[ULPIANUS libro septimo decimo ad Sabinum. ] §7.1.70.prQuid ergo si non faciat nec suppleat? teneri eum proprietario Gaius Cassius scribit libro decimo iuris ciuilis.
[ULPIANUS libro septimo decimo ad Sabinum.] What then if he does not do so and does not replace them? Gaius Cassius writes in the tenth book of the Civil Law that he is liable to the owner.
§7.1.70.1Interim tamem, quamdiu summittantur et suppleantur capita quae demortua sunt, cuius sit fetus quaeritur.
In the meantime, however, as long as the head of beasts that have died are being substituted and replaced, the question is whose property the offspring is.
et Iulianus libro tricensimo quinto digestorum scribit pendere eorum dominium, ut, si summittantur, sint proprietarii, si non summittantur, fructuarii: quae sententia uera est.
And Julian writes in the thirty-fifth book of the Digests that their ownership is in suspense, so that, if they are substituted, they belong to the owner, but if they are not substituted, they belong to the usufructuary; and this opinion is correct.
§7.1.70.2Secundum quae si decesserit fetus, periculum erit fructuarii, non proprietarii et necesse habebit alios fetus summittere.
According to this, if the offspring dies, the risk will be the usufructuary's, not the owner's, and he will be obliged to substitute other offspring.
unde Gaius Cassius libro octauo scribit carnem fetus demortui ad fructuarium pertinere.
Hence Gaius Cassius writes in his eighth book that the flesh of the dead offspring belongs to the usufructuary.
§7.1.70.3Sed quod dicitur debere eum summittere, totiens uerum est, quotiens gregis uel armenti uel equitii, id est uniuersitatis usus fructus legatus est: ceterum si singulorum capitum, nihil supplebit.
But what is said about his duty to substitute is true only so often as the usufruct of a flock, a herd, or a stud—that is, of a collective whole—has been bequeathed; whereas if the usufruct is of individual animals, he shall replace nothing.
§7.1.70.4Item si forte eo tempore, quo fetus editi sunt, nihil fuit quod summitti deberet, nunc et post editionem: utrum ex his quae edentur summittere debebit, an ex his quae edita sunt, videndum est.
Likewise, if by chance at the time when the offspring were brought forth, there was nothing that ought to be substituted, both now and after the birth: it must be considered whether he will have to substitute from those that will be born, or from those that have been born.
puto autem verius ea, quae pleno grege edita sunt, ad fructuarium pertinere, sed posteriorem gregis casum nocere debere fructuario.
But I think it is more correct that those born when the flock was full belong to the usufructuary, but a subsequent casualty to the flock ought to prejudice the usufructuary.
§7.1.70.5Summittere autem facti est et Iulianus proprie dicit dispertire et diuidere et diuisionem quandam facere: quod dominium erit summissorum proprietarii.
To substitute, moreover, is a matter of fact, and Julian appropriately says that it means to distribute and divide and make a certain division; and the ownership of the substituted animals will belong to the owner.