[ULPIANUS libro trigensimo septimo ad edictum. ] §47.3.1.prLex duodecim tabularum neque soluere permittit tignum furtiuum aedibus uel uineis iunctum neque uindicare (quod prouidenter lex effecit, ne uel aedificia sub hoc praetextu diruantur uel uinearum cultura turbetur): sed in eum, qui conuictus est iunxisse, in duplum dat actionem.
[ULPIANUS, in his thirty-seventh book on the Edict.] The Law of the Twelve Tables neither permits a stolen timber incorporated into buildings or vineyards to be detached, nor to be vindicated (which the law wisely brought about, lest either buildings should be demolished under this pretext or the cultivation of vineyards be disrupted); but it grants an action for double the value against him who has been convicted of having incorporated it.
§47.3.1.1Tigni autem appellatione continetur omnis materia, ex qua aedificium constet, uineaeque necessaria.
Moreover, under the term "timber" is included all material of which a building consists, and what is necessary for a vineyard.
unde quidam aiunt tegulam quoque et lapidem et testam ceteraque, si qua aedificiis sunt utilia (tigna enim a tegendo dicta sunt), hoc amplius et calcem et harenam tignorum appellatione contineri.
Hence some say that tiles also, and stones, bricks, and other things, if any are useful for buildings (for timbers ["tigna"] are so called from covering ["tegere"]), and furthermore even lime and sand, are included under the term "timbers".
sed et in uineis tigni appellatione omnia uineis necessaria continentur, ut puta perticae pedamenta.
But also in the case of vineyards, all things necessary for vineyards are included under the term "timber", such as poles and props.
Sed et ad exhibendum danda est actio: nec enim parci oportet ei, qui sciens alienam rem aedificio inclusit uinxitue: non enim sic eum conuenimus quasi possidentem, sed ita, quasi dolo malo fecerit, quo minus possideat.
Furthermore, an action for production must also be granted; for no mercy should be shown to him who knowingly enclosed or joined another's property to a building. For we do not sue him in this way as if he were the possessor, but in such a way as if he had by fraud brought it about that he ceased to possess it.