Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §43.24.8.pr

Application of the Interdict to Removing Roof Tiles

Passage 7134 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Venuleius explains that removing tiles from a building is covered by the interdict because its origin lies in the soil and tiles are possessed as part of the whole building, regardless of how they are attached.

[UENULEIUS libro secundo interdictorum. ] §43.24.8.prnam origo huius rei a solo proficiscitur.
[VENULEIUS, from the second book on interdicts.] For the origin of this matter proceeds from the soil.
ceterum per se tegulae non possidentur, sed cum uniuersitate aedificii, nec ad rem pertinet, adfixae sunt an tantum positae.
Moreover, tiles are not possessed by themselves, but together with the whole of the building, and it is of no relevance whether they are fixed or merely placed.

Notes

  1. 43.24.8.prorigo huius rei — Regarding the reference of the genitive 'huius rei' (of this matter / of this thing). It refers back to the preceding passage by Ulpian (concerning the liability under the interdict for removing tiles from a building), explaining that the reason for assimilating the removal of building parts to 'work on the soil' (opus in solo) is that the building itself originates from the soil.
  2. 43.24.8.prnec ad rem pertinet, adfixae sunt an tantum positae — The clause 'adfixae sunt an tantum positae' forms an indirect question depending on the impersonal phrase 'nec ad rem pertinet' (it is of no relevance). The conjunction 'utrum' is omitted, and 'an' introduces the alternative choice ('whether they are fixed or merely placed'). The verb is in the indicative mood (sunt).

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §43.24.8.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:43.24.8.pr

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.