[GAIUS libro septimo decimo ad edictum prouinciale. ] §7.1.56.prAn usus fructus nomine actio municipibus dari debeat, quaesitum est: periculum enim esse uidebatur, ne perpetuus fieret, quia neque morte nec facile capitis deminutione periturus est, qua ratione proprietas inutilis esset futura semper abscedente usu fructu.
[GAIUS in the seventeenth book on the provincial edict.] The question was raised whether an action should be granted to the members of a municipality on the account of a usufruct: for there seemed to be a danger that it might become perpetual, because it would not perish by death, nor easily by a loss of status, by which reasoning the ownership would become useless, with the usufruct being permanently separated.
sed tamen placuit dandam esse actionem.
But nevertheless, it was held that the action should be granted.
unde sequens dubitatio est, quousque tuendi essent in eo usu fructu municipes: et placuit centum annos tuendos esse municipes, quia is finis uitae longaeui hominis est.
Hence arises the subsequent doubt, as to how long the members of the municipality should be protected in that usufruct: and it was held that the members of the municipality should be protected for one hundred years, because that is the limit of the life of a long-lived man.