De servitute legata
(Concerning the Legacy of Servitudes.)
1 Iulianus libro primo ex Minicio. Qui duas tabernas coniunctas habebat, eas singulas duobus legavit: quaesitum est, si quid ex superiore taberna in inferiorem inaedificatum esset, num inferior oneri ferundo in superioris tabernae loco contineretur. respondit servitutem impositam videri. Iulianus notat: videamus, ne hoc ita verum sit, si aut nominatim haec servitus imposita est aut ita legatum datum est: ‘tabernam meam uti nunc est do lego’.
1 Julianus, On Minicius, Book I. A testator who had two adjoining shops left them to different persons. If either one of the buildings projected over the other, the question might arise whether the one underneath would be obliged to pay the expense of keeping up the other. I was of the opinion that the servitude appeared to be imposed, and Julianus says with reference to this: “Let us see whether this is only true where the servitude has been expressly imposed, or where the legacy was granted as follows: “I give and bequeath my shop in the condition in which it is at present.”
2 Marcellus libro tertio decimo digestorum. Fundum communem habentibus legari potest via, cum et communis servus recte viam stipulatur et, cum duo ei qui ipse viam stipulatus fuerit heredes exstiterint, non corrumpitur stipulatio.
2 Marcellus, Digest, Book XIII. A right of way can be bequeathed to persons holding a tract of land in common, just as a slave held in joint ownership can legally stipulate for a right of way, and the stipulation will not be annulled where two heirs are left by him who stipulated for the right of way.
3 Idem libro vicesimo nono digestorum. Si fundum Maevio et ad eum viam per alium fundum et eundem fundum sine via Titio legasset, si uterque fundum vindicasset, sine via legato fundum cessurum, quia neque adquiri per partem servitus possit. et si prius Maevius fundum vindicaret altero deliberante, posse dubitari, an, si postea Titius omississet, viae legatum salvum esset, et hoc magis videbatur: quamquam si sub condicione quis fundum legasset, viam pure, aut pro parte fundum pure, pro parte sub condicione et viam sine condicione, si pendente ea legati dies cessisset, interiturum fore viae legatum: ut responsum est, cum alteri ex vicinis, qui fundum communem habebant, viam sub condicione, alteri pure legasset et pendente condicione decessisset, quia alterius legatarii persona impedimento esset, quo minus solidus fundus cum via vindicaretur.
3 The Same, Digest, Book XXIX. If anyone should devise a tract of land to Mævius, and a right of way to give access to the same through other land, and then should leave the same tract of land to Titius without the right of way, and both of them should claim the land; the latter should be delivered without the right of way, because a servitude cannot be partially acquired. If, however, Mævius should be the first to claim the land, while the other is deliberating as to whether or not he will accept it, if Titius should afterwards reject the estate, it may be doubted whether the right of way which was bequeathed will continue to exist. This has been held to be the better opinion. But if anyone should devise a tract of land under some condition, and the right of way absolutely; or a part of the land absolutely, and a part of the same under a condition, and the right of way absolutely; and the devise should become due before the condition was fulfilled, the bequest of the right of way will be annulled. The rule is the same where two neighbors of the testator owned a tract of land in common, and he left a right of way to one of them conditionally, and to the other absolutely, and before the condition was fulfilled he died; and this is the case because one of the legatees prevents the other from claiming the entire premises together with a right of way.
4 Iavolenus libro nono epistularum. Si is qui duas aedes habebat unas mihi, alteras tibi legavit et medius paries, qui utrasque aedes distinguat, intervenit, eo iure eum communem nobis esse existimo, quo, si paries tantum duobus nobis communiter esset legatus, ideoque neque me neque te agere posse ius non esse alteri ita immissas habere: nam quod communiter socius habet, et in iure eum habere constitit: itaque de ea re arbiter communi dividundo sumendus est.
4 Javolenus, Epistles, Book IX. Where a man who had two houses left one of them to me and the other to you, and there was a party-wall which separated the buildings, I think that the said wall will belong to us in common, just as if it had been left to us both jointly, and therefore neither you nor I will have any right to prevent the other from inserting a beam into said wall; for it has been established that whenever a joint-owner holds any property he is entitled to all the rights appurtenant to the same. Therefore, in a case of this kind an arbiter must be appointed for the purpose of dividing the common property, if this should become necessary.
5 Papinianus libro sexto decimo quaestionum. Etsi maxime testamenti factio cum servis alienis ex persona dominorum est, ea tamen quae servis relinquuntur ita valent, si liberis relicta possent valere: sic ad fundum domini via servo frustra legatur.
5 Papinianus, Questions, Book XVI. Although the execution of a will for the benefit of the slaves of others especially depends for its validity upon the testamentary capacity of their masters, still, any bequests made to slaves are just as valid as when left to persons who are free. Hence a right of way to obtain access to the land of his master, cannot legally be bequeathed to a slave.
6 Idem libro septimo responsorum. Pater filiae domum legavit eique per domus hereditarias ius transeundi praestari voluit. si filia domum suam habitet, viro quoque ius transeundi praestabitur: alioquin filiae praestari non videbitur. quod si quis non usum transeundi personae datum, sed legatum servitutis esse plenum intellegat, tantundem iuris ad heredem quoque transmittetur: quod hic nequaquam admittendum est, ne, quod affectu filiae datum est, hoc et ad exteros eius heredes transire videatur.
6 The Same, Opinions, Book VII. A father left a house to his daughter, and gave her access to it through other buildings belonging to the estate. If the daughter resides in the house, the right of access will also be granted to her husband; otherwise, it will not be considered as granted to her. If, however, anyone should assert that this right is not merely a personal privilege, but a complete bequest of a servitude, then the right can only be transmitted to the heir. But, in this instance, such a conclusion can, under no circumstances, be admitted, lest what was granted through affection for his daughter might seem to be transmitted to foreign heirs.
7 Paulus libro vicesimo primo quaestionum. Cum a pluribus heredibus institutis via legata est, quia partem non recipit, singuli heredes in solidum conveniuntur, quia et uno ex heredibus adeunte vindicari potest.
7 Paulus, Questions, Book XXI. Where several appointed heirs are charged with a right of way, each of them can be sued for the entire right, because the servitude cannot be divided, for each can claim his legacy, even where only one of the heirs enters upon the estate.