[ULPIANUS libro septimo decimo ad Sabinum. ] §7.4.10.prQuid tamen si fundus uillae fuit accessio? uideamus, ne etiam fundi usus fructus extinguatur: et idem dicendum est, ut non extinguatur. §7.4.10.1Non tantum si aedes ad aream redactae sint, usus fructus extinguitur, uerum etiam si demolitis aedibus testator alias nouas restituerit: plane si per partes reficiat, licet omnis noua facta sit, aliud erit nobis dicendum. §7.4.10.2Agri uel loci usus fructus legatus, si fuerit inundatus, ut stagnum iam sit aut palus, procul dubio extinguetur. §7.4.10.3Sed et si stagni usus fructus legetur et exaruerit sic, ut ager sit factus, mutata re usus fructus extinguitur. §7.4.10.4Non tamen, si arui usus fructus legetur et ibi uineae sint positae uel contra, puto extingui.
[ULPIANUS from the seventeenth book on Sabinus.]\n\nYet what if the land was an accession to the villa? Let us see whether the usufruct of the land also is extinguished; and the same must be said, that it is not extinguished.\n\nNot only is the usufruct extinguished if the building is reduced to open ground, but also if, the building having been demolished, the testator has rebuilt other new ones: clearly, if he repairs it part by part, even though it has been made entirely new, we must say otherwise.\n\nIf a bequeathed usufruct of a field or place is flooded, so that it is now a pond or a marsh, without doubt it is extinguished.\n\nBut also if the usufruct of a pond is bequeathed and it dries up so that it becomes a field, the usufruct is extinguished since the thing has changed.\n\nHowever, if the usufruct of arable land is bequeathed and vineyards are planted there, or vice versa, I do not think it is extinguished.
certe siluae usu fructu legato si silua caesa illic sationes fuerint factae, sine dubio usus fructus extinguitur. §7.4.10.5Si massae usus fructus legetur et ex ea uasa sint facta uel contra, Cassius apud Urseium scribit interire usum fructum: quam sententiam puto ueram. §7.4.10.6Proinde et ornamentum dissolutum aut transfiguratum extinguit usum fructum. §7.4.10.7In nauis quoque usu fructu Sabinus scribit, si quidem per partes refecta sit, usum fructum non interire: si autem dissoluta sit, licet isdem tabulis nulla praeterea adiecta restaurata sit, usum fructum extinctum: quam sententiam puto ueriorem.
Certainly, if the usufruct of a wood is bequeathed, and the wood having been cut down, crops are sown there, without doubt the usufruct is extinguished.\n\nIf the usufruct of a mass is bequeathed and vessels are made from it, or vice versa, Cassius writes in Urseium that the usufruct perishes: which opinion I think is true.\n\nAccordingly, also an ornament dissolved or remodeled extinguishes the usufruct.\n\nSabinus writes also regarding the usufruct of a ship, that if indeed it is repaired part by part, the usufruct does not perish: but if it has been broken up, even if it is reconstructed with the same planks without any others added, the usufruct is extinguished: which opinion I think is more correct.
nam et si domus fuerit restituta, usus fructus extinguitur. §7.4.10.8Quadrigae usu fructu legato si unus ex equis decesserit, an extinguatur usus fructus quaeritur.
For even if a house has been rebuilt, the usufruct is extinguished.\n\nIf the usufruct of a four-horse chariot is bequeathed and one of the horses dies, it is asked whether the usufruct is extinguished.
ego puto multum interesse, equorum an quadrigae usus fructus sit legatus: nam si equorum, supererit in residuis, si quadrigae, non remanebit, quoniam quadriga esse desiit:
I think that there is a great difference whether the usufruct of the horses or of the chariot was bequeathed: for if it is of the horses, it will survive in the remaining ones, but if of the chariot, it will not remain, since it has ceased to be a chariot: