[PAPINIANUS libro septimo decimo quaestionum. ] §7.1.33.prSi Titio fructus, Maeuio proprietas legata sit et uiuo testatore Titius decedat, nihil apud scriptum heredem relinquetur: et id Neratius quoque respondit.
[PAPINIANUS in the seventeenth book of Questions.] If usufruct should be bequeathed to Titius, and the ownership to Maevius, and Titius should die while the testator is still alive, nothing will remain with the appointed heir; and this is what Neratius also answered.
§7.1.33.1Usum fructum in quibusdam casibus non partis effectum optinere conuenit: unde si fundi uel fructus portio petatur et absolutione secuta postea pars altera quae adcreuit uindicetur, in lite quidem proprietatis iudicatae rei exceptionem obstare, in fructus uero non obstare scribit Iulianus, quoniam portio fundi uelut alluuio portioni, personae fructus adcresceret.
It is agreed that in certain cases usufruct does not have the effect of a part; hence if a part of land or of a usufruct is claimed, and, absolution having followed, the other part which accrued is claimed afterwards, Julian writes that in a suit concerning ownership, the plea of res judicata stands in the way, but in a suit concerning usufruct, it does not stand in the way, because a part of land accrues to a part, as if by alluvion, but usufruct accrues to the person.