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. VIII6,
Quemadmodum servitutes amittuntur
Liber octavus
VI.

Quemadmodum servitutes amittuntur

(How Servitudes Are Lost.)

1Gaius li­bro sep­ti­mo ad edic­tum pro­vin­cia­le. Ser­vi­tu­tes prae­dio­rum con­fun­dun­tur, si idem utrius­que prae­dii do­mi­nus es­se coe­pe­rit.

1Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book VII. The servitudes of estates are merged when the same person becomes the owner of both estates.

2Pau­lus li­bro vi­cen­si­mo pri­mo ad edic­tum. Qui iter et ac­tum ha­bet, si sta­tu­to tem­po­re tan­tum ie­rit, non per­is­se ac­tum, sed ma­ne­re Sa­b­inus Cas­sius Oc­ta­ve­nus aiunt: nam ire quo­que per se eum pos­se qui ac­tum ha­be­ret.

2Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXI. Where a man has the right to both walk and drive, and only uses that of walking during the period established by law, the right to drive is not lost, but still remains in force; as Sabinus, Cassius, and Octavenus hold; and a party who has the right to drive can also make use of that to walk.

3Gaius li­bro sep­ti­mo ad edic­tum pro­vin­cia­le. Iu­ra prae­dio­rum mor­te et ca­pi­tis de­mi­nutio­ne non perire vol­go tra­di­tum est.

3Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book VII. It is commonly held that servitudes attached to real property are not lost by death or by the forfeiture of civil rights.

4Pau­lus li­bro vi­cen­si­mo sep­ti­mo ad edic­tum. Iter se­pul­chro de­bi­tum non uten­do num­quam amit­ti­tur.

4Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXVII. The right of access to a burial-place is never lost by want of use.

5Idem li­bro se­xa­gen­si­mo sex­to ad edic­tum. Ser­vi­tus et per so­cium et fruc­tua­rium et bo­nae fi­dei pos­ses­so­rem no­bis re­ti­ne­tur:

5The Same, On the Edict, Book LXVI. A servitude can be retained for our benefit through a joint-owner, an usufructuary, or a bona fide possessor:

6Cel­sus li­bro quin­to di­ges­to­rum. nam sa­tis est fun­di no­mi­ne itum es­se. 1Si ego via, quae no­bis per vi­ci­ni fun­dum de­be­ba­tur, usus fue­ro, tu au­tem con­sti­tu­to tem­po­re ces­sa­ve­ris, an ius tuum amis­e­ris? et e con­tra­rio, si vi­ci­nus, cui via per nos­trum fun­dum de­be­ba­tur, per meam par­tem ie­rit ege­rit, tuam par­tem in­gres­sus non fue­rit, an par­tem tuam li­be­ra­ve­rit? Cel­sus re­spon­dit: si di­vi­sus est fun­dus in­ter so­cios re­gio­ni­bus, quod ad ser­vi­tu­tem at­ti­net, quae ei fun­do de­be­ba­tur, per­in­de est, at­que si ab in­itio duo­bus fun­dis de­bi­ta sit: et si­bi quis­que do­mi­no­rum usur­pat ser­vi­tu­tem, si­bi non uten­do de­per­dit nec am­plius in ea re cau­sae eo­rum fun­do­rum mis­cen­tur: nec fit ul­la in­iu­ria ei cu­ius fun­dus ser­vit, im­mo si quo me­lior, quon­iam al­ter do­mi­no­rum uten­do si­bi, non to­ti fun­do pro­fi­cit. 1aSed si is fun­dus qui ser­vie­rit ita di­vi­sus est, plus­cu­lum du­bi­ta­tio­nis ea res ha­bet: nam si cer­tus ac fi­ni­tus viae lo­cus est, tunc, si per lon­gi­tu­di­nem eius fun­dus di­vi­sus est, ea­dem om­nia ser­van­da erunt, quae si in­itio con­sti­tuen­dae eius ser­vi­tu­tis si­mi­li­ter hic duo fun­di fuis­sent: si ve­ro per la­ti­tu­di­nem viae fun­dus di­vi­sus est (nec mul­tum re­fert, ae­qua­li­ter id fac­tum est an in­ae­qua­li­ter), tunc ma­net idem ius ser­vi­tu­tis, quod fun­do in­di­vi­so fue­rat, nec aut usu de­ti­ne­ri aut non uten­do de­per­ire ni­si to­ta via pot­erit: nec si for­te in­ci­de­rit, ut se­mi­ta, quae per al­te­rum dum­ta­xat fun­dum erit, ute­re­tur, id­cir­co al­ter fun­dus li­be­ra­bi­tur, quon­iam unum at­que eo mo­do in­di­vi­duum viae ius est. 1bPos­sunt ta­men al­ter­utrum fun­dum li­be­ra­re, si mo­do hoc spe­cia­li­ter con­ve­nit: cer­te si is cui ser­vi­tus de­be­ba­tur al­te­rum ex ea di­vi­sio­ne fun­dum red­eme­rit, num id­eo mi­nus ea re fun­di al­te­rius ser­vi­tus per­ma­ne­bit? nec vi­deo, quid ab­sur­de con­se­cu­tu­rum sit eam sen­ten­tiam fun­do al­te­ro ma­nen­te ser­vo: si mo­do et ab in­itio po­tuit an­gus­tior con­sti­tui via quam le­ge fi­ni­ta est et ad­huc id lo­ci su­per­est in eo fun­do, cui re­mis­sa ser­vi­tus non est, ut suf­fi­ciat viae: quod si mi­nus lo­ci su­per­est quam viae suf­fi­ciat, uter­que fun­dus li­be­ra­bi­tur, al­ter prop­ter red­emp­tio­nem, al­ter, quia per eum lo­cum qui su­per­est via con­sti­tui non pot­est. 1cCe­te­rum si ita con­sti­tu­tum est ius viae, ut per quam­li­bet par­tem fun­di ire age­re li­ceat, id­que vel sub­in­de mu­ta­re ni­hil pro­hi­bet at­que ita di­vi­sus est fun­dus: si per quam­li­bet eius par­tem ae­que ire at­que agi pos­sit, tunc per­in­de ob­ser­va­bi­mus at­que si ab in­itio duo­bus fun­dis duae ser­vi­tu­tes in­iunc­tae fuis­sent, ut al­te­ra re­ti­ne­ri, al­te­ra non uten­do pos­sit de­per­ire. 1dNec me fal­lit alie­no fac­to ius al­te­rius im­mu­ta­tu iri, quon­iam an­te sa­tius fue­rat per al­te­ram par­tem ire age­re, ut idem ius ei in al­te­ra par­te fun­di re­ti­ne­re­tur: con­tra il­lud com­mo­dum aces­sis­se ei cui via de­be­ba­tur, quod per duas pa­ri­ter vias ire age­re pos­sit bi­s­que oc­to­nos in por­rec­tum et se­nos de­nos in an­frac­tum.

6Celsus, Digest, Book V. For it is sufficient that there should be a right of access on account of the land. 1Where you and I have a right of way through the land of a neighbor, and I use it, but you cease to do so for the period prescribed by law, will you lose your right? And, on the other hand, if a neighbor who has a right of way through our land, walks or drives through my portion of the same, but does not enter yours, will this free yours? Celsus answered that if the estate is divided by metes and bounds between the joint-owners, then, so far as the servitude to which the land is entitled is concerned, it is the same as if it had been attached to both estates from the beginning, and either one of the owners can make use of his own servitude, and each can lose his own by want of use, and the interests of the two estates are no further involved; no injury is done to the party whose land is subject to the servitude, but in fact, his condition is improved, since one of the owners by making use of the right benefits himself and not the entire estate. 1aBut where the estate subject to the servitude is divided in this way, the matter is involved in a little more doubt; for if the location of the right of way is certain and well defined, then, if the estate is divided in the line of the right of way, everything must be observed just as if there had been two distinct estates in the beginning, when the servitude was established; but if the land is divided across the line of the right of way, (and it does not make much difference if this is done equally or unequally) then the right of servitude remains just as it was when the land was undivided, and nothing less than the entire right of way can be retained by using it, or lost by failure to do so; and if it should happen that the owner uses only as much of the way as crosses one of the tracts of land, the other will not become free for that reason, since a right of way is one, and hence is indivisible. 1bThe parties can, however, liberate either of the estates from the servitude, provided they expressly agree to do so; and, at all events, if the party who is entitled to the servitude should purchase one estate, after the division, will the servitude to which the other tract of land is subject remain operative? I do not see how anything absurd can result from this opinion, while one of the estates remains subject to the servitude; provided that, from the beginning, a narrower right of way was created than was mentioned in the contract, and that space enough still remains in the estate, with reference to which the servitude was not released, for the right of way to be made use of; but if insufficient space remains for this purpose, then, both estates should be freed; one on account of the purchase, the other because a right of way cannot be created over the space which remains. 1cIf, however, the right of way was so established that the party was at liberty to walk or drive over any portion of the estate that he chose; and there was nothing to prevent his changing his direction from time to time, and afterwards the estate was divided; if he could walk and drive equally over any portion that he chose, then we must consider the case just as if, in the beginning, two servitudes had been imposed on both estates in such a way that one could be retained and the other lost by want of use. 1dI know perfectly well that, under these circumstances, the right of one of the parties would be impaired by the act of the other, since, formerly it would have been sufficient if the party had walked or driven over part of the land to enable him to retain the same right over the rest of it; but the party entitled to the right of way secured the advantage of being able to walk or drive over two roads equally; that is, over two roads each eight feet wide where straight and sixteen feet where curved.

7Pau­lus li­bro ter­tio de­ci­mo ad Plau­tium. Si sic con­sti­tu­ta sit aqua, ut vel aes­ta­te du­ca­tur tan­tum vel uno men­se, quae­ri­tur quem­ad­mo­dum non uten­do amit­ta­tur, quia non est con­ti­nuum tem­pus, quo cum uti non pot­est, non sit usus. ita­que et si al­ter­nis an­nis vel men­si­bus quis aquam ha­beat, du­pli­ca­to con­sti­tu­to tem­po­re amit­ti­tur. idem et de iti­ne­re cus­to­di­tur. si ve­ro al­ter­nis die­bus aut die to­to aut tan­tum noc­te, sta­tu­to le­gi­bus tem­po­re amit­ti­tur, quia una ser­vi­tus est: nam et si al­ter­nis ho­ris vel una ho­ra cot­ti­die ser­vi­tu­tem ha­beat, Ser­vius scri­bit per­de­re eum non uten­do ser­vi­tu­tem, quia id quod ha­bet cot­ti­dia­num sit.

7Paulus, On Plautius, Book XIII. If the right to conduct water is granted in such a way that this can only be done during the summer, or for one month, the question arises how it may be lost by want of use; because there is no continuous term during which the party could use it but did not do so? Therefore, if anyone has the use of water for alternate years or alternate months, the right is lost by lapse of double the time prescribed by law; and the same rule applies with reference to a right of way. If, however, the party has a right which he can make use of on alternate days, or only by day, or only by night, this will be lost by the lapse of time established by law, because it is but a single servitude; for Servius says that if he has a servitude which he can make use of every other hour, or only for one hour each day, he will lose the servitude by not using it, because what he has can be made use of every day.

8Idem li­bro quin­to de­ci­mo ad Plau­tium. Si stil­li­ci­dii im­mit­ten­di ius ha­beam in aream tuam et per­mi­se­ro ius ti­bi in ea area ae­di­fi­can­di, stil­li­ci­dii im­mit­ten­di ius amit­to. et si­mi­li­ter si per tuum fun­dum via mi­hi de­bea­tur et per­mi­se­ro ti­bi in eo lo­co, per quem via mi­hi de­be­tur, ali­quid fa­ce­re, amit­to ius viae. 1Is qui per par­tem iti­ne­ris it to­tum ius usur­pa­re vi­de­tur.

8The Same, On Plautius, Book XV. Ad Dig. 8,6,8 pr.Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 215, Note 11.If I have the right to allow the water from my roof to fall on your land, and I permit you to build there, I lose my right to allow the water to fall. In like manner, if I have a right of way over your land, and I permit you to build anything on the place over which I have the right of way, I lose it. 1A person who transfers a portion of a roadway to which he has a right, is considered to be using the whole of it.

9Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro ter­tio ex Plau­tio. Aqua si in par­tem aqua­gi in­flu­xit, et­iam­si non ad ul­ti­ma lo­ca per­ve­nit, om­ni­bus ta­men par­ti­bus usur­pa­tur.

9Javolenus, On Plautius, Book III. Where water flows into a part of a canal, even though if it does not reach the extreme end of the same, all parts of said canal are held to be used.

10Pau­lus li­bro quin­to de­ci­mo ad Plau­tium. Si com­mu­nem fun­dum ego et pu­pil­lus ha­be­re­mus, li­cet uter­que non ute­re­tur, ta­men prop­ter pu­pil­lum et ego viam re­ti­neo. 1Si is, qui noc­tur­nam aquam ha­bet, in­ter­diu per con­sti­tu­tum ad amis­sio­nem tem­pus usus fue­rit, amis­it noc­tur­nam ser­vi­tu­tem, qua usus non est. idem est in eo, qui cer­tis ho­ris aquae duc­tum ha­bens aliis usus fue­rit nec ul­la par­te ea­rum ho­ra­rum.

10Paulus, On Plautius, Book XV. Where I and my ward hold land in common, even though we both do not make use of a right of way attached to the same, I retain the right of way on account of the benefit to the ward. 1Where a party has a right to make use of water at night, but only uses it during the day for the period established by law for the loss of a servitude, he loses the right to make use of it at night, because he failed to exercise his privilege. The same rule applies to a party who has a right to use an aqueduct during certain hours, and makes use of it at others, and not during any part of the hours which are mentioned.

11Mar­cel­lus li­bro quar­to di­ges­to­rum. Is cui via vel ac­tus de­be­ba­tur, ut ve­hi­cu­li cer­to ge­ne­re ute­re­tur, alio ge­ne­re fue­rat usus: vi­dea­mus ne amis­e­rit ser­vi­tu­tem et alia sit eius con­di­cio, qui am­plius one­ris quam li­cuit ve­xe­rit, ma­gis­que hic plus quam aliud egis­se vi­dea­tur: sic­uti la­tio­re iti­ne­re usus es­set aut si plu­ra iu­men­ta ege­rit quam li­cuit aut aquae ad­mis­cue­rit aliam. id­eo­que in om­ni­bus is­tis quaes­tio­ni­bus ser­vi­tus qui­dem non amit­ti­tur, non au­tem con­ce­di­tur plus quam pac­tum est in ser­vi­tu­te ha­be­re. 1He­res, cum le­ga­tus es­set fun­dus sub con­di­cio­ne, im­po­suit ei ser­vi­tu­tes: ex­tin­guen­tur, si le­ga­ti con­di­cio ex­is­tat. vi­dea­mus, an ad­quisi­tae se­quan­tur le­ga­ta­rium: et ma­gis di­cen­dum est, ut se­quan­tur.

11Marcellus, Digest, Book IV. Where a party who was entitled to a right of way or a right to drive, provided he made use of vehicles of a certain kind, used one of another kind; let us consider whether he has not lost his servitude, and whether the case is not different where a party has been transporting a heavier load than he had a right to do; for the latter may be held to have made an excessive use of his right of way rather than to have done so wrongfully; just as if he had used a wider road, or had driven more beasts of burden than he should have done, or had obtained water from some ether source. Therefore, in all these instances, the servitude is not lost, but the party is not permitted to have as a servitude more than is included in the contract. 1Where land was left as a legacy under a condition, and the heir imposed certain servitudes upon it; if the condition of the legacy is complied with, the servitude will be extinguished. Let us consider whether if they had been acquired by the land, they would follow the legacy for the benefit of the legatee, and the better opinion is that they would.

12Cel­sus li­bro vi­cen­si­mo ter­tio di­ges­to­rum. Qui fun­dum alie­num bo­na fi­de emit, iti­ne­re quod ei fun­do de­be­tur usus est: re­ti­ne­tur id ius iti­ne­ris: at­que et­iam si pre­ca­rio aut vi de­iec­to do­mi­no pos­si­det: fun­dus enim qua­li­ter se ha­bens ita, cum in suo ha­bi­tu pos­ses­sus est, ius non de­per­it, ne­que re­fert, ius­te nec ne pos­si­deat, qui ta­lem eum pos­si­det. qua­re for­tius et si aqua per ri­vum sua spon­te per­flu­xit, ius aquae du­cen­dae re­ti­ne­tur. quod et Sa­b­ino rec­te pla­cet, ut apud Ne­ra­tium li­bro quar­to mem­bra­na­rum scrip­tum est.

12Celsus, Digest, Book XXIII. Where a party in good faith purchases land which did not belong to the vendor, and uses a right of way which is attached to the land, the right will be retained; and this also will be the case even if he is a possessor by sufferance, or, after the owner has been ejected by force; for where land is invested with a certain character so that it is held in possession in that condition, the right is not lost; and it does not make any difference whether or not the party in possession, who holds it as it is, does so legally or not. Wherefore, it may be stated even more positively, that if water flows through a channel of itself, the right of conducting it there is retained; which opinion was very properly held by Sabinus, and is mentioned in Neratius in the Fourth Book of Parchments.

13Mar­cel­lus li­bro sep­ti­mo de­ci­mo di­ges­to­rum. Si quis ex fun­do, cui viam vi­ci­nus de­be­ret, ven­di­dis­set lo­cum pro­xi­mum ser­vien­ti fun­do non im­po­si­ta ser­vi­tu­te et in­tra le­gi­ti­mum tem­pus, quo ser­vi­tu­tes per­eunt, rur­sus eum lo­cum ad­quisis­set, ha­bi­tu­rus est ser­vi­tu­tem, quam vi­ci­nus de­buis­set.

13Marcellus, Digest, Book XVII. Where a party who owns an estate entitled to a right of way over neighboring land sells a portion of the same adjoining the servient estate, but does not impose the servitude, and before the prescribed time by which a servitude is lost has elapsed, again acquires the portion which he sold, he will be entitled to the servitude which his neighbor owed.

14Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Si lo­cus, per quem via aut iter aut ac­tus de­be­ba­tur, im­pe­tu flu­mi­nis oc­cu­pa­tus es­set et in­tra tem­pus, quod ad amit­ten­dam ser­vi­tu­tem suf­fi­cit, al­lu­vio­ne fac­ta re­sti­tu­tus est, ser­vi­tus quo­que in pris­ti­num sta­tum re­sti­tui­tur: quod si id tem­pus prae­ter­ie­rit, ut ser­vi­tus amit­ta­tur, re­no­va­re eam co­gen­dus est. 1Cum via pu­bli­ca vel flu­mi­nis im­pe­tu vel rui­na amis­sa est, vi­ci­nus pro­xi­mus viam prae­sta­re de­bet.

14Javolenus, On Cassius, Book X. Where a place subject to a right of way or a right to walk or drive is overflowed by a river, and before the time established for the loss of the servitude has elapsed, the land is restored by a deposit of alluvium, the servitude is also restored to its former condition. If, however, so much time should elapse that the servitude is lost, the owner of the land can be compelled to renew it. 1Where a highway is destroyed by the overflow of a river, or by the destruction of a building, the nearest neighbor must furnish a roadway.

15Idem li­bro se­cun­do epis­tu­la­rum. Si, cum ser­vi­tus mi­hi per plu­res fun­dos de­be­re­tur, me­dium fun­dum ad­quisi­vi, ma­ne­re ser­vi­tu­tem pu­to, quia to­tiens ser­vi­tus con­fun­di­tur, quo­tiens uti ea is ad quem per­ti­neat non pot­est: me­dio au­tem fun­do ad­quisi­to pot­est con­sis­te­re, ut per pri­mum et ul­ti­mum iter de­bea­tur.

15The Same, Epistles, Book II. Where I am entitled to a servitude over several tracts of land, and I acquire one of the tracts situated between two others, I think that the servitude remains, for a servitude is merged only when the party to whom it belongs cannot make use of it; but where he has acquired land between two other tracts, it may be held that he is entitled to a right of way through the first and last of these.

16Pro­cu­lus li­bro pri­mo epis­tu­la­rum. Aquam, quae orie­ba­tur in fun­do vi­ci­ni, plu­res per eun­dem ri­vum iu­re du­ce­re so­li­ti sunt, ita ut suo quis­que die a ca­pi­te du­ce­ret, pri­mo per eun­dem ri­vum eum­que com­mu­nem, de­in­de ut quis­que in­fe­rior erat, suo quis­que pro­prio ri­vo, et unus sta­tu­to tem­po­re, quo ser­vi­tus amit­ti­tur, non du­xit. ex­is­ti­mo eum ius du­cen­dae aquae amis­sis­se nec per ce­te­ros qui du­xe­runt eius ius usur­pa­tum es­se: pro­prium enim cu­ius­que eo­rum ius fuit ne­que per alium usur­pa­ri po­tuit. quod si plu­rium fun­do iter aquae de­bi­tum es­set, per unum eo­rum om­ni­bus his, in­ter quos is fun­dus com­mu­nis fuis­set, usur­pa­ri po­tuis­set. item si quis eo­rum, qui­bus aquae duc­tus ser­vi­tus de­be­ba­tur et per eun­dem ri­vum aquam du­ce­bant, ius aquae du­cen­dae non du­cen­do eam amis­it, ni­hil iu­ris eo no­mi­ne ce­te­ris, qui ri­vo ute­ban­tur, ad­cre­vit id­que com­mo­dum eius est, per cu­ius fun­dum id iter aquae, quod non uten­do pro par­te unius amis­sum est: li­ber­ta­te enim hu­ius par­tis ser­vi­tu­tis frui­tur.

16Proculus, Epistles, Book I. Several persons by reason of a right were accustomed to conduct through the same canal water which had its source on the land of a neighbor, in such a way that each one, on a certain day allotted to him, conducted the water from its source through a ditch which was held in common, and then through one of his own, each succeeding the other who was immediately above him; and one of them failed to conduct any water during the time established by law for the loss of a servitude. I think that he lost the right to conduct the water, for it was not exercised by the others who did conduct it, and this right belonged to each one of the parties as his own, and could not be exercised by another. But where a water-course was attached to land belonging to several parties, it could have been used by one of them for the benefit of all those by whom the land was held in common. Again, where one of the parties entitled to a right of conducting water, and who did conduct it through the same channel loses the right to do so by failure to use his privilege, no right for this reason will accrue to the others who used the channel; and the benefit of the right which was lost as to the share of one party by non-user will belong to him through whose land was traversed by the water-course, and he would enjoy freedom from this much of the servitude.

17Pom­po­nius li­bro un­de­ci­mo ex va­riis lec­tio­ni­bus. La­beo ait, si is, qui haus­tum ha­bet, per tem­pus, quo ser­vi­tus amit­ti­tur, ie­rit ad fon­tem nec aquam hau­se­rit, iter quo­que eum amis­sis­se.

17Pomponius, Various Passages, Book XI. Labeo says that if anyone who has a right to draw water should, during the time by the lapse of which a servitude is lost, go to a spring but not draw any water, he will lose the right of way also.

18Pau­lus li­bro quin­to de­ci­mo ad Sa­binum. Si quis alia aqua usus fue­rit, quam de qua in ser­vi­tu­te im­po­nen­da ac­tum est, ser­vi­tus amit­ti­tur. 1Tem­pus, quo non est usus prae­ce­dens fun­di do­mi­nus, cui ser­vi­tus de­be­tur, im­pu­ta­tur ei, qui in eius lo­co suc­ces­sit. 2Si, cum ius ha­be­res im­mit­ten­di, vi­ci­nus sta­tu­to tem­po­re ae­di­fi­ca­tum non ha­bue­rit id­eo­que nec tu im­mit­te­re poteris, non id­eo ma­gis ser­vi­tu­tem amit­tes, quia non pot­est vi­de­ri usu­ce­pis­se vi­ci­nus tuus li­ber­ta­tem ae­dium sua­rum, qui ius tuum non in­ter­pel­la­vit.

18Paulus, On Sabinus, Book XV. Where anyone uses other water than that which is agreed upon at the time when the servitude was imposed, the servitude is lost. 1The time during which the last owner of the land to which a servitude is attached did not use the water is counted against the party who succeeds to his place. 2If you have the right to insert a beam into an adjacent house, and your neighbor has not built it within the time prescribed by law, and therefore you are unable to insert it, you do not, for that reason, lose your right; because your neighbor cannot be considered to have acquired by usucaption freedom from the servitude to which his house was subject, since he never interrupted the use of your right.

19Pom­po­nius li­bro tri­gen­si­mo se­cun­do ad Sa­binum. Si par­tem fun­di ven­den­do le­ge ca­ve­rim, uti per eam par­tem in re­li­quum fun­dum meum aquam du­ce­rem, et sta­tu­tum tem­pus in­ter­ces­se­rit, an­te­quam ri­vum fa­ce­rem, ni­hil iu­ris amit­to, quia nul­lum iter aquae fue­rit, sed ma­net mi­hi ius in­te­grum: quod si fe­cis­sem iter ne­que usus es­sem, amit­tam. 1Si per fun­dum meum viam ti­bi le­ga­ve­ro et ad­ita mea he­redi­ta­te per con­sti­tu­tum tem­pus ad amit­ten­dam ser­vi­tu­tem igno­ra­ve­ris eam ti­bi le­ga­tam es­se, amit­tes viam non uten­do. quod si in­tra idem tem­pus, an­te­quam re­sci­res ti­bi le­ga­tam ser­vi­tu­tem, tuum fun­dum ven­di­de­ris, ad emp­to­rem via per­ti­ne­bit, si re­li­quo tem­po­re ea usus fue­rit, quia sci­li­cet tua es­se coe­pe­rat: ut iam nec ius re­pu­dian­di le­ga­tum ti­bi pos­sit con­tin­ge­re, cum ad te fun­dus non per­ti­neat.

19Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XXXII. If, when selling a portion of my land, I provide in the contract that I shall have a right to conduct water over that portion to the remainder of my premises, and the time prescribed by law elapses before I excavate a ditch, I do not lose any right, as there is no place for the water to flow, and my right remains unimpaired; but if I dug the ditch and did not use it, I would lose my right. 1Ad Dig. 8,6,19,1Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. III, § 643, Note 2.If I bequeath to you a right of way over my land, and, my estate having been entered upon, you should, for the time fixed by law for the loss of a servitude, remain ignorant that this right had been left to you; you will lose the right of way by failure to make use of it. But if, before the time had expired, you sell your land without having ascertained that the servitude had been bequeathed to you, the right of way will belong to the purchaser, if he should make use of it for the remaining time, because, in fact it had already commenced to be yours, and it might happen that you would never have the right even to reject the legacy, as the land would not belong to you.

20Scae­vo­la li­bro pri­mo re­gu­la­rum. Usu re­ti­ne­tur ser­vi­tus, cum ip­se cui de­be­tur uti­tur qui­ve in pos­ses­sio­nem eius est aut mer­cen­na­rius aut hos­pes aut me­di­cus qui­ve ad vi­si­tan­dum do­mi­num venit vel co­lo­nus aut fruc­tua­rius:

20Scævola, Rules, Book I. A servitude is retained by use when it is made use of by the party entitled to it or who is in possession of the same, or by his hired servant, his guest, his physician, or anyone who comes to pay him a visit, or his tenant, or an usufructuary:

21Pau­lus li­bro quin­to sen­ten­tia­rum. fruc­tua­rius li­cet suo no­mi­ne.

21Paulus, Sentences, Book V. Even though the usufructuary should enjoy it in his own name;

22Scae­vo­la li­bro pri­mo re­gu­la­rum. De­ni­que qui­cum­que qua­si de­bi­ta via usus fue­rit,

22Scævola, Rules, Book I. In fine, whoever makes use of the right of way just as if he is entitled to do so,

23Pau­lus li­bro quin­to sen­ten­tia­rum. (si­ve ad fun­dum nos­trum fa­cit, vel ex fun­do)

23Paulus, Sentences, Book V. Whether he uses it in order to approach our land or to leave it,

24Scae­vo­la li­bro pri­mo re­gu­la­rum. li­cet ma­lae fi­dei pos­ses­sor sit, re­ti­ne­bi­tur ser­vi­tus.

24Scævola, Rules, Book I. Even though he may be a possessor in bad faith, the servitude will be retained.

25Pau­lus li­bro quin­to sen­ten­tia­rum. Ser­vi­tu­te usus non vi­de­tur ni­si is, qui suo iu­re uti se cre­di­dit: id­eo­que si quis pro via pu­bli­ca vel pro al­te­rius ser­vi­tu­te usus sit, nec in­ter­dic­tum nec ac­tio uti­li­ter com­pe­tit.

25Ad Dig. 8,6,25Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 163, Note 6.Paulus, Sentences, Book V. A party is not held to use a servitude except when he believes that he is exercising a right which belongs to him; and therefore where anyone makes use of it as a highway or as a servitude belonging to another, he will not be entitled to an interdict or to any other legal proceeding.