[PAULUS libro uicensimo primo ad edictum. ] §6.1.35.prEt ex diuerso si petitor lite contestata usum fructum legauerit, ex eo tempore, ex quo discessit a proprietate, fructum rationem non habendam quidam recte putant.
[PAULUS, in the twenty-first book on the Edict.] On the other hand, if the plaintiff, after the joinder of issue, has bequeathed the usufruct, some rightly think that from the time he parted with the ownership, no account should be taken of the fruits.
§6.1.35.1Ubi autem alienum fundum petii et iudex sententia declarauit meum esse, debet etiam de fructibus possessorem condemnare: eodem enim errore et de fructibus condemnaturum: non debere enim lucro possessoris cedere fructus, cum uictus sit: alioquin, ut Mauricianus ait, nec rem arbitrabitur iudex mihi restitui.
But where I have claimed a land held by another and the judge has declared by his judgment that it is mine, he must also condemn the possessor with respect to the fruits: for by the same error he will also condemn him for the fruits: for the fruits ought not to go to the profit of the possessor, since he has been defeated: otherwise, as Mauricianus says, the judge will not even order the thing to be restored to me.
et quare habeat quod non esset habiturus possessor, si statim possessionem restituisset?
And why should the possessor have what he would not have had if he had restored possession immediately?
§6.1.35.2Petitor possessori de euictione cauere non cogitur rei nomine, cuius aestimationem accepit: sibi enim possessor imputare debet, qui non restituit rem.
The plaintiff is not compelled to give security to the possessor against eviction in respect of the thing, the valuation of which he has received: for the possessor, who did not restore the thing, must blame himself.
§6.1.35.3Eorum quoque, quae sine interitu diuidi non possunt, partem petere posse constat.
It is established that one can also claim a part of those things which cannot be divided without destruction.