Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §7.4.24.pr-7.4.24.2

Floods, Channel Changes, and the Effect on Usufruct

Passage 1282 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

The passage distinguishes the restoration or loss of a usufruct depending on whether the inundation of a garden by a river is a temporary flood or a permanent change of channel, applying the same rule to rights of way and noting that the replacement of topsoil does not affect land ownership.

[IAUOLENUS libro tertio ex posteriorum Labeonis. ] §7.4.24.prCum usum fructum horti haberem, flumen hortum occupauit, deinde ab eo recessit: ius quoque usus fructus restitutum esse Labeoni uidetur, quia id solum perpetuo eiusdem iuris mansisset.
[JAVOLENUS in the third book of Epitomes of Labeo’s Posterior Works.] When I had the usufruct of a garden, a river inundated the garden and then receded from it: it seems to Labeo that the right of usufruct also was restored, because that soil itself had remained continuously of the same legal status.
ita id uerum puto, si flumen inundatione hortum occupauit: nam si alueo mutato inde manare coeperit, amitti usum fructum existimo, cum is locus aluei publicus esse coeperit, neque in pristinum statum restitui posse.
I think this is true only if the river inundated the garden by a temporary flood: for if, by a change of its channel, it has begun to flow through there, I think that the usufruct is lost, since that place of the channel has begun to be public property and cannot be restored to its former state.
§7.4.24.1Idem iuris in itinere et actu custodiendum esse ait Labeo: de quibus rebus ego idem quod in usu fructu sentio.
Labeo says that the same rule of law must be observed in the case of a right of way on foot and a right of way for driving beasts or vehicles: concerning which matters I hold the same opinion as in the case of a usufruct.
§7.4.24.2LABEO. Nec si summa terra sublata ex fundo meo et alia regesta esset, idcirco meum solum esse desinit, non magis quam stercorato agro.
LABEO. Even if the topsoil should be removed from my land and other soil deposited there, the ground does not on that account cease to be mine, any more than in the case of a manured field.

Notes

  1. §7.4.24.preiusdem iuris — Genitive of quality (genitivus qualitatis), showing that the soil itself, even during the inundation, continuously maintained the same legal status or character as private property.
  2. §7.4.24.prneque in pristinum statum restitui posse — This accusative and infinitive clause is coordinated with the preceding `amitti usum fructum` as the object of `existimo` ("I think that..."), meaning "I think that the usufruct is lost, and that it cannot be restored to its former state."
  3. §7.4.24.2non magis quam stercorato agro — Ablative of comparison or ablative absolute. It draws a comparison with a manured field where, despite the addition or mixing of foreign substances (manure), the soil does not cease to belong to its owner.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §7.4.24.pr-7.4.24.2. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:7.4.24.pr-7.4.24.2

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.