[Idem libro nono quaestionum. ] §8.3.33.prCum essent mihi et tibi fundi duo communes Titianus et Seianus et in diuisione conuenisset, ut mihi Titianus, tibi Seianus cederet, inuicem partes eorum tradidimus et in tradendo dictum est, ut alteri per alterum aquam ducere liceret: recte esse seruitutem impositam ait, maxime si pacto stipulatio subdita sit.
[The Same, Questions, Book 9] When two estates, the Titian and the Seian, were in common between you and me, and it had been agreed upon in the division that the Titian estate should go to me and the Seian estate to you, we delivered our respective shares to each other, and in the delivery it was declared that one should be allowed to draw water through the other: he says that the servitude was validly imposed, especially if a stipulation was added to the pact.
§8.3.33.1Per plurium praedia aquam ducis quoquo modo imposita seruitute: nisi pactum uel stipulatio etiam de hoc subsecuta est, neque eorum cuiuis neque alii uicino poteris haustum ex riuo cedere: pacto enim uel stipulatione interuenientibus et hoc concedi solet, quamuis nullum praedium ipsum sibi seruire neque seruitutis fructus constitui potest.
You draw water through the estates of several persons, by a servitude imposed in whatever manner: unless a pact or stipulation has also followed concerning this matter, you will not be able to grant the right to draw water from the channel to any one of them, nor to any other neighbor; for when a pact or stipulation intervenes, this also is usually granted, although no estate can owe a servitude to itself, nor can a fruit of a servitude be established.