[ULPIANUS libro septimo decimo ad Sabinum. ] §7.1.12.prArboribus euolsis uel ui uentorum deiectis usque ad usum suum et uillae posse usufructuarium ferre Labeo ait: nec materia eum pro ligno usurum, si habeat unde utatur ligno.
Labeo says that the usufructuary can carry away uprooted trees, or trees blown down by the force of winds, to the extent of his own use and that of the villa; and that he will not use timber as firewood if he has other sources from which he can get firewood.
quam sententiam puto ueram: alioquin et si totus ager sit hunc casum passus, omnes arbores auferret fructuarius: materiam tamen ipsum succidere quantum ad uillae refectionem putat posse: quemadmodum calcem, inquit, coquere uel harenam fodere aliudue quid aedificio necessarium sumere.
I think this opinion is correct; otherwise, even if the entire land suffered this fate, the usufructuary would carry away all the trees. However, Labeo thinks that the usufructuary himself can cut down timber as far as is necessary for the repair of the villa; just as, he says, he may burn lime, or dig sand, or take anything else necessary for the building.
§7.1.12.1Nauis usu fructu legato nauigandum mittendam puto, licet naufragii periculum immineat: nauis etenim ad hoc paratur, ut nauiget.
If the usufruct of a ship is bequeathed, I think it must be sent to sail, although the danger of shipwreck is imminent; for a ship is prepared for this purpose, that it may sail.
§7.1.12.2Usu fructuarius uel ipse frui ea re uel alii fruendam concedere uel locare uel uendere potest: nam et qui locat, utitur et qui uendit, utitur.
The usufructuary can either enjoy the thing himself, or grant it to another to enjoy, or lease it, or sell it; for both he who leases uses, and he who sells uses.
sed et si alii precario concedat uel donet, puto eum uti atque ideo retinere usum fructum, et hoc Cassius et Pegasus responderunt et Pomponius libro quinto ex Sabino probat.
But even if he grants it to another precariously or donates it, I think he uses it and therefore retains the usufruct; and this Cassius and Pegasus answered, and Pomponius approves in his fifth book on Sabinus.
non solum autem si ego locauero, retineo usum frucsed et si alius negotium meum gerens locaverit usum fructum, iulianus libro trigensimo quinto scripsit retinere me usum fructum.
And not only if I lease it do I retain the usufruct, but also if another, managing my affairs, leases the usufruct, Julian wrote in his thirty-fifth book that I retain the usufruct.
quid tamen si non locavtum, sed absente et ignorante me negotium meum gerens utatur quis et fruatur? nihilo minus retineo usum fructum (quod et Pomponius libro quinto probat) per hoc, quod negotiorum gestorum actionem adquisiui.
What, however, if he did not lease it, but someone, managing my affairs in my absence and without my knowledge, uses and enjoys it? Nonetheless, I retain the usufruct (which Pomponius also approves in his fifth book) because I have acquired an action for unauthorized agency.
§7.1.12.3De illo Pomponius dubitat, si fugitibus, in quo meus usus fructus est, stipuletur aliquid ex re mea uel per traditionem accipiat: an per hoc ipsum, quasi utar, retineam usum fructum? magisque admittit retinere.
Pomponius doubts this: if a runaway slave, in whom I have a usufruct, stipulates for something from my property or receives it by delivery, do I retain the usufruct through this very fact, as if I were using him? And he rather accepts that I retain it.
nam saepe etiamsi praesentibus seruis non utamur, tamen usum fructum retinemus: ut puta aegrotante seruo uel infante, cuius operae nullae sunt, uel defectae senectutis homine: nam et si agrum aremus, licet tam sterilis sit, ut nullus fructus nascatur, retinemus usum fructum.
For often, even if we do not use slaves who are present, we nevertheless retain the usufruct: as, for example, when the slave is ill, or an infant whose services are nil, or a person of broken old age. For even if we plow a field, although it may be so sterile that no fruit is produced, we retain the usufruct.
Iulianus tamen libro trigensimo quinto digestorum scribit, etiamsi non stipuletur quid seruus fugitiuus, retineri tamen usum fructum: nam qua ratione, inquit, retinetur a proprietario possessio, etiamsi in fuga seruus sit, pari ratione etiam usus fructus retinetur.
Julian, however, writes in the thirty-fifth book of his Digests that even if the runaway slave does not stipulate for anything, the usufruct is nevertheless retained; for, he says, for the same reason that possession is retained by the owner, even if the slave is in flight, by equal reason the usufruct is also retained.
§7.1.12.4Idem tractat: quid si quis possessionem eius nactus sit, an, quemadmodum a proprietario possideri desinit, ita etiam usus fructus amittatur? et primo quidem ait posse dici amitti usum fructum, sed licet amittatur, tamen dicendum, quod intra constitutum tempus ex re fructuarii stipulatus est, fructuario adquiri potest.
The same author discusses: what if someone has acquired possession of him, does the usufruct lose, just as he ceases to be possessed by the owner? And at first indeed he says it can be said that the usufruct is lost; but although it is lost, nevertheless it must be said that what he stipulated for from the property of the usufructuary within the established time can be acquired for the usufructuary.
per quod colligi posse dici, ne quidem si possideatur ab alio, amitti usum fructum, si modo mihi aliquid stipuletur, paruique referre, ab herede possideatur uel ab alio, cui hereditas uendita sit uel cui proprietas legata sit, an a praedone: sufficere enim ad retinendum usum fructum esse affectum retinere uolentis et seruum nomine fructuarii aliquid facere: quae sententia habet rationem.
From which it can be gathered that it can be said that the usufruct is not lost even if he is possessed by another, provided that he stipulates for something for me; and that it matters little whether he is possessed by the heir, or by another to whom the inheritance has been sold, or to whom the ownership has been bequeathed, or by a robber; for it is sufficient to retain the usufruct that there is the intent of one wishing to retain it, and that the slave does something in the name of the usufructuary; which opinion is reasonable.
§7.1.12.5Iulianus libro trigensimo quinto digestorum tractat, si fur decerpserit uel desecuerit fructus maturos pendentes, cui condictione teneatur, domino fundi an fructuario? et putat, quoniam fructus non fiunt fructuarii, nisi ab eo percipiantur, licet ab alio terra separentur, magis proprietario condictionem competere, fructuario autem furti actionem, quoniam interfuit eius fructus non esse ablatos.
Julian discusses in the thirty-fifth book of his Digests: if a thief has plucked or cut down ripe hanging fruits, to whom is he liable under a condictio, to the owner of the land or to the usufructuary? And he thinks that, since fruits do not become the usufructuary's unless they are gathered by him, even if they are separated from the earth by another, the condictio rather belongs to the owner, but to the usufructuary belongs the action for theft, because it was in his interest that the fruits should not be taken away.
Marcellus autem mouetur eo, quod, si postea fructus istos nactus fuerit fructuarius, fortassis fiant eius: nam si fiunt, qua ratione hoc euenit? nisi ea, ut interim fierent proprietarii, mox adprehensi fructuarii efficientur, exemplo rei sub condicione legatae, quae interim heredis est, existente autem condicione ad legatarium transit.
Marcellus, however, is moved by this: that if the usufructuary should afterwards obtain those fruits, perhaps they would become his; for if they do, by what reason does this happen? unless by this: that in the meantime they became the owner's, and soon, once apprehended, they are made the usufructuary's, after the example of a thing bequeathed under a condition, which in the meantime belongs to the heir, but upon the fulfillment of the condition passes to the legatee.
uerum est enim condictionem competere proprietario: cum autem in pendenti est dominium (ut ipse Iulianus ait in fetu qui summittitur et in eo quod seruus fructuarius per traditionem accepit nondum quidem pretio soluto, sed tamen ab eo satisfacto), dicendum est condictionem pendere magisque in pendenti esse dominium.
For it is true that the condictio belongs to the owner; but since the ownership is in suspense (as Julian himself says in the case of offspring which is substituted, and in that which a usufructuary slave has received by delivery, the price indeed not yet having been paid, but satisfaction nevertheless having been given by him), it must be said that the condictio is in suspense, and rather that the ownership is in suspense.