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. XLIII25,
De remissionibus
Liber quadragesimus tertius
XXV.

De remissionibus

(Concerning the Withdrawal of Opposition.)

1Ul­pia­nus li­bro sep­tua­gen­si­mo pri­mo ad edic­tum. Ait prae­tor: ‘Quod ius sit il­li pro­hi­be­re, ne se in­vi­to fiat, in eo nun­tia­tio te­n­eat: ce­te­rum nun­tia­tio­nem mis­sam fa­cio’. 1Sub hoc ti­tu­lo re­mis­sio­nes pro­po­nun­tur. 2Et ver­ba prae­to­ris os­ten­dunt re­mis­sio­nem ibi de­mum fac­tam, ubi nun­tia­tio non te­net, et nun­tia­tio­nem ibi de­mum vo­luis­se prae­to­rem te­ne­re, ubi ius est nun­tian­ti pro­hi­be­re, ne se in­vi­to fiat. ce­te­rum si­ve sa­tis­da­tio in­ter­ve­niat si­ve non, re­mis­sio fac­ta hoc tan­tum re­mit­tit, in quo non te­nuit nun­tia­tio. pla­ne si sa­tis­da­tum est, ex­in­de re­mis­sio fac­ta est, non est ne­ces­sa­ria re­mis­sio. 3Ius ha­bet opus no­vum nun­tian­di, qui aut do­mi­nium aut ser­vi­tu­tem ha­bet. 4Item Iu­lia­no pla­cet fruc­tua­rio vin­di­can­da­rum ser­vi­tu­tium ius es­se: se­cun­dum quod opus no­vum nun­tia­re pot­erit vi­ci­no et re­mis­sio uti­lis erit. ip­si au­tem do­mi­no prae­dii si nun­tia­ve­rit, re­mis­sio in­uti­lis erit: ne­que sic­ut ad­ver­sus vi­ci­num, ita ad­ver­sus do­mi­num age­re pot­est ius ei non es­se in­vi­to se al­tius ae­di­fi­ca­re. sed si hoc fac­to usus fruc­tus de­te­rior fiat, pe­te­re usum fruc­tum de­be­bit. idem Iu­lia­nus di­cit de ce­te­ris, qui­bus ali­qua ser­vi­tus a vi­ci­no de­be­tur. 5Ei quo­que, qui pig­no­ri fun­dum ac­ce­pe­rit, scri­bit Iu­lia­nus non es­se in­iquum de­ten­tio­nem ser­vi­tu­tis da­ri.

1Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXI. The Prætor says: “The notice will hold, if the complainant has a right to prevent the construction of a new work against his consent; otherwise, I will grant a withdrawal of the prohibition.” 1Withdrawals of opposition are discussed under this Title. 2The words of the Prætor indicate that a withdrawal of this kind only should be made where the notice does not hold, and that he intends that it only should hold where the person serving it has a right to forbid a new work being constructed without his consent. Moreover, whether security is given or not, the withdrawal granted is only applicable to property with reference to which the notice is not valid. It is clear that if security has been furnished, and withdrawal is granted afterwards, the withdrawal is not necessary. 3He only is entitled to serve notice not to construct a new work in whom the right of ownership or the servitude is vested. 4It was also held by Julianus that the usufructuary had the right to recover the servitude; and, according to this, he can serve notice upon a neighbor not to construct a new work, and the withdrawal of opposition will also be valid. If, however, he should serve notice upon the owner of the land himself, the withdrawal of opposition would be of no effect, nor would the usufructuary have any right of action against the owner, since he has one against the neighbor; as, for instance, to prevent him from raising his house to a greater height. But if his usufruct should be impaired by this act, he ought to bring an action to recover it. Julianus says the same thing with reference to others to whom servitudes are due from their neighbors. 5Julianus also says that it is not inequitable to allow a person, who has received land in pledge, the retention of a servitude imposed upon said land.