[IDEM libro octauo decimo ad Sabinum. ] §7.1.13.prSi cuius rei usus fructus legatus erit, dominus potest in ea re satisdationem desiderare, ut officio iudicis hoc fiat: nam sicuti debet fructuarius uti frui, ita et proprietatis dominus securus esse debet de proprietate.
[THE SAME AUTHOR, in the eighteenth book on Sabinus.] If the usufruct of any thing is bequeathed, the owner can demand security in that matter, so that this may be done by the office of the judge; for just as the usufructuary ought to use and enjoy, so also the owner of the property ought to be secure concerning his property.
haec autem ad omnem usum fructum pertinere Iulianus libro trigensimo octauo digestorum probat.
And Julian approves in the thirty-eighth book of his Digests that this applies to every usufruct.
si usus fructus legatus sit, non prius dandam actionem usufructuario, quam satisdederit se boni uiri arbitratu usurum fruiturum: sed et si plures sint, a quibus usus fructus relictus est, singulis satisdari oportet.
If a usufruct is bequeathed, the action is not to be given to the usufructuary before he has given security that he will use and enjoy according to the arbitration of a good man; but even if there are several from whom the usufruct has been left, security must be given to each of them.
§7.1.13.1Cum igitur de usu fructu agitur, non solum quod factum est arbitratur, sed etiam in futurum quemadmodum uti frui debet.
Therefore, when a dispute is about a usufruct, not only what has been done is arbitrated, but also how he ought to use and enjoy in the future.
§7.1.13.2De praeteritis autem damnis fructuarius etiam lege Aquilia tenetur et interdicto quod ui aut clam, ut Iulianus ait: nam fructuarium quoque teneri his actionibus nec non furti certum est, sicut quemlibet alium, qui in aliena re tale quid commiserit.
Furthermore, for past damages, the usufructuary is held liable both under the Lex Aquilia and under the interdict 'quod vi aut clam', as Julian says; for it is certain that the usufructuary also is held liable by these actions, as well as for theft, just like anyone else who has committed such an act on another's property.
denique consultus, quo bonum fuit actionem polliceri praetorem, cum competat legis Aquiliae actio, respondit, quia sunt casus, quibus cessat Aquiliae actio, ideo iudicem dari, ut eius arbitratu utatur: nam qui agrum non proscindit, qui uites non subserit, item aquarum ductus conrumpi patitur, lege Aquilia non tenetur.
Finally, when asked what good it was for the praetor to promise the action, since the action under the Lex Aquilia lies, he replied that because there are cases in which the Aquilian action does not apply, therefore a judge is given so that he may use according to his arbitration; for he who does not plow a field, who does not replant vines, and likewise allows watercourses to be ruined, is not held liable under the Lex Aquilia.
eadem et in usuario dicenda sunt.
The same things must be said also in the case of a user.
§7.1.13.3Sed si inter duos fructuarios sit controuersia, Iulianus libro trigensimo octauo digestorum scribit aequissimum esse quasi communi diuidundo iudicium dari uel stipulatione inter se eos cauere, qualiter fruantur: cur enim, inquit Iulianus, ad arma et rixam procedere patiatur praetor, quos potest iurisdictione sua componere? quam sententiam Celsus quoque libro uicensimo digestorum probat, et ego puto ueram.
But if there is a controversy between two usufructuaries, Julian writes in the thirty-eighth book of his Digests that it is most equitable for a trial to be given as if for partitioning common property, or that they should secure themselves by a stipulation between themselves as to how they shall enjoy; for why, says Julian, should the praetor allow those whom he can reconcile by his jurisdiction to proceed to arms and strife? Celsus also approves this opinion in the twentieth book of his Digests, and I think it is correct.
§7.1.13.4Fructuarius causam proprietatis deteriorem facere non debet, meliorem facere potest.
The usufructuary must not make the condition of the property worse; he can make it better.
et aut fundi est usus fructus legatus, et non debet neque arbores frugiferas excidere neque uillam diruere nec quicquam facere in perniciem proprietatis.
And if the usufruct of a land is bequeathed, he must neither cut down fruitful trees, nor demolish the villa, nor do anything to the destruction of the property.
et si forte uoluptarium fuit praedium, uirdiaria uel gestationes uel deambulationes arboribus infructuosis opacas atque amoenas habens, non debebit deicere, ut forte hortos olitorios faciat uel aliud quid, quod ad reditum spectat.
And if by chance the estate was for pleasure, having pleasant and shaded gardens or riding paths or walks with unfruitful trees, he must not cut them down, perhaps to make vegetable gardens or something else that looks to revenue.
§7.1.13.5Inde est quaesitum, an lapidicinas uel cretifodinas uel harenifodinas ipse instituere possit: et ego puto etiam ipsum instituere posse, si non agri partem necessariam huic rei occupaturus est.
Hence it has been asked whether he can himself open quarries or clay pits or sand pits; and I think that he can indeed open them himself, if he is not going to occupy a necessary part of the land for this purpose.
proinde uenas quoque lapidicinarum et huiusmodi metallorum inquirere poterit: ergo et auri et argenti et sulpuris et aeris et ferri et ceterorum fodinas uel quas pater familias instituit exercere poterit uel ipse instituere, si nihil agriculturae nocebit.
Accordingly, he will also be able to search for veins of quarries and of minerals of this kind; therefore he can both work gold, silver, sulfur, copper, iron, and other mines which the father of the family opened, or open them himself, if it does no harm to agriculture.
et si forte in hoc quod instituit plus reditus sit quam in uineis uel arbustis uel oliuetis quae fuerunt, forsitan etiam haec deicere poterit, si quidem ei permittitur meliorare proprietatem.
And if by chance there is more revenue in what he has opened than in the vineyards or plantations or olive groves that were there, perhaps he can even cut these down, since indeed he is permitted to improve the property.
§7.1.13.6Si tamen quae instituit usufructuarius aut caelum corrumpant agri aut magnum apparatum sint desideratura opificum forte uel legulorum, quae non potest sustinere proprietarius, non uidebitur uiri boni arbitratu frui: sed nec aedificium quidem positurum in fundo, nisi quod ad fructum percipiendum necessarium sit.
If, however, what the usufructuary has opened should either corrupt the air of the land or require a large apparatus of workmen or gatherers perhaps, which the owner cannot support, he will not be seen to enjoy according to the arbitration of a good man; nor indeed will he place a building on the land, except what is necessary for gathering the fruits.
§7.1.13.7Sed si aedium usus fructus legatus sit, Nerua filius et lumina immittere eum posse ait: sed et colores et picturas et marmora poterit et sigilla et si quid ad domus ornatum.
But if the usufruct of a house is bequeathed, Nerva the son says that he can even put in windows; and he can also apply colors, paintings, marbles, small statues, and anything for the ornament of the house.
sed neque diaetas transformare uel coniungere aut separare ei permittetur, uel aditus posticasue uertere, uel refugia aperire, uel atrium mutare, uel uirdiaria ad alium modum conuertere: excolere enim quod inuenit potest qualitate aedium non immutata.
But he will not be permitted to transform rooms, or to join or separate them, or to turn entrances or back doors, or to open escape exits, or to change the atrium, or to convert gardens to another style; for he can beautify what he found without changing the character of the building.
item Nerua eum, cui aedium usus fructus legatus sit, altius tollere non posse, quamuis lumina non obscurentur, quia tectum magis turbatur: quod Labeo etiam in proprietatis domino scribit.
Likewise Nerva says that he to whom the usufruct of a house is bequeathed cannot raise it higher, although the lights are not obscured, because the roof is disturbed more; which Labeo writes also concerning the owner of the property.
idem Nerua nec obstruere eum posse.
The same Nerva says that he cannot block them either.
§7.1.13.8Item si domus usus fructus legatus sit, meritoria illic facere fructuarius non debet nec per cenacula diuidere domum: atquin locare potest, sed oportebit quasi domum locare.
Likewise, if the usufruct of a house is bequeathed, the usufructuary must not make rental rooms there, nor divide the house by garrets; yet he can lease it, but it will be necessary to lease it as a house.
nec balineum ibi faciendum est.
Nor is a bath to be made there.
quod autem dicit meritoria non facturum ita accipe quae uolgo deuersoria uel fullonica appellant.
But when he says that he shall not make rental rooms, understand it as what are commonly called inns or fuller's shops.
ego quidem, et si balineum sit in domo usibus dominicis solitum uacare in intima parte domus uel inter diaetas amoenas, non recte nec ex boni uiri arbitratu facturum, si id locare coeperit, ut publice lauet, non magis quam si domum ad stationem iumentorum locauerit, aut si stabulum quod erat domus iumentis et carruchis uacans, pistrino locauerit,
I indeed think that even if there is a bath in the house accustomed to be vacant for the master's use in the innermost part of the house or among pleasant rooms, he will not act rightly nor according to the arbitration of a good man if he begins to lease it so that people may bathe publicly, no more than if he leased the house for a station of beasts of burden, or if he leased a stable, which was vacant for the beasts and carriages of the house, for a mill.