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. VIII4,
Communia praediorum tam urbanorum quam rusticorum
Liber octavus
IV.

Communia praediorum tam urbanorum quam rusticorum

(Rules Common to Both Urban and Rustic Estates.)

1Ul­pia­nus li­bro se­cun­do in­sti­tu­tio­num. Ae­di­fi­cia ur­ba­na qui­dem prae­dia ap­pel­la­mus: ce­te­rum et­si in vil­la ae­di­fi­cia sint, ae­que ser­vi­tu­tes ur­ba­no­rum prae­dio­rum con­sti­tui pos­sunt. 1Id­eo au­tem hae ser­vi­tu­tes prae­dio­rum ap­pel­lan­tur, quon­iam si­ne prae­diis con­sti­tui non pos­sunt: ne­mo enim pot­est ser­vi­tu­tem ad­quire­re vel ur­ba­ni vel rus­ti­ci prae­dii, ni­si qui ha­bet prae­dium nec quis­quam de­be­re, ni­si qui ha­bet prae­dium11Die Großausgabe lässt nec quis­quam de­be­re, ni­si qui ha­bet prae­dium aus..

1Ulpianus, Institutes, Book II. We designate buildings urban estates, and where buildings belong to a house in the country, servitudes of urban estates can also be created there. 1These servitudes are said to belong to estates because they cannot be created without them; for no one can acquire a servitude over an urban or rustic estate, unless he himself has an estate.

2Idem li­bro sep­ti­mo de­ci­mo ad edic­tum. De aqua per ro­tam tol­len­da ex flu­mi­ne vel hau­rien­da, vel si quis ser­vi­tu­tem cas­tel­lo im­po­sue­rit, qui­dam du­bi­ta­ve­runt, ne hae ser­vi­tu­tes non es­sent: sed re­scrip­to im­pe­ra­to­ris An­to­ni­ni ad Tul­lia­num ad­ici­tur, li­cet ser­vi­tus iu­re non va­luit, si ta­men hac le­ge com­pa­ra­vit seu alio quo­cum­que le­gi­ti­mo mo­do si­bi hoc ius ad­quisi­vit, tuen­dum es­se eum, qui hoc ius pos­se­dit.

2The Same, On the Edict, Book XVII. With reference to the removal or drawing of water from the river by means of which, or where some one establishes a servitude over a reservoir, certain authorities have doubted whether these servitudes actually existed; but it was stated in a Rescript of the Emperor Antoninus to Tullianus that, although a servitude might not be valid in law, nevertheless, if the person in question acquired it under an agreement of this kind, or by any other legitimate means, he who was in possession of such a right should be protected.

3Gaius li­bro sep­ti­mo ad edic­tum pro­vin­cia­le. Duo­rum prae­dio­rum do­mi­nus si al­te­rum ea le­ge ti­bi de­de­rit, ut id prae­dium quod da­tur ser­viat ei quod ip­se re­ti­net, vel con­tra, iu­re im­po­si­ta ser­vi­tus in­tel­le­gi­tur.

3Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book VII. Where the owner of two tracts of land conveys one of them to you under the agreement that the tract which he conveyed shall be subject to a servitude in favor of the one which he retained, or vice versa; a servitude is understood to be lawfully imposed.

4Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Ca­ve­ri, ut ad cer­tam al­ti­tu­di­nem mo­nu­men­tum ae­di­fi­ce­tur, non pot­est, quia id, quod hu­ma­ni iu­ris es­se de­siit, ser­vi­tu­tem non re­ci­pit: sic­ut ne il­la qui­dem ser­vi­tus con­sis­te­re pot­est, ut cer­tus nu­me­rus ho­mi­num in uno lo­co hu­me­tur.

4Javolenus, On Cassius, Book X. It is not possible to provide that a monument shall only be built to a certain height, because what has ceased to be controlled by human law cannot be subject to a servitude; just as no servitude can be created providing that only a certain number of bodies shall be buried in one place.

5Idem li­bro se­cun­do epis­tu­la­rum. Pro­prium so­lum ven­den­do an ser­vi­tu­tem ta­lem in­iun­ge­re pos­sim, ut mi­hi et vi­ci­no ser­viat? si­mi­li­ter si com­mu­ne so­lum ven­do, ut mi­hi et so­cio ser­viat, an con­se­qui pos­sim? re­spon­di: ser­vi­tu­tem re­ci­pe­re ni­si si­bi ne­mo pot­est: ad­iec­tio ita­que vi­ci­ni pro su­per­va­cuo ha­ben­da est, ita ut to­ta ser­vi­tus ad eum, qui re­ce­pe­rit, per­ti­neat. so­lum au­tem com­mu­ne ven­den­do ut mi­hi et so­cio ser­viat, ef­fi­ce­re non pos­sum, quia per unum so­cium com­mu­ni so­lo ser­vi­tus ad­quiri non pot­est.

5The Same, Epistles, Book II. I sell land which belongs to me alone; can I impose a servitude upon it to the effect that it shall be servient to myself and my neighbor? In like manner, if I sell property which I own in common with another, can I provide that it shall be subject to a servitude for the benefit of myself and my joint-owner? I answered that no one can stipulate for a servitude for the benefit of anyone but myself; and therefore the addition of the neighbor must be considered superfluous, as the entire servitude will belong to him who stipulated for it. Again, when the land held in common is sold, I cannot subject it to the servitude for the benefit of myself and my joint-owner, for the reason that a servitude cannot, through the act of one of the joint owners be acquired for the benefit of land held in common.

6Ul­pia­nus li­bro vi­cen­si­mo oc­ta­vo ad Sa­binum. Si quis duas ae­des ha­beat et al­te­ras tra­dat, pot­est le­gem tra­di­tio­ni di­ce­re, ut vel is­tae quae non tra­dun­tur ser­vae sint his quae tra­dun­tur, vel con­tra ut tra­di­tae re­ten­tis ae­di­bus ser­viant: par­vi­que re­fert, vi­ci­nae sint am­bae ae­des an non. idem erit et in prae­diis rus­ti­cis: nam et si quis duos fun­dos ha­beat, alium alii pot­est ser­vum fa­ce­re tra­den­do. duas au­tem ae­des si­mul tra­den­do non pot­est ef­fi­ce­re al­te­ras al­te­ris ser­vas, quia ne­que ad­quire­re alie­nis ae­di­bus ser­vi­tu­tem ne­que im­po­ne­re pot­est. 1Si quis par­tem ae­dium tra­det vel par­tem fun­di, non pot­est ser­vi­tu­tem im­po­ne­re, quia per par­tes ser­vi­tus im­po­ni non pot­est, sed nec ad­quiri. pla­ne si di­vi­sit fun­dum re­gio­ni­bus et sic par­tem tra­di­dit pro di­vi­so, pot­est al­ter­utri ser­vi­tu­tem im­po­ne­re, quia non est pars fun­di, sed fun­dus. quod et in ae­di­bus pot­est di­ci, si do­mi­nus pa­rie­te me­dio ae­di­fi­ca­to unam do­mum in duas di­vi­se­rit, ut ple­ri­que fa­ciunt: nam et hic pro dua­bus do­mi­bus ac­ci­pi de­bet. 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 no­vis­si­ma tra­di­tio ef­fi­ciat et­iam prae­ce­den­tem tra­di­tio­nem ef­fi­ca­cem. 3Si ta­men al­te­rae unius pro­priae sint ae­des, al­te­rae com­mu­nes, ne­utris ser­vi­tu­tem vel ad­quire­re vel im­po­ne­re me pos­se Pom­po­nius li­bro oc­ta­vo ex Sa­b­ino scrip­sit. 3aSi in ven­di­tio­ne quis di­xe­rit ser­vas fo­re ae­des quas ven­di­dit, ne­ces­se non ha­bet li­be­ras tra­de­re: qua­re vel suis ae­di­bus eas ser­vas fa­ce­re pot­est vel vi­ci­no con­ce­de­re ser­vi­tu­tem, sci­li­cet an­te tra­di­tio­nem. pla­ne si Ti­tio ser­vas fo­re di­xit, si qui­dem Ti­tio ser­vi­tu­tem con­ces­se­rit, ab­so­lu­tum est: si ve­ro alii con­ces­se­rit, ex emp­to te­ne­bi­tur. a quo non ab­hor­ret, quod Mar­cel­lus li­bro sex­to di­ges­to­rum scri­bit, si quis in tra­den­do di­xe­rit fun­dum Ti­tio ser­vi­re, cum ei non ser­vi­ret, es­set au­tem ob­li­ga­tus ven­di­tor Ti­tio ad ser­vi­tu­tem prae­stan­dam, an age­re pos­sit ex ven­di­to, ut emp­tor ser­vi­tu­tem im­po­ni pa­tia­tur prae­dio quod mer­ca­tus est: ma­gis­que pu­tat per­mit­ten­dum age­re. idem­que ait et si pos­sit ven­di­tor Ti­tio ser­vi­tu­tem ven­de­re, ae­que age­re per­mit­ten­dum. haec ita de­mum, si re­ci­pien­dae ser­vi­tu­tis gra­tia id in tra­di­tio­ne ex­pres­sum est: ce­te­rum si quis, in­quit, ve­ri­tus, ne ser­vi­tus Ti­tio de­bea­tur, id­eo hoc ex­ce­pit, non erit ex ven­di­to ac­tio, si nul­lam ser­vi­tu­tem pro­mi­sit.

6Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXVIII. Ad Dig. 8,4,6 pr.Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 209, Note 9.Where anyone has two houses and sells one of them, he can state in the conveyance that the house which he does not sell is subject to a servitude in favor of the one which he does sell; or, on the other hand, that the one which is sold must serve the one which is retained; and it makes little difference whether the two houses are adjacent or not. The same rule applies in the case of rustic estates, for where a man has two tracts of land, by conveying one of them he can impose a servitude upon it for the benefit of the other. But where he conveys two houses at the same time, he cannot impose a servitude on either for the benefit of the other; for he cannot acquire a servitude for the house of another, or impose one upon it. 1Where anyone disposes of a share in a house or in a tract of land, he cannot impose a servitude upon either, because a servitude cannot be imposed or acquired with reference to a share. It is evident that if he divides a tract of land into two parts, and alternates one part of what has been divided, he can impose a servitude upon either one of them; because neither is a part of an estate, but is an estate itself. This also may be stated with reference to a house, where the owner divides one building into two, by constructing a wall through the middle of the same, (as many persons do); for in this instance it must be considered as two houses. 2Moreover, suppose that we are two men who own two houses in common, by joining in the conveyance we can accomplish the same result that I alone could do, if I had two houses of my own. But even if we make separate conveyances the same thing will take place; for it is established that the last conveyance renders the former one effective. 3If, however, one of said houses belongs to one of two persons, and the other is the common property of both; then Pomponius, in the Eighth Book on Sabinus, states that I cannot acquire a servitude in favor of, or impose one on either. 3aIf anyone states in a contract of sale that the house which he sold shall be subject to a servitude, it is not necessary to convey the house free; wherefore he can either create a servitude for the benefit of his own house, or grant one to his neighbor; provided this is done before the delivery of the property. It is clear, if he stated that a servitude was to exist for the benefit of Titius, and he grants a servitude to Titius, the transaction is concluded; but if he grants a servitude to another party he is liable on the ground of sale. This is not in contravention of what Marcellus says in the Sixth Book of the Digest, namely: that where anyone, in the transfer of real property, says that it is subject to a servitude for the benefit of Titius, while in fact it is not, but the vendor is bound to convey the land to Titius; can the vendor bring an action on sale to compel the purchaser to permit the servitude to be imposed on the land which he contracted for? He thinks the better opinion is that he should be permitted to bring the action. He also says that if the vendor is able to sell the servitude to Titius, he must still be permitted to bring suit. This is with the understanding that the statement was made at the time of delivery, for the purpose of retaining the servitude; but if, as he says, the vendor feared that Titius was entitled to the servitude, and therefore reserved it, an action on sale will not lie, if he made no provision for the servitude.

7Pau­lus li­bro quin­to ad Sa­binum. In tra­den­dis unis ae­di­bus ab eo, qui bi­nas ha­bet, spe­cies ser­vi­tu­tis ex­pri­men­da est, ne, si ge­ne­ra­li­ter ser­vi­re dic­tum erit, aut ni­hil va­leat, quia in­cer­tum sit, quae ser­vi­tus ex­cep­ta sit, aut om­nis ser­vi­tus im­po­ni de­beat. 1In­ter­po­si­tis quo­que alie­nis ae­di­bus im­po­ni pot­est, vel­uti ut al­tius tol­le­re vel non tol­le­re li­ceat vel et­iam si iter de­bea­tur, ut ita con­va­les­cat, si me­diis ae­di­bus ser­vi­tus post­ea im­po­si­ta fue­rit: sic­uti per plu­rium prae­dia ser­vi­tus im­po­ni et­iam di­ver­sis tem­po­ri­bus pot­est. quam­quam di­ci pot­est, si tria prae­dia con­ti­nua ha­beam et ex­tre­mum ti­bi tra­dam, vel tuo vel meis prae­diis ser­vi­tu­tem ad­quiri pos­se: si ve­ro ex­tre­mo, quod re­ti­neam, quia et me­dium meum sit, ser­vi­tu­tem con­sis­te­re, sed si rur­sus aut id, cui ad­quisi­ta sit ser­vi­tus, aut me­dium alie­na­ve­ro, in­ter­pel­la­ri eam, do­nec me­dio prae­dio ser­vi­tus im­po­na­tur.

7Paulus, On Sabinus, Book V. Where one house is conveyed by a party who has two; the description of the servitude should be expressly set forth; for if it is only mentioned in general terms that the house is subject to a servitude, the statement will be inoperative, because it is uncertain what kind of a servitude it reserved, or any kind of servitude may be imposed. 1Where a house which belongs to another party is situated between the two, a servitude can be created; as for instance, that the height of one of them may, or may not be raised; or even where a right of way is owing, that it shall only become operative if a servitude should subsequently be imposed on the intervening house; just as a servitude can be imposed on tracts of land belonging to several owners, even at different times. Although it can be stated that if I have three tracts of land which are adjoining, and I convey that at one end to you, a servitude can be acquired either for the benefit of your tract, or for that of both of mine; but if it is acquired for the tract most distant from you, which I have retained, the servitude will stand, because the intermediate tract is mine. But if I subsequently alienate either the tract for whose benefit the servitude was acquired, or the intermediate one, the right will be interrupted until a servitude is imposed on the intermediate tract.

8Pom­po­nius li­bro oc­ta­vo ad Sa­binum. Si cum duas ha­be­rem in­su­las, duo­bus eo­dem mo­men­to tra­di­de­ro, vi­den­dum est, an ser­vi­tus al­ter­utris im­po­si­ta va­leat, quia alie­nis qui­dem ae­di­bus nec im­po­ni nec ad­quiri ser­vi­tus pot­est. sed an­te tra­di­tio­nem per­ac­tam suis ma­gis ad­quirit vel im­po­nit is qui tra­dit id­eo­que va­le­bit ser­vi­tus.

8Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book VIII. If I have two houses, and convey them at the same time to two parties, it should be considered whether a servitude imposed on either of them is valid, since a servitude cannot be imposed on, or acquired for, the house of another; but where this is done before delivery, he who conveys the property acquires the servitude for, or imposes it on, his own property, rather than that of another; and therefore the servitude will be valid.

9Idem li­bro de­ci­mo ad Sa­binum. Si ei, cu­ius prae­dium mi­hi ser­vie­bat, he­res ex­sti­ti et eam he­redi­ta­tem ti­bi ven­di­di, re­sti­tui in pris­ti­num sta­tum ser­vi­tus de­bet, quia id agi­tur, ut qua­si tu he­res vi­dea­ris ex­sti­tis­se.

9The Same, On Sabinus, Book X. If I have become the heir to someone whose land is subject to a servitude in my favor, and I sold the land to you, the servitude must be restored to its former condition, because it is understood that you are, so to speak, the heir.

10Ul­pia­nus li­bro de­ci­mo ad Sa­binum. Quid­quid ven­di­tor ser­vi­tu­tis no­mi­ne si­bi re­ci­pe­re vult, no­mi­na­tim re­ci­pi opor­tet: nam il­la ge­ne­ra­lis re­cep­tio ‘qui­bus est ser­vi­tus uti­que est’ ad ex­tra­neos per­ti­net, ip­si ni­hil pro­spi­cit ven­di­to­ri ad iu­ra eius con­ser­van­da: nul­la enim ha­buit, quia ne­mo ip­se si­bi ser­vi­tu­tem de­bet: quin im­mo et si de­bi­ta fuit ser­vi­tus, de­in­de do­mi­nium rei ser­vien­tis per­ve­nit ad me, con­se­quen­ter di­ci­tur ex­tin­gui ser­vi­tu­tem.

10Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book X. Whatever a vendor wishes to reserve for himself by way of servitude, must be reserved in express terms, for a general reservation such as the following: “Any persons entitled to servitudes may certainly retain them”, has reference to strangers, and not to the vendor for the purpose of preserving his rights, for he has none, because no one owes him a servitude. Again, if I was entitled to a servitude, and the ownership of the land afterwards became vested in me, it is held that the servitude is extinguished in consequence.

11Pom­po­nius li­bro tri­gen­si­mo ter­tio ad Sa­binum. Re­fec­tio­nis gra­tia ac­ce­den­di ad ea lo­ca, quae non ser­viant, fa­cul­tas tri­bu­ta est his, qui­bus ser­vi­tus de­be­tur, qua ta­men ac­ce­de­re eis sit ne­ces­se, ni­si in ces­sio­ne ser­vi­tu­tis no­mi­na­tim prae­fi­ni­tum sit, qua ac­ce­de­re­tur: et id­eo nec se­cun­dum ri­vum nec su­pra eum (si for­te sub ter­ra aqua du­ca­tur) lo­cum re­li­gio­sum do­mi­nus so­li fa­ce­re pot­est, ne ser­vi­tus in­ter­eat: et id ve­rum est. sed et de­pres­su­rum vel ad­le­va­tu­rum ri­vum, per quem aquam iu­re du­ci po­tes­ta­tem ha­bes, ni­si si ne id fa­ce­res cau­tum sit. 1Si pro­pe tuum fun­dum ius est mi­hi aquam ri­vo du­ce­re, ta­ci­ta haec iu­ra se­quun­tur, ut re­fi­ce­re mi­hi ri­vum li­ceat, ut ad­ire, qua pro­xi­me pos­sim, ad re­fi­cien­dum eum ego fa­b­ri­que mei, item ut spa­tium re­lin­quat mi­hi do­mi­nus fun­di, qua dex­tra et si­nis­tra ad ri­vum ad­eam et quo ter­ram li­mum la­pi­dem ha­re­nam cal­cem ia­ce­re pos­sim.

11Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XXXIII. Right of access is granted to parties entitled to a privilege of this kind, for the purpose of making repairs to places which are not subject to the servitude, where such access is necessary, and it is not expressly mentioned in the grant of the servitude in what way access should be permitted. Therefore, the owner of land cannot make the ground religious along a river, or above one; if, for instance, the water should be conducted under ground, lest the servitude might be extinguished; and this is correct. You have, however, the right to conduct the water through a lower or a higher channel, except where it has been provided that you should not do so. 1If I have the privilege of conducting water through a channel near your land, the following rights are implied: I can repair the channels; I and my workmen can, for the purpose of repairing the same, approach as near as possible to the place; and I can also require the owner of the land to leave me sufficient space to approach the channel on the right and left banks of the same, and to throw down dirt, loam, stone, sand, and lime.

12Pau­lus li­bro quin­to de­ci­mo ad Sa­binum. Cum fun­dus fun­do ser­vit, ven­di­to quo­que fun­do ser­vi­tu­tes se­quun­tur. ae­di­fi­cia quo­que fun­dis et fun­di ae­di­fi­ciis ea­dem con­di­cio­ne ser­viunt.

12Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XV. Where one tract of land is subject to a servitude for the benefit of another, and either one is sold, the servitudes pass with the property; and where buildings are subject to servitudes for the benefit of tracts of land, or vice versa, the same rule applies.

13Ul­pia­nus li­bro sex­to opi­nio­num. Ven­di­tor fun­di Ge­ro­nia­ni fun­do Bo­tria­no, quem re­ti­ne­bat, le­gem de­de­rat, ne con­tra eum pis­ca­tio thyn­na­ria ex­er­cea­tur. quam­vis ma­ri, quod na­tu­ra om­ni­bus pa­tet, ser­vi­tus im­po­ni pri­va­ta le­ge non pot­est, quia ta­men bo­na fi­des con­trac­tus le­gem ser­va­ri ven­di­tio­nis ex­pos­cit, per­so­nae pos­si­den­tium aut in ius eo­rum suc­ce­den­tium per sti­pu­la­tio­nis vel ven­di­tio­nis le­gem ob­li­gan­tur. 1Si con­stat in tuo agro la­pi­di­ci­nas es­se, in­vi­to te nec pri­va­to nec pu­bli­co no­mi­ne quis­quam la­pi­dem cae­de­re pot­est, cui id fa­cien­di ius non est: ni­si ta­lis con­sue­tu­do in il­lis la­pi­di­ci­nis con­sis­tat, ut si quis vo­lue­rit ex his cae­de­re, non ali­ter hoc fa­ciat, ni­si prius so­li­tum so­la­cium pro hoc do­mi­no prae­stat: ita ta­men la­pi­des cae­de­re de­bet, post­quam sa­tis­fa­ciat do­mi­no, ut ne­que usus ne­ces­sa­rii la­pi­dis in­ter­clu­da­tur ne­que com­mo­di­tas rei iu­re do­mi­no ad­ima­tur.

13Ulpianus, Opinions, Book VI. The vendor of the Geronian Estate set out in the contract for the Botrian Estate which he retained, that no tunny-fishery should take place near it. Although a servitude cannot be imposed on the sea by private contract, since by nature it is open to all, still, as the good faith of the contract demands that the conditions of the sale should be observed, the persons in possession or those who succeed to their rights are bound by the provisions of the stipulation or the sale. 1If it is known that there are stone-quarries on your land, no one can cut stone there either as an individual, or in the public service, without your consent, where he has no right; unless a custom exists in said quarries that, if anyone should wish to take stone from them he can do so, provided he first pays the usual compensation to the owner; and even then he can only take the stone after giving security to the owner that the latter shall not be prevented from using such stone as he needs, nor the enjoyment of the property by the owner be destroyed by the exercise of his right.

14Iu­lia­nus li­bro qua­dra­gen­si­mo pri­mo di­ges­to­rum. Iter ni­hil pro­hi­bet sic con­sti­tui, ut quis in­ter­diu dum­ta­xat eat: quod fe­re cir­ca prae­dia ur­ba­na et­iam ne­ces­sa­rium est.

14Julianus, Digest, Book XLI. The creation of a right of way is not prevented by stating that it can only be used during the day; because, in fact, this is almost necessary in the case of property situated in towns.

15Pau­lus li­bro pri­mo epi­to­ma­rum Al­fe­ni di­ges­to­rum. Qui per cer­tum lo­cum iter aut ac­tum ali­cui ces­sis­set, eum plu­ri­bus per eun­dem lo­cum vel iter vel ac­tum ce­de­re pos­se ve­rum est: quem­ad­mo­dum si quis vi­ci­no suas ae­des ser­vas fe­cis­set, ni­hi­lo mi­nus aliis quot vel­let mul­tis eas ae­des ser­vas fa­ce­re pot­est.

15Paulus, Epitomes of the Digest of Alfenus, Book I. Where one party has granted another a right of passage or of driving cattle through a specified place, it is certain that he can grant either of these rights to several persons through the same place, just as, where anyone has imposed a servitude on his own house in favor of his neighbor, he can, nevertheless, impose a similar servitude on the same house in favor of as many other persons as he wishes.

16Gaius li­bro se­cun­do re­rum cot­ti­dia­na­rum si­ve au­reo­rum. Pot­est et­iam in tes­ta­men­to he­redem suum quis dam­na­re, ne al­tius ae­des suas tol­lat, ne lu­mi­ni­bus ae­dium vi­ci­na­rum of­fi­ciat, vel ut pa­tia­tur eum tig­num in pa­rie­tem im­mit­te­re, vel stil­li­ci­dia ad­ver­sus eum ha­be­re, vel ut pa­tia­tur vi­ci­num per fun­dum suum vel he­redis ire age­re aquam­ve ex eo du­ce­re.

16Gaius, Diurnal, or Golden Matters, Book II. A testator in his will can direct his heir not to raise the height of his house, in order to avoid obstructing the light of an adjacent building, or charge him to permit a neighbor to insert a beam into his wall, or to allow the rain water to fall on his premises from his roof, or permit his neighbor to walk or drive through his land or conduct water from it.

17Pa­pi­nia­nus li­bro sep­ti­mo quaes­tio­num. Si pre­ca­rio vi­ci­nus in tuo ma­ce­riam du­xe­rit, in­ter­dic­to ‘quod pre­ca­rio ha­bet’ agi non pot­erit, nec ma­ce­ria po­si­ta do­na­tio ser­vi­tu­tis per­fec­ta in­tel­le­gi­tur, nec uti­li­ter in­ten­de­tur ius si­bi es­se in­vi­to te ae­di­fi­ca­tum ha­be­re, cum ae­di­fi­cium so­li con­di­cio­nem se­cu­tum in­uti­lem fa­ciat in­ten­tio­nem. ce­te­rum si in suo ma­ce­riam pre­ca­rio, qui ser­vi­tu­tem ti­bi de­buit, du­xe­rit, ne­que li­ber­tas usu­ca­pie­tur et in­ter­dic­to ‘quod pre­ca­rio ha­bet’ uti­li­ter cum eo age­tur. quod si do­na­tio­nis cau­sa per­mi­se­ris, et in­ter­dic­to age­re non poteris et ser­vi­tus do­na­tio­ne tol­li­tur.

17Papinianus, Questions, Book VII. Where a neighbor builds a wall across your land with your permission, he cannot be proceeded against by means of the interdict Quod precario habet; nor, after the wall has been built, is it understood that the grant of a servitude is complete; nor can the neighbor legally claim that he has a right to hold the wall without your consent; since the building follows the condition of the land, and this renders the claim invalid. But where a party who was subject to a servitude for your benefit builds a wall across his own premises with your consent, he will not obtain freedom by usucaption; and proceedings can be brought against him on the interdict Quod precario habet. If, however, you should permit him to build a wall by way of gift, you cannot apply for the interdict, and the servitude will be extinguished by the donation.

18Pau­lus li­bro pri­mo ma­nua­lium. Re­cep­tum est, ut plu­res do­mi­ni et non pa­ri­ter ce­den­tes ser­vi­tu­tes im­po­nant vel ad­quirant, ut ta­men ex no­vis­si­mo ac­tu et­iam su­pe­rio­res con­fir­men­tur per­in­de­que sit, at­que si eo­dem tem­po­re om­nes ces­sis­sent. et id­eo si is qui pri­mus ces­sit vel de­func­tus sit vel alio ge­ne­re vel alio mo­do par­tem suam alie­na­ve­rit, post de­in­de so­cius ces­se­rit, ni­hil age­tur: cum enim pos­tre­mus ce­dat, non re­tro ad­quiri ser­vi­tus vi­de­tur, sed per­in­de ha­be­tur, at­que si, cum pos­tre­mus ce­dat, om­nes ces­sis­sent: igi­tur rur­sus hic ac­tus pen­de­bit, do­nec no­vus so­cius ce­dat. idem iu­ris est et si uni ex do­mi­nis ce­da­tur, de­in­de in per­so­na so­cii ali­quid ho­rum ac­ci­de­rit. er­go et ex di­ver­so si ei, qui non ces­sit, ali­quid ta­le eo­rum con­ti­ge­rit, ex in­te­gro om­nes ce­de­re de­be­bunt: tan­tum enim tem­pus eis re­mis­sum est, quo da­re fa­ce­re pos­sunt, vel di­ver­sis tem­po­ri­bus pos­sint, et id­eo non pot­est uni vel unus ce­de­re. idem­que di­cen­dum est et si al­ter ce­dat, al­ter le­get ser­vi­tu­tes. nam si om­nes so­cii le­gent ser­vi­tu­tes et pa­ri­ter eo­rum ad­ea­tur he­redi­tas, pot­est di­ci uti­le es­se le­ga­tum: si di­ver­sis tem­po­ri­bus, in­uti­li­ter dies le­ga­ti ce­dit: nec enim sic­ut vi­ven­tium, ita et de­func­to­rum ac­tus sus­pen­di re­cep­tum est.

18Paulus, Manuals, Book I. It has been settled that several joint-owners, even where they do not join in the conveyance, may impose or acquire servitudes, on the ground that former acts are confirmed by more recent ones; so that it is the same as if all of them had made the grant at the same time. Therefore, if he who first granted the servitude should die, or dispose of his share in any other way, and afterwards his joint-owner should make a grant, the entire transaction will be void; for when the last one makes the grant the servitude is not considered to be acquired retroactively, but it is held to be the same as if when the last one made the grant all of them had done so; consequently, the last act will remain in abeyance until the new joint-owner makes a grant. The same rule applies where a grant is made to one of the joint-owners, and afterwards some such occurrence as those above mentioned with reference to the person of another joint-owner takes place. Hence, on the other hand, if any of these things should happen to one of the joint-owners who has not made a grant, all of them will be compelled to make a new grant; for only so much time is conceded to them as to enable them to make a grant even at different times, and therefore the grant cannot be made to one person, or by one person. The same rule applies where one party grants a servitude and another bequeaths it by will, for if all the joint-owners bequeath a servitude, and their estates are entered upon at the same time, it may be said that the servitude is properly bequeathed; but if the estates are entered upon at different times, the legacy does not legally vest; for it has been established that the acts of living persons may be suspended so far as their operation is concerned, but that those of deceased persons cannot.