De itinere actuque privato
(Concerning the interdict which has reference to private rights of way.)
1 Ulpianus libro septuagensimo ad edictum. Praetor ait: ‘Quo itinere actuque privato, quo de agitur, vel via hoc anno nec vi nec clam nec precario ab illo usus es, quo minus ita utaris, vim fieri veto’. 1Hoc interdictum prohibitorium est, pertinens ad tuendas rusticas tantummodo servitutes. 2Hoc interdicto praetor non inquirit, utrum habuit iure servitutem impositam an non, sed hoc tantum, an itinere actuque hoc anno usus sit non vi non clam non precario, et tuetur eum, licet eo tempore, quo interdictum redditur, usus non sit. sive igitur habuit ius viae sive non habuit, in ea condicione est, ut ad tuitionem praetoris pertineat, si modo anno usus est vel modico tempore, id est non minus quam triginta diebus. neque ad praesens tempus refertur usus, quia plerumque itineribus vel via non semper utimur, nisi cum usus exegerit ita. 3Annui temporis spatio conclusit usum. annum ex die interdicti retrorsum computare debemus. 4Si quis hoc interdicto utatur, sufficit alterutrum probare vel iter vel actum in usu habuisse. 5Iulianus ait, quoad usque ingressus est, eo usque ei interdictum competere: quod verum est. 6Vivianus recte ait eum, qui propter incommoditatem rivi aut propterea, quia via publica interrupta erat, per proximi vicini agrum iter fecerit, quamvis id frequenter fecit, non videri omnino usum, itaque inutile esse interdictum, non quasi precario usum, sed quasi nec usum. ergo secundum hoc neutro usus videtur: multo enim minus illo usus est, per quem non ivit propter incommoditatem rivi aut propterea, quia via praerupta erat. idem erit dicendum et si non erat via publica, sed iter privatum: nam et hic eadem quaestio est. 7Is, cuius colonus aut hospes aut quis alius iter ad fundum fecit, usus videtur itinere vel actu vel via, et idcirco interdictum habebit: et haec ita Pedius scribit et adicit etiamsi ignoravit, cuius fundus esset, per quem iret, retinere eum servitutem. 8Si quis autem, cum putaret fundum ad se pertinere, suo nomine iter fecerit amicus meus, utique sibi, non mihi interdictum adquisisse intellegitur. 9Si quis propter inundationem usus non sit itinere actuque hoc anno, cum superiore usus sit, potest repetita die hoc interdicto uti per in integrum restitutionem ex illa parte ‘si qua mihi iusta causa esse videbitur’. sed et si per vim hoc ei contigerit, in integrum eum restitui oportere Marcellus probat. praeterea et aliis casibus interdictum repetita die competit, ex quibus in integrum quis restitutionem impetrare solet. 10Praeterea sciendum est, si dilatione data adversario futurum est, ut causa interdicti mei deterior fiat, aequissimum esse repetita die reddi interdictum. 11Si tibi fundum precario concessero, cui via debebatur, deinde tu a domino fundi precario rogaveris, ut ea via ad eum fundum utaris: an noceat tibi exceptio, si adversus eum velis interdicere, a quo precario viam rogasti? et magis est, ut noceat, idque colligi potest ex eo, quod Iulianus scribit in specie huiusmodi. quaerit enim, si ego tibi fundum precario dedero, cui via debebatur, et tu rogaveris precario, ut ea via utaris: nihilo minus utile interdictum mihi esse, quia, sicuti me precarium rei meae non tenet, ita nec per te precario possidere intellegor: quotiens enim colonus meus aut is, cui precario fundum dedi, via utitur, ego ire intellegor, propter quod et recte dico me itinere usum. quae ratio, inquit, efficit, ut et, si ego viam precario rogavero et tibi fundum precario dedero, quamvis hac mente ieris, quasi fundo meo deberetur, inutile esset interdictum et precario eo itinere usus esse videar, non immerito: non enim opinio tua, sed mea quaerenda est. tu tamen, credo, poteris interdicto uti, etsi de hoc nihil scribat Iulianus. 12Si quis supra dicto tempore anni non vi non clam non precario itinere usus sit, verum postea non sit usus, sed clam precariove, videndum est, an ei noceat. et magis est, ut nihil ei noceat, quod attinet ad interdictum:
1 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXX. The Prætor says: “I forbid you to prevent the enjoyment of the private road or way in question, as you have done during the past year; unless you have obtained the use of the same from your adversary, either by violence, clandestinely, or under a precarious title.” 1This interdict is prohibitory, and only has in view the preservation of rustic servitudes. 2In granting this interdict, the Prætor does not inquire whether the applicant has a servitude imposed by law or not, but only whether he has used the right of way for the present year, without employing violence, or secretly, or under a precarious title, and he protects him, although he may not be using the right of way at the time when the interdict is granted. Therefore, whether he is entitled to the right of way, or whether he is not, he is in a position to claim the protection of the Prætor, provided he has made use of his right during a year, or for a reasonable period, that is to say, for not less than thirty days. This enjoyment has no reference to the present time, for, in most instances, we do not use a road constantly, but only when necessity demands it. Hence the Prætor restricted its use to the term of a year. 3We should compute the year back from the date of the interdict. 4If anyone makes use of this interdict, it will be sufficient to prove one of two things, namely, that he has used the road either to walk upon, or to drive over. 5Julianus says that the interdict will lie in favor of the plaintiff until he has entered upon the road, which is true. 6Vivianus very properly says that where anyone, on account of the inconvenience caused by a stream, or because the public highway has been obstructed, makes a new road through the field of a neighbor, he is, by no means, understood to acquire the use of it, even if he does this frequently; hence the interdict cannot be employed by him, not for the reason that he has used the road by a precarious title, but because he has not used it at all. According to this, he is not considered to have used either road, since he has still less used the old one over which he did not travel, on account of the inconvenience caused by the stream, or because it was obstructed. The same rule must also be said to apply where it was not a public highway, but a private road which was obstructed, for, in this instance, the question is the same. 7If a tenant, a guest, or anyone else makes a road through the land of another, the proprietor will be considered to have used it, and therefore he will be entitled to the interdict; and this was also mentioned by Pedius, who added that, if he did not know through whose land he had passed, he would retain the servitude. 8If, however, I should make a road through land which a friend of mine thinks belongs to him, he will be understood to be entitled to the interdict for his own benefit, and not for mine. 9If anyone has not used a right of way for the past year, on account of an inundation, but did use it the year before, he can avail himself of this interdict by changing the date, and will be entitled to complete restitution under the clause of the interdict, “if there seems to me to be any good reason.” If, however, he has been prevented by violence from using the right of way, Marcellus thinks that he must be granted complete restitution. Moreover, the interdict with the changed date can be employed in other cases, in which a party is ordinarily entitled to demand complete restitution. 10It must also be noted that, where delay is granted to my adversary, and my case under the interdict will be prejudiced thereby, it is only just that the date of the interdict should be changed. 11If I have conveyed to you under a precarious title a tract of land to which a right of way is due, and you apply to the owner of the adjacent premises held under a precarious title, to permit you to use the said right of way, will you be barred by an exception, if you wish to employ the interdict against him to whom you have applied for permission to use the right of way under a precarious title? The better opinion is that you will be barred; and this can be gathered from what Julianus said in a case of the same kind. For he asks, if I should convey to you a tract of land by a precarious title, to which a right of way is due, and you obtain the right to use the road by a precarious title, I can still avail myself of the interdict, because, as the precarious title does not bind me, so I am not considered to be in possession by anything which you may have done under such a title. For whenever my tenant, or the person to whom I conveyed the land by a precarious title, uses the road, I am understood to use it; for which reason I very properly say that I am enjoying the use of it. Hence he says the result will be that, if I have obtained the right of way by a precarious title, and I afterwards convey the land to you under the same title, and although you travelled upon the road with the belief that the right was due to my land, the interdict cannot be employed by me, and I will, not without reason, be held to have used the road by a precarious title, for not your opinion but mine should be considered. I think, however, that you can avail yourself of the interdict, although Julianus says nothing on this point. 12If anyone has used the right of way for the above-mentioned term of a year, without employing violence, or acting clandestinely, or relying on a precarious title, but has not used it since, or has done so clandestinely, or under a precarious title, let us see whether this will prejudice his rights. The better opinion is that it will not prejudice them in any way, so far as the interdict is concerned.
2 Paulus libro sexagensimo sexto ad edictum. nec enim corrumpi aut mutari, quod recte transactum est, superveniente delicto potest.
2 Paulus, On the Edict, Book LXVI. Any right which has been properly acquired cannot be extinguished or changed by any defect which may supervene.
3 Ulpianus libro septuagensimo ad edictum. Inde etiam illud Labeo scribit: si, cum a me recte via utebaris, fundum vendidero, per quem utebaris, deinde emptor te prohibuit: licet clam videaris ab eo uti (nam qui prohibitus utitur, clam utitur), tamen interdictum tibi competere intra annum, quia hoc anno non vi non clam non precario usus es. 1Item sciendum est non tantum eum clam via uti, qui ipse prohibitus utitur, verum eum quoque, per quem quis id ius retinebat, si eo prohibito, per quem retinebat, utatur. plane si ignoravi prohibitum et persevero uti, nihil mihi nocere dicendum est. 2Si quis ab auctore meo vi aut clam aut precario usus est, recte a me via uti prohibetur et interdictum ei inutile est, quia a me videtur vi vel clam vel precario possidere, qui ab auctore meo vitiose possidet. nam et Pedius scribit, si vi aut clam aut precario ab eo sit usus, in cuius locum hereditate vel emptione aliove quo iure successi, idem esse dicendum: cum enim successerit quis in locum eorum, aequum non est nos noceri hoc, quod adversus eum non nocuit, in cuius locum successimus. 3In hoc interdicto examinatur, quanti eius interesset via non prohiberi sive itinere. 4Uti videmur servitutibus etiam per servos vel colonos vel amicos vel etiam hospites et fere per eos omnes, qui nobis retinent servitutes: sed enim per fructuarium quidem servitus retinetur, per fructuarium autem interdictum hoc domino non competere Iulianus ait. 5Idem Iulianus scribit, si meus usus fructus in fundo tuo, proprietas vero tua fuerit et uterque nostrum per vicini fundum ierit, utile interdictum de itinere nos habere: et sive forte ab extraneo fructuarius prohibeatur, sive etiam a domino, sed et si dominus a fructuario, competet: nam et si quilibet prohibeat ire, interdictum adversus eum competit. 6Hoc interdictum et ei competit, qui donationis causa fundi vacuam possessionem adeptus est. 7Si quis ex mandatu meo fundum emerit, aequissimum est mihi hoc interdictum dari ‘ut ille usus est’ qui mandatu meo emit. 8Sed et si quis usum fructum emit vel usum vel cui legatus est et traditus, uti hoc interdicto poterit. 9Hoc amplius et is, cui dotis causa fundus traditus est, experiri hoc interdicto poterit. 10Et generaliter ex omnibus causis, quae instar habent venditionis vel alterius contractus, dicendum est hoc interdicto locum fore. 11Ait praetor: ‘Quo itinere actuque hoc anno non vi non clam non precario ab alio usus es, quo minus id iter actumque, ut tibi ius esset, reficias, vim fieri veto. qui hoc interdicto uti volet, is adversario damni infecti, quod per eius vitium datum sit, caveat’. 12Utilitas suasit hoc quoque interdictum proponere: namque consequens erat eum qui itinere utitur interdictum proponere, ut refici iter possit: quemadmodum enim alias uti potest itinere vel actu commode, quam si refecerit? corrupto enim itinere minus commode frui aut agi potest. 13Hoc autem a superiori distat, quod illo quidem interdicto omnes uti possunt, qui hoc anno usi sunt: hoc autem interdicto eum demum uti posse, qui hoc anno usus est et ius sibi esse reficiendi oporteat. ius autem esse videtur ei, cui servitus debetur. itaque qui hoc interdicto utitur, duas res debet docere, et hoc anno se usum et ei servitutem competere: ceterum si desit alterutrum, deficit interdictum, nec immerito. qui enim vult ire agere, tantisper, quoad de servitute constet, non debet de iure suo docere: quid enim perdit, qui eum patitur hoc facere qui hoc anno fecit? enimvero qui vult reficere, aliquid novi facit neque debet ei in alieno permitti id moliri, nisi vere habet servitutem. 14Fieri autem potest, ut qui ius eundi habeat et agendi, reficiendi ius non habeat, quia in servitute constituenda cautum sit, ne ei reficiendi ius sit, aut sic, ut, si velit reficere, usque ad certum modum reficiendi ius sit: merito ergo ad refectionem se praetor rettulit: ‘ut tibi’, inquit, ‘ius est, reficias’. ‘uti ius est’ hoc est sic uti per servitutem impositam licet. 15Reficere sic accipimus ad pristinam formam iter et actum reducere, hoc est ne quis dilatet aut producat aut deprimat aut exaggeret: aliud est enim reficere, longe aliud facere. 16Apud Labeonem quaeritur, si pontem quis novum velit facere viae muniendae causa, an ei permittatur: et ait permittendum, quasi pars sit refectionis huiusmodi munitio. et ego puto veram Labeonis sententiam, si modo sine hoc commeari non possit.
3 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXX. Labeo refers to the following case, namely: “If you are using a right of way which you have legally obtained from me, and I sell the land on which the right is imposed, and the purchaser afterwards prevents you from using it, although you may be considered to be using it clandestinely, so far as he is concerned (for anyone who makes use of a right, after having been forbidden to do so, uses it clandestinely); still, the interdict will lie in your favor for a year, because, during this year, there was a time when you made use of the right without the employment of violence, or without doing so clandestinely, or under a precarious title.” 1It must be noted that a person is considered to make use of a right of way clandestinely, not only after he has been forbidden to do so, but also when he uses it after he from whom he acquired the right has been prohibited. It is clear that, if I was not aware that he had been forbidden to use it, and continue to do so, it must be said that I will not be injured. 2Where anyone has obtained the use of a right of way through my agent by having employed violence, or has acted clandestinely, or holds it by a precarious title, he can be prevented by me from using it, and he cannot avail himself of the interdict, because he who possesses by a defective title obtained through my agent is considered to have possession from me by violence, clandestinely, or under a precarious title. Pedius says that, if anyone, in either of these ways, has acquired possession from a person whom he succeeded by inheritance, by purchase, or by any other title, the same rule will apply. For where we succeed to the rights of others, it is not just that we should be injured by something which did not injure him whom we succeed. 3In this interdict, the value of the interest which the party had in not having been prevented from using the right of way is taken into account. 4We are considered to enjoy servitudes through our slaves, our tenants, our friends, or our guests, and by almost all those who hold the servitudes in our name. Julianus, however, says that a servitude is not retained for the owner of the property by an usufructuary, and that this interdict will not lie in favor of the owner through the usufructuary. 5Julianus also says that if I have an usufruct in your land whose ownership is actually vested in you, and both of us pass through the land of a neighbor, we can both avail ourselves of this interdict. If the usufructuary should be prevented from enjoying his right by a stranger, or by the owner, or the latter is interrupted by the usufructuary, the interdict will apply; for it can be employed against anyone whomsoever that interferes with the right of way. 6This interdict will also lie in favor of one who obtains possession of a tract of land by reason of a donation. 7Where anyone purchases land by my order, it is perfectly just that this interdict should be granted me, in order that he who bought the property under my direction should enjoy his right. 8If, however, anyone purchases the usufruct or use of land, or it is bequeathed or transferred to him, he will be entitled to this interdict. 9Further, anyone to whom land has been transferred by way of dowry can institute proceedings under this interdict. 10And, generally speaking, it must be said that there will be ground for this interdict in all cases where a right of way had been obtained by sale, or by any other contract. 11The Prætor says: “I forbid anyone to forcibly prevent you from repairing a road or path, and restoring it to the same condition in which it was when you enjoyed it during the last year, if you have not used it by employing violence, acting clandestinely, or by virtue of a precarious title. Anyone who wishes to avail himself of this interdict must furnish security to his adversary for any damage which may result from any fault of his.” 12The public welfare also caused the introduction of this interdict, for it was only proper that an interdict should be promulgated for the benefit of him who enjoys a right of way in order to enable him to repair the road. For how can anyone conveniently use a road or path unless he repairs it? For as soon as the road becomes damaged, he who is entitled to the right of way can use and enjoy it to less advantage. 13This interdict differs from the previous one, because all can have recourse to the latter who have used the road for a year; but only those can avail themselves of this interdict who have used the road for a year, and have, in addition, the right to repair it. This right, however, is held to be vested in him to whom the servitude is due. Therefore, anyone who makes use of this interdict must prove two things: first, that he has used the road for a year; and second, that he is entitled to the servitude, for if he fails to establish either of them, the interdict will not apply. Nor is this unreasonable, for if he who wishes to enjoy the right of way until his claim to the servitude is established does not produce the proof of it, what has he lost who suffers him to do what he has already done for a year? But he who desires to repair the road undertakes something new, and ought not to be permitted to attempt this on the land of another, unless he shows that he is actually entitled to the servitude. 14Moreover, it may happen that someone has the right to pass and drive over the premises of another, but does not have the right to repair the road, because, in granting the servitude, it may have been expressly provided that the right to repair the road was not included; or it may have been done in such a way that if the beneficiary should wish to repair it, he would be allowed to do so only in a certain way. Hence the Prætor very properly says, with reference to repairs, “I forbid anyone to prevent you from repairing the road, as you have a right to do,” that is to say, to the extent that you are permitted in accordance with the terms of the servitude imposed. 15We understand by the term “repair,” to restore the road to its former condition, that is to say, that it shall not be widened, or lengthened, lowered, or raised, for it is one thing to repair a road and a very different thing to build it. 16The question is asked by Labeo, if anyone desires to construct a new bridge for the purpose of repairing a road, whether he should be permitted to do so. He says that he should be permitted to do so, because a structure of this kind forms part of the repair of a road. I think that the opinion of Labeo is correct; provided that, if this was not done, one could not travel conveniently back and forth upon the road.
4 Venuleius libro primo interdictorum. Veteres nominatim adiciebant, ut ea quoque, quae ad refectionem utilia essent, adportanti vis non fieret: quod supervacuum est, quoniam qui adportari non patitur ea, sine quibus refici iter non possit, vim facere videtur, quo minus reficiatur. 1Si quis autem, cum posset compendiaria adportare, quae refectioni necessaria sunt longiori itinere velit adportare, ut deteriorem causam eundi faciat, impune ei vis fiet, quia ipse sibi impedimento sit, quo minus reficiat.
4 Venuleius, Interdicts, Book I. The ancients expressly added that violence should not be employed to prevent anyone from bringing materials suitable for repairing a road. This provision is superfluous, as anyone who does not permit materials to be brought without which a road cannot be repaired is considered to use violence to prevent the repairs from being made. 1If, however, anyone who can bring the materials necessary for the repairs by a shorter route prefers to bring them by a longer one, in order to subject him who owes the servitude to annoyance, force can be used against him with impunity, because it is he himself who interferes with the repair of the road.
5 Ulpianus libro vicensimo ad edictum. Apparet ergo eum, qui non patitur haec congeri, vim facere, quo minus quis perficiat. 1Plane si quis, cum posset alia parte agri sine incommodo domini fundi impensam adportare, id egit, ut alia parte adportet, impune ei vim fieri recte placuit. 2Hoc interdictum non solum ipsi, verum successoribus quoque esse dandum non est ambigendum: emptori quoque dabitur et in emptorem. 3Si quis servitutem iure impositam non habeat, habeat autem velut longae possessionis praerogativam ex eo, quod diu usus est servitute, interdicto hoc uti potest. 4Qui hoc interdicto usurus est, de vitio operis cavere adversario debet.
5 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XX. It is apparent that if anyone prevents the materials from being piled up, he employs force to prevent the repairs from being made. 1If anyone, being able to transport the materials through another part of a field without causing any inconvenience to the owner of the land, transports them through some other part, it has been very properly decided that force can be employed to prevent him from doing so. 2There is no doubt that this interdict can not only be granted to the person himself who has been interfered with, but also to his successors. It will also be granted for and against a purchaser. 3If anyone has a servitude that was not legally imposed, but of which he has had the enjoyment for a long time, the fact that he has used it for an extended period will entitle him to employ this interdict. 4He who wishes to avail himself of this interdict should furnish security to his adversary against any injury which may be caused by his acts.
6 Paulus libro sexagensimo sexto ad edictum. Sicut non nocet ei, qui sine vitio usus est, quod eodem anno vitiose usus est, ita emptori heredique non nocebit, quod ipsi vitiose usi sunt, si testator venditorve recte usi sunt.
6 Paulus, On the Edict, Book LXVI. As anyone who has enjoyed a servitude without a defective title suffers no prejudice to his rights, even though, during the past year, he has made use of it under a defective title, so in like manner a purchaser or an heir will not be injured if he has enjoyed a servitude under a defective title, if the vendor or the testator enjoyed it under a good one.
7 Celsus libro vicensimo quinto digestorum. Si per fundum tuum nec vi nec clam nec precario commeavit aliquis, non tamen tamquam id suo iure faceret, sed, si prohiberetur, non facturus, inutile est ei interdictum de itinere actuque: nam ut hoc interdictum competat, ius fundi possedisse oportet.
7 Celsus, Digest, Book XXV. If anyone has passed to and fro through your land without the employment of violence, or without acting clandestinely, or under a precarious title, and still did so without any right, but with the intention of not traversing the land, if he had been forbidden; this interdict will not lie under these circumstances, for, to enable it to do so, the person referred to must possess some right in the land.