[ULPIANUS libro octauo decimo ad Sabinum. ] §7.1.25.prSed et si quid stipuletur sibi aut Sticho seruo fructuario donandi causa, dum uult fructuario praestitum, dicendum, si ei soluatur, fructuario adquiri.
[ULPIANUS in the eighteenth book on Sabinus.] But also, if anyone, for the purpose of making a donation to a usufructuary, should stipulate for something for himself or for Stichus, the slave in whom there is a usufruct, as long as he wishes it to be performed to the usufructuary, it must be said that if it is paid to him, it is acquired for the usufructuary.
§7.1.25.1Interdum tamen in pendenti est, cui adquirat iste fructuarius seruus: ut puta si seruum emit et per traditionem accepit necdum pretium numerauit, sed tantummodo pro eo fecit satis, interim cuius sit, quaeritur.
Sometimes, however, it is in suspense for whom this usufructuary slave acquires: as, for example, if he buys a slave and receives him by delivery but has not yet paid the price, but has only given security for it, in the meantime it is asked whose he is.
et Iulianus libro trigensimo quinto digestorum scripsit in pendenti esse dominium eius et numerationem pretii declaraturam, cuius sit: nam si ex re fructuarii, retro fructuarii fuisse.
And Julian writes in the thirty-fifth book of the Digests that his ownership is in suspense, and the payment of the price will declare whose he is: for if it is from the property of the usufructuary, he was retroactively the usufructuary's.
idemque est et si forte stipulatus sit seruus numeraturus pecuniam: nam numeratio declarabit, cui sit adquisita stipulatio.
And the same applies if by chance the slave has stipulated intending to pay the money: for the payment will declare for whom the stipulation was acquired.
ergo ostendimus in pendenti esse dominium, donec pretium numeretur.
Therefore, we show that the ownership is in suspense until the price is paid.
quid ergo si amisso usu fructu tunc pretium numeretur? Iulianus quidem libro trigensimo quinto digestorum scripsit adhuc interesse, unde sit pretium numeratum: Marcellus uero et Mauricianus amisso usu fructu iam putant dominium adquisitum proprietatis domino: sed Iuliani sententia humanior est.
What then if, after the usufruct is lost, the price is paid? Julian indeed writes in the thirty-fifth book of the Digests that it still matters from where the price was paid; but Marcellus and Mauricianus think that, since the usufruct is lost, ownership is already acquired for the owner of the property; but Julian's opinion is more humane.
quod si ex re utriusque pretium fuerit solutum, ad utrumque dominium pertinere Iulianus scripsit, scilicet pro rata pretii soluti.
But if the price has been paid from the property of both, Julian writes that the ownership belongs to both, namely, in proportion to the price paid.
quid tamen si forte simul solverit ex re utriusque, ut puta decem milia pretii nomine debebat et dena soluit ex re singulorum: cui magis servus adquirat? si numeratione solvat, intererit, cuius priores nummos soluat: nam quos postea soluerit, aut uindicabit aut, si fuerint nummi consumpti, ad condictionem pertinent: si uero simul in sacculo soluit, nihil fecit accipientis et ideo nondum adquisisse cuiquam dominium uidetur, quia cum plus pretium soluit seruus, non faciet nummos accipientis.
But what if by chance he paid at the same time from the property of both, as for example, he owed ten thousand as the price and paid the same amount from the property of each: for whom does the slave acquire more? If he pays by counting, it will matter whose coins he pays first: for those which he pays afterwards, he will either vindicate or, if the coins have been consumed, they belong to a personal action (condictio); but if he pays at the same time in a bag, he has made nothing the property of the recipient, and therefore ownership does not yet seem to have been acquired for anyone, because when the slave pays more than the price, he does not make the coins the property of the recipient.
§7.1.25.2Si opera suas iste seruus locauerit et in annos singulos certum aliquid stipuletur, eorum quidem annorum stipulatio, quibus usus fructus mansit, adquiretur fructuario, sequentium uero stipulatio ad proprietarium transit semel adquisita fructuario, quamuis non soleat stipulatio semel cui quaesita ad alium transire nisi ad heredem uel adrogatorem.
If this slave has hired out his services and stipulates for a certain sum for each year, the stipulation for those years in which the usufruct remained will be acquired for the usufructuary, but the stipulation for the following years passes to the owner of the property, even though once acquired for the usufructuary, although a stipulation once acquired for someone does not usually pass to another except to an heir or an adrogator.
proinde si forte usus fructus in annos singulos fuerit legatus et iste seruus operas suas locauit et stipulatus est ut supra scriptum est, prout capitis minutione amissus fuerit usus fructus, mox restitutus, ambulabit stipulatio profectaque ad heredem redibit ad fructuarium.
Likewise, if by chance the usufruct was bequeathed for each year, and this slave hired out his services and stipulated as written above, as the usufruct is lost by loss of status (capitis minutio) and soon restored, the stipulation will walk, and having departed to the heir, it will return to the usufructuary.
§7.1.25.3Quaestionis est, an id quod adquiri fructuario non potest proprietario adquiratur.
It is a question whether that which cannot be acquired for the usufructuary may be acquired for the owner of the property.
et Iulianus quidem libro trigensimo quinto digestorum scripsit, quod fructuario adquiri non potest proprietario quaeri.
And Julian indeed writes in the thirty-fifth book of the Digests that what cannot be acquired for the usufructuary is acquired for the owner.
denique scribit eum, qui ex re fructuarii stipuletur nominatim proprietario uel iussu eius, ipsi adquirere.
Finally, he writes that he who stipulates from the property of the usufructuary specifically for the owner or by his order, acquires for him.
contra autem nihil agit, si non ex re fructuarii nec ex operis suis fructuario stipuletur.
On the other hand, however, he does nothing if he stipulates for the usufructuary neither from the property of the usufructuary nor from his own services.
§7.1.25.4Seruus fructuarius si usum fructum in se dari stipuletur aut sine nomine aut nominatim proprietario, ipsi adquirit exemplo serui communis, qui stipulando rem alteri ex dominis cuius res est, nihil agit, quoniam rem suam stipulando quis nihil agit, alteri stipulando adquirit solidum.
If a usufructuary slave stipulates that a usufruct be given to himself, either without name or specifically for the owner of the property, he acquires for him, following the example of a common slave, who, by stipulating for a thing for one of his masters to whom the thing already belongs, does nothing, since anyone does nothing by stipulating for his own thing, but by stipulating for the other master he acquires the whole.
§7.1.25.5Idem Iulianus eodem libro scripsit: si seruo fructuarius operas eius locauerit, nihil agit: nam et si ex re mea, inquit, a me stipulatus sit, nihil agit, non magis quam seruus alienus bona fide mihi seruiens idem agendo domino quicquam acquirit. simili modo, ait, ne quidem si rem meam a me fructuario conducat, me non obligabit.
The same Julian writes in the same book: if a usufructuary has hired his services to his slave, he does nothing: "for even if," he says, "he has stipulated from my property from me, he does nothing, no more than a foreign slave serving me in good faith acquires anything for his master by doing the same." In like manner, he says, not even if he leases my property from me, the usufructuary, will he obligate me.
et regulariter definiit: quod quis ab alio stipulando mihi adquirit, id a me stipulando nihil agit: nisi forte, inquit, nominatim domino suo stipuletur a me uel conducat. §7.1.25.6Si duos fructuarios proponas et ex alterius re seruus sit stipulatus, quaeritur, utrum totum an pro parte, qua habet usum fructum, ei quaeratur.
And he defined as a rule: what anyone acquires for me by stipulating from another, he does nothing by stipulating from me: "unless by chance," he says, "he stipulates from me or leases specifically for his own owner." If you propose two usufructuaries and the slave has stipulated from the property of one of them, it is asked whether the whole or only for the part in which he has the usufruct is acquired for him.
nam et in duobus bonae fidei possessoribus hoc idem est apud Scaeuolam agitatum libro secundo quaestionum, et ait uolgo creditum rationemque hoc facere, ut si ex re alterius stipuletur, partem ei dumtaxat quaeri, partem domino: quod si nominatim sit stipulatus, nec dubitari debere, quin adiecto nomine solidum ei quaeratur.
For this same point among two good faith possessors was discussed by Scaevola in the second book of Questions, and he says that it is commonly believed and reason supports this, that if he stipulates from the property of one of them, only that part is acquired for him, and the other part for the owner; but if he has stipulated by name, it ought not to be doubted that with the name added the whole is acquired for him.
idemque ait et si iussu eius stipuletur, quoniam iussum pro nomine accipimus.
And he says the same if he stipulates by his order, since we accept an order in place of a name.
idem et in fructuariis erit dicendum, ut quo casu non totum adquiretur fructuario, proprietatis domino erit quaesitum, quoniam ex re fructuarii quaeri ei posse ostendimus.
The same must be said also in the case of usufructuaries, so that in the case where the whole is not acquired for the usufructuary, it will be acquired for the owner of the property, since we have shown that it can be acquired for him from the property of the usufructuary.
§7.1.25.7Quod autem diximus ex re fructuarii uel ex operis posse adquirere, utrum tunc locum habeat, quotiens iure legati usus fructus sit constitutus, an et si per traditionem uel stipulationem uel alium quemcumque modum, uidendum.
But whether what we have said, that he can acquire from the property of the usufructuary or from his services, has place only as often as the usufruct has been established by the law of legacy, or also if by delivery or stipulation or any other mode whatsoever, must be seen.
et uera est Pegasi sententia, quam et Iulianus libro sexto decimo secutus est, omni fructuario adquiri.
And the opinion of Pegasus is true, which Julian also followed in the sixteenth book, that it is acquired for every usufructuary.