[ULPIANUS libro uicensimo octauo ad Sabinum. ] §8.4.6.prSi quis duas aedes habeat et alteras tradat, potest legem traditioni dicere, ut uel istae quae non traduntur seruae sint his quae traduntur, uel contra ut traditae retentis aedibus seruiant: paruique refert, uicinae sint ambae aedes an non.
If anyone owns two houses and transfers one of them, he can state a condition for the transfer, either that those which are not transferred shall be subject to a servitude to those which are transferred, or conversely, that the transferred ones shall serve the houses retained; and it matters little whether both houses are neighboring or not.
idem erit et in praediis rusticis: nam et si quis duos fundos habeat, alium alii potest seruum facere tradendo.
The same will apply to rustic estates; for even if someone owns two tracts of land, he can make one subject to the other by transferring it.
duas autem aedes simul tradendo non potest efficere alteras alteris seruas, quia neque adquirere alienis aedibus seruitutem neque imponere potest. §8.4.6.1Si quis partem aedium tradet uel partem fundi, non potest seruitutem imponere, quia per partes seruitus imponi non potest, sed nec adquiri.
However, by transferring two houses at the same time, he cannot make one subject to the other, because he can neither acquire a servitude for someone else's house nor impose one on it. If anyone transfers a part of a house or a part of a tract of land, he cannot impose a servitude, because a servitude cannot be imposed in parts, nor can it be acquired.
plane si diuisit fundum regionibus et sic partem tradidit pro diuiso, potest alterutri seruitutem imponere, quia non est pars fundi, sed fundus.
Obviously, if he has divided the land by boundaries and thus transferred a part as divided, he can impose a servitude on either of them, because it is not a part of a tract of land, but a tract of land itself.
quod et in aedibus potest dici, si dominus pariete medio aedificato unam domum in duas diuiserit, ut plerique faciunt: nam et hic pro duabus domibus accipi debet. §8.4.6.2Item si duo homines binas aedes communes habeamus, simul tradendo idem efficere possumus, ac si ego solus proprias binas aedes haberem, sed et si separatim tradiderimus, idem fiet, sic tamen, ut nouissima traditio efficiat etiam praecedentem traditionem efficacem. §8.4.6.3Si tamen alterae unius propriae sint aedes, alterae communes, neutris seruitutem uel adquirere uel imponere me posse Pomponius libro octauo ex Sabino scripsit. §8.4.6.3aSi in uenditione quis dixerit seruas fore aedes quas uendidit, necesse non habet liberas tradere: quare uel suis aedibus eas seruas facere potest uel uicino concedere seruitutem, scilicet ante traditionem: plane si Titio seruas fore dixit, si quidem Titio seruitutem concesserit, absolutum est: si uero alii concesserit, ex empto tenebitur.
The same can be said of houses, if the owner, by building a partition wall, has divided one house into two, as many people do; for here also it must be accepted as two houses. Likewise, if we, two persons, have two common houses, we can, by transferring them at the same time, achieve the same effect as if I alone owned two houses of my own; but even if we transfer them separately, the same will happen, provided, however, that the last transfer makes the preceding transfer also effective. However, if one of the houses is the sole property of one person and the other is common, Pomponius wrote in the eighth book on Sabinus that I can neither acquire nor impose a servitude for either of them. If, in a sale, anyone states that the houses he has sold will be subject to a servitude, he is not under a necessity to transfer them free of encumbrance; wherefore, he can either make them subject to his own houses or grant a servitude to a neighbor, namely, before the transfer. Clearly, if he stated that they would be subject to Titius, if indeed he grants the servitude to Titius, the matter is settled; but if he grants it to someone else, he will be liable under the action on purchase.
a quo non abhorret, quod Marcellus libro sexto digestorum scribit, si quis in tradendo dixerit fundum Titio seruire, cum ei non seruiret, esset autem obligatus uenditor Titio ad seruitutem praestandam, an agere possit ex uendito, ut emptor seruitutem imponi patiatur praedio quod mercatus est: magisque putat permittendum agere.
Not inconsistent with this is what Marcellus writes in the sixth book of his Digests: if someone, in transferring land, states that the land serves Titius, whereas it did not serve him, but the seller was under an obligation to Titius to provide a servitude, whether he can bring an action on sale so that the buyer allows the servitude to be imposed on the estate he has bought; and he rather thinks that bringing the action should be permitted.
idemque ait et si possit uenditor Titio seruitutem uendere, aeque agere permittendum.
He also says the same if the seller can sell the servitude to Titius, that bringing the action should equally be permitted.
haec ita demum, si recipiendae seruitutis gratia id in traditione expressum est: ceterum si quis, inquit, ueritus, ne seruitus Titio debeatur, ideo hoc excepit, non erit ex uendito actio, si nullam seruitutem promisit.
These apply only if this was expressed in the transfer for the sake of retaining the servitude; on the other hand, if someone, he says, fearing lest a servitude might be owed to Titius, made this exception for that reason, there will be no action on sale if he promised no servitude.