Corpus iurisprudentiae Romanae

Repertorium zu den Quellen des römischen Rechts

Digesta Iustiniani Augusti

Recognovit Mommsen (1870) et retractavit Krüger (1928)
Convertit in Anglica lingua Scott (1932)
Dig. XLIII13,
Ne quid in flumine publico fiat, quo aliter aqua fluat, atque uti priore aestate fluxit
Liber quadragesimus tertius
XIII.

Ne quid in flumine publico fiat, quo aliter aqua fluat, atque uti priore aestate fluxit

(Concerning the Interdict to Prevent Anything From Being Built in a Public River or on Its Bank Which Might Cause the Water to Flow in a Different Direction Than it did During the Preceding Summer.)

1Ul­pia­nus li­bro se­xa­gen­si­mo oc­ta­vo ad edic­tum. Ait prae­tor: ‘In flu­mi­ne pu­bli­co in­ve ri­pa eius fa­ce­re aut in id flu­men ri­pam­ve eius im­mit­te­re, quo ali­ter aqua fluat, quam prio­re aes­ta­te flu­xit, ve­to’. 1Hoc in­ter­dic­to pro­spe­xit prae­tor, ne de­ri­va­tio­ni­bus mi­nus con­ces­sis flu­mi­na ex­cres­cant vel mu­ta­tus al­veus vi­ci­nis in­iu­riam ali­quam ad­fe­rat. 2Per­ti­net au­tem ad flu­mi­na pu­bli­ca, si­ve na­vi­ga­bi­lia sunt si­ve non sunt. 3Ait prae­tor: ‘quo ali­ter aqua fluat, quam prio­re aes­ta­te flu­xit’: non om­nis er­go, qui im­mi­sit vel qui fe­cit, te­ne­tur, sed qui fa­cien­do vel im­mit­ten­do ef­fi­cit ali­ter, quam prio­re aes­ta­te flu­xit, aquam flue­re. quod au­tem ait ‘ali­ter fluat’, non ad quan­ti­ta­tem aquae fluen­tis per­ti­net, sed ad mo­dum et ad ri­go­rem cur­sus aquae re­fe­ren­dum est. et ge­ne­ra­li­ter di­cen­dum est ita de­mum in­ter­dic­to quem te­ne­ri, si mu­te­tur aquae cur­sus per hoc quod fac­tum est, dum vel de­pres­sior vel ar­tior fiat aqua ac per hoc ra­pi­dior fit cum in­com­mo­do ac­co­len­tium: et si quod aliud vi­tii ac­co­lae ex fac­to eius qui con­ve­ni­tur sen­tient, in­ter­dic­to lo­cus erit. 4Si quis ex ri­vo tec­to per aper­tum du­ce­re ve­lit vel con­tra qui an­te aper­to du­xit, nunc oper­to ve­lit, in­ter­dic­to te­ne­ri pla­cuit, si mo­do hoc fac­tum eius in­com­mo­dum cir­ca co­len­ti­bus ad­fe­rat. 5Si­mi­li mo­do et si in­ci­le du­cat aut alio lo­co fa­ciat aut si al­veum flu­mi­nis mu­tet, hoc in­ter­dic­to te­ne­bi­tur. 6Sunt qui pu­tent ex­ci­pien­dum hoc in­ter­dic­to ‘quod eius ri­pae mu­nien­dae cau­sa non fiet’, sci­li­cet ut, si quid fiat, quo ali­ter aqua fluat, si ta­men mu­nien­dae ri­pae cau­sa fiat, in­ter­dic­to lo­cus non sit. sed nec hoc qui­bus­dam pla­cet: ne­que enim ri­pae cum in­com­mo­do ac­co­len­tium mu­nien­dae sunt. hoc ta­men iu­re uti­mur, ut prae­tor ex cau­sa aes­ti­met, an hanc ex­cep­tio­nem da­re de­beat: ple­rum­que enim uti­li­tas sua­det ex­cep­tio­nem is­tam da­ri. 7Sed et si alia uti­li­tas ver­ta­tur eius, qui quid in flu­mi­ne pu­bli­co fe­cit (po­ne enim gran­de dam­num flu­men ei da­re so­li­tum, prae­dia eius de­po­pu­la­ri), si for­te ag­ge­res vel quam aliam mu­ni­tio­nem ad­hi­buit, ut agrum suum tue­re­tur ea­que res cur­sum flu­mi­nis ad ali­quid im­mu­ta­vit, cur ei non con­su­la­tur? ple­ros­que scio pror­sus flu­mi­na aver­tis­se al­veos­que mu­tas­se, dum prae­diis suis con­su­lunt. opor­tet enim in hu­ius­mo­di re­bus uti­li­ta­tem et tu­te­lam fa­cien­tis spec­ta­ri, si­ne in­iu­ria uti­que ac­co­la­rum. 8Is au­tem hoc in­ter­dic­to te­ne­tur, qui ali­ter fe­cit flue­re, quam prio­re aes­ta­te flu­xit. et id­cir­co aiunt prae­to­rem prio­rem aes­ta­tem com­pre­hen­dis­se, quia sem­per cer­tior est na­tu­ra­lis cur­sus flu­mi­num aes­ta­te po­tius quam hie­me. nec ad in­stan­tem aes­ta­tem, sed ad prio­rem in­ter­dic­tum hoc re­fer­tur, quia il­lius aes­ta­tis flu­xus in­du­bi­ta­tior est. aes­tas ad ae­qui­noc­tium au­tum­na­le re­fer­tur. et si for­te aes­ta­te in­ter­di­ce­tur, pro­xi­ma su­pe­rior aes­tas erit in­tuen­da: si ve­ro hie­me, tunc non pro­xi­ma hie­me aes­tas, sed su­pe­rior erit in­spi­cien­da. 9Hoc in­ter­dic­tum cui­vis ex po­pu­lo com­pe­tit, sed non ad­ver­sus om­nes, ve­rum ad­ver­sus eum, qui de­ne­get, ut ali­ter aqua flue­ret, cum ius non ha­be­ret. 10Hoc in­ter­dic­tum et in he­redes com­pe­tit. 11De­in­de ait prae­tor: ‘Quod in flu­mi­ne pu­bli­co ri­pa­ve eius fac­tum si­ve quid in flu­men ri­pam­ve eius im­mis­sum ha­bes, si ob id ali­ter aqua fluit at­que uti prio­re aes­ta­te flu­xit, re­sti­tuas’. 12Hoc in­ter­dic­tum re­sti­tu­to­rium pro­po­ni­tur: su­pe­rius enim pro­hi­bi­to­rium est et per­ti­net ad ea, quae non­dum fac­ta sunt. si quid igi­tur iam fac­tum est, per hoc in­ter­dic­tum re­sti­tue­tur: si quid ne fiat pro­spi­ci­tur, su­pe­rio­re in­ter­dic­to erit uten­dum, et si quid post in­ter­dic­tum red­di­tum fue­rit fac­tum, co­er­ce­bi­tur. 13In hoc in­ter­dic­to re­sti­tu­to­rio non est in­iquum, ut La­beo ait, venire et­iam, quod do­lo fac­tum est quo mi­nus ha­be­res.

1Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXVIII. The Prætor says: “I forbid anything to be built in a public river or upon its banks, or anything to be placed in such a river or on its banks, by means of which the water may be caused to flow in a different direction than it did during the previous summer.” 1By means of this interdict, the Prætor makes provision against the drying up of a river, due to improper concessions for drawing off the water; and to prevent the beds of streams from changing and injuring the neighbors. 2This refers to public rivers, whether they are navigable or not. 3The Prætor says, “by which the water may be caused to flow in a different direction than it did during the previous summer.” Hence, not everyone who built or placed an obstruction in the river will be liable, but only he who, by building or placing it there, caused the water to take a different course than it had done during the previous summer. However, where he says, “a different direction,” this does not have reference to the amount of the water, but to the power, manner, and course of its current. And, generally speaking, it must be said that a person will only be liable under the interdict, if the channel is changed by what he has done, provided it is rendered lower or more narrow, and, in consequence, the current becomes more rapid, and causes inconvenience to those residing in the neighborhood. If the neighbors suffer any annoyance from the act of the party in question, there will be ground for the interdict. 4If anyone who formerly conducted water from a river by means of a covered aqueduct now desires to conduct it by an open aqueduct or vice versa, it has been settled that he will be liable under the interdict, provided that by doing so he causes any inconvenience to persons living near the river. 5In like manner, if he conducts it by means of a ditch, or does so in any other place, or changes the bed of the river, he will be liable under this interdict. 6There are some authorities who hold that an exception to this interdict can be pleaded on the ground that the work was only done for the purpose of repairing the banks, so that if anyone causes the water to flow in a different direction for the purpose of repairing the banks, there will be no ground for the interdict. This opinion is not accepted by other authorities, for the banks should not be repaired if it causes inconvenience to those living in the neighborhood. We are, however, accustomed to have the Prætor decide, after investigation, whether he ought to grant this exception, for very frequently it is advantageous to permit this to be done. 7If, however, any other advantage is obtained by the person who did something to a public stream (suppose, for instance, that the water usually caused him a great deal of damage, and that his land was overflowed), and he raised levees, or took other measures to repair the banks, so as to protect his land, and this, to some extent, altered the course of the river; why should not his interest be consulted? I know that several persons, with a view to the protection of their land, have absolutely diverted the course of streams, and changed their beds, for it is necessary in cases of this kind to take into consideration the benefit and safety of the party interested, if no injury is sustained by other persons in the neighborhood. 8He also is liable under this interdict who causes a river to flow in a different direction from that in which it flowed during the previous summer. Therefore, the authorities say, the Prætor included the previous summer, because the natural course of a river is more certain in summer than in winter. This interdict has reference to the past, and not to the present summer; because the course of the river during the past summer is less subject to doubt. The summer extends to the autumnal equinox. If recourse is had to the interdict, during the summer, the previous season should be considered; and if this is done during the winter, not the summer which will follow the winter, but the past one must be taken into account. 9This interdict will lie for the benefit of any of the people, but it cannot be employed against everyone, but only against him who has caused the water to flow in a different direction, when he had no right to do so. 10This interdict is also available against heirs. 11The Prætor finally says: “You will restore everything to its former condition, if you have anything in your possession which has been built or placed in a public river, or on the bank of the same, by means of which the water is caused to flow in a different direction from that in which it flowed during the previous summer.” 12The interdict in question is restitutory; the former one is prohibitory and has reference to work not yet performed. Hence, if anything has already been done, restoration to its former condition can be obtained by means of this interdict; and if it is desired that nothing shall be done, the former interdict must be employed; and if anything is done after the interdict has been granted, the person responsible shall be punished. 13It is not unjust, as Labeo says, to include in this restitutory interdict whatever was done to avoid remaining in possession of the structure with reference to which the interdict was issued.