod ui aut clam factum est' agi potest: et hoc uerum est, quia solo uitium adhibitum sit.
If someone scatters a heap of manure around a fertile field, an action can be brought against him for 'what was done by force or secretly'; and this is true because a defect is applied to the soil.
§43.24.7.7Plane si quid agri colendi causa factum sit, interdictum quod ui aut clam locum non habet, si melior causa facta sit agri, quamuis prohibitus quis ui uel clam fecerit.
Clearly, if something is done for the sake of cultivating the field, the interdict 'what by force or secretly' has no place, if the condition of the field is made better, even though someone prohibited did it by force or secretly.
§43.24.7.8Praeterea si fossam feceris in silua publica et bos meus in eam inciderit, agere possum hoc interdicto, quia in publico factum est.
Furthermore, if you make a ditch in a public forest and my ox falls into it, I can sue under this interdict, because it was done in a public place.
§43.24.7.9Si quis aedificium demolitus fuerit, quamuis non usque ad solum, quin interdicto teneatur, dubitari desiit.
If someone demolishes a building, even though not down to the soil, it has ceased to be doubted that he is held liable under the interdict.
§43.24.7.10Proinde et si tegulas de aedificio sustulerit, magis est, ut interdicto teneatur,
Likewise, even if he takes tiles off a building, it is more likely that he is held liable under the interdict,