[ULPIANUS libro septimo decimo ad Sabinum. ] §7.1.68.prUetus fuit quaestio, an partus ad fructuarium pertineret: sed Bruti sententia optinuit fructuarium in eo locum non habere: neque enim in fructu hominis homo esse potest.
[ULPIANUS libro septimo decimo ad Sabinum.] It was an old question whether the offspring of a slave belonged to the usufructuary; but the opinion of Brutus prevailed, that the usufructuary has no right in it; for a human being cannot be among the fruits of a human being.
hac ratione nec usum fructum in eo fructuarius habebit.
For this reason, the usufructuary will not even have a usufruct in it.
quid tamen si fuerit etiam partus usus fructus relictus, an habeat in eo usum fructum? et cum possit partus legari, poterit et usus fructus eius.
But what if the usufruct of the offspring itself has also been bequeathed? Would he have a usufruct in it? And since the offspring can be bequeathed, its usufruct can be as well.
§7.1.68.1Fetus tamen pecorum Sabinus et Cassius opinati sunt ad fructuarium pertinere.
However, Sabinus and Cassius were of the opinion that the offspring of cattle belong to the usufructuary.
Plane si gregis uel armenti sit usus fructus legatus, debebit ex adgnatis gregem supplere, id est in locum capitum defunctorum
Clearly, if the usufruct of a flock or a herd has been bequeathed, he must replenish the flock from the offspring, that is, in the place of the deceased head of cattle.