Ne quid in loco publico vel itinere fiat
(Concerning the interdict forbidding anything to be done in a public place or on a highway.)
1 Paulus libro sexagensimo quarto ad edictum. In loco publico praetor prohibet aedificare et interdictum proponit.
1 Paulus, On the Edict, Book LXIV. The Prætor forbids any building to be erected in a public place, and issues an interdict to that effect.
2 Ulpianus libro sexagensimo octavo ad edictum. Praetor ait: ‘Ne quid in loco publico facias inve eum locum immittas, qua ex re quid illi damni detur, praeterquam quod lege senatus consulto edicto decretove principum tibi concessum est. de eo, quod factum erit, interdictum non dabo’. 1Hoc interdictum prohibitorium est. 2Et tam publicis utilitatibus quam privatorum per hoc prospicitur. loca enim publica utique privatorum usibus deserviunt, iure scilicet civitatis, non quasi propria cuiusque, et tantum iuris habemus ad optinendum, quantum quilibet ex populo ad prohibendum habet. propter quod si quod forte opus in publico fiet, quod ad privati damnum redundet, prohibitorio interdicto potest conveniri, propter quam rem hoc interdictum propositum est. 3Publici loci appellatio quemadmodum accipiatur, Labeo definit, ut et ad areas et ad insulas et ad agros et ad vias publicas itineraque publica pertineat. 4Hoc interdictum ad ea loca, quae sunt in fisci patrimonio, non puto pertinere: in his enim neque facere quicquam neque prohibere privatus potest: res enim fiscales quasi propriae et privatae principis sunt. igitur si quis in his aliquid faciat, nequaquam hoc interdictum locum habebit: sed si forte de his sit controversia, praefecti eorum iudices sunt. 5Ad ea igitur loca hoc interdictum pertinet, quae publico usui destinata sunt, ut, si quid illic fiat, quod privato noceret, praetor intercederet interdicto suo. 6Cum quidam velum in maeniano immissum haberet, qui vicini luminibus officiebat, utile interdictum competit: ‘ne quid in publico immittas, qua ex re luminibus Gaii Seii officias’. 7Si quis quod in publico loco positum habuit, reficere voluit, hoc interdicto locum esse Aristo ait ad prohibendum eum reficere. 8Adversus eum, qui molem in mare proiecit, interdictum utile competit ei, cui forte haec res nocitura sit: si autem nemo damnum sentit, tuendus est is, qui in litore aedificat vel molem in mare iacit. 9Si quis in mari piscari aut navigare prohibeatur, non habebit interdictum, quemadmodum nec is, qui in campo publico ludere vel in publico balineo lavare aut in theatro spectare arceatur: sed in omnibus his casibus iniuriarum actione utendum est. 10Merito ait praetor ‘qua ex re quid illi damni detur’: nam quotiensque aliquid in publico fieri permittitur, ita oportet permitti, ut sine iniuria cuiusquam fiat. et ita solet princeps, quotiens aliquid novi operis instituendum petitur, permittere. 11Damnum autem pati videtur, qui commodum amittit, quod ex publico consequebatur, qualequale sit. 12Proinde si cui prospectus, si cui aditus sit deterior aut angustior, interdicto opus est. 13Si quid in loco publico aedificavero, ut ea, quae ex meo ad te nullo iure defluebant, desinant fluere, interdicto me non teneri Labeo putat. 14Plane si aedificium hoc effecerit, ut minus luminis insula tua habeat, interdictum hoc competit. 15Idem ait, si in publico aedificem, deinde hoc aedificium ei obstet, quod tu in publico aedificaveras, cessare hoc interdictum, cum tu quoque illicite aedificaveris, nisi forte tu iure tibi concesso aedificaveras. 16Si quis a principe simpliciter impetraverit, ut in publico loco aedificet, non est credendus sic aedificare, ut cum incommodo alicuius id fiat, neque sic conceditur: nisi forte quis hoc impetraverit. 17Si quis nemine prohibente in publico aedificaverit, non esse eum cogendum tollere, ne ruinis urbs deformetur, et quia prohibitorium est interdictum, non restitutorium. si tamen obstet id aedificium publico usui, utique is, qui operibus publicis procurat, debebit id deponere, aut si non obstet, solarium ei imponere: vectigal enim hoc sic appellatur solarium ex eo, quod pro solo pendatur. 18Si tamen adhuc nullum opus factum fuerit, officio iudicis continetur, uti caveatur non fieri: et ea omnia etiam in persona heredum ceterorumque successorum erunt cavenda. 19Locorum sacrorum diversa causa est: in loco enim sacro non solum facere vetamur, sed et factum restituere iubemur: hoc propter religionem. 20Ait praetor: ‘In via publica itinereve publico facere immittere quid, quo ea via idve iter deterius sit fiat, veto’. 21Viam publicam eam dicimus, cuius etiam solum publicum est: non enim sicuti in privata via, ita et in publica accipimus: viae privatae solum alienum est, ius tantum eundi et agendi nobis competit: viae autem publicae solum publicum est, relictum ad directum certis finibus latitudinis ab eo, qui ius publicandi habuit, ut ea publice iretur commearetur. 22Viarum quaedam publicae sunt, quaedam privatae, quaedam vicinales. publicas vias dicimus, quas Graeci βασιλικάς, nostri praetorias, alii consulares vias appellant. privatae sunt, quas agrarias quidam dicunt. vicinales sunt viae, quae in vicis sunt vel quae in vicos ducunt: has quoque publicas esse quidam dicunt: quod ita verum est, si non ex collatione privatorum hoc iter constitutum est. aliter atque si ex collatione privatorum reficiatur: nam si ex collatione privatorum reficiatur, non utique privata est: refectio enim idcirco de communi fit, quia usum utilitatemque communem habet. 23Privatae viae dupliciter accipi possunt, vel hae, quae sunt in agris, quibus imposita est servitus, ut ad agrum alterius ducant, vel hae, quae ad agros ducunt, per quas omnibus commeare liceat, in quas exitur de via consulari et sic post illam excipit via vel iter vel actus ad villam ducens. has ergo, quae post consularem excipiunt in villas vel in alias colonias ducentes, putem etiam ipsas publicas esse. 24Hoc interdictum tantum ad vias rusticas pertinet, ad urbicas vero non: harum enim cura pertinet ad magistratus. 25Si viae publicae exemptus commeatus sit vel via coartata, interveniunt magistratus. 26Si quis cloacam in viam publicam immitteret exque ea re minus habilis via per cloacam fiat, teneri eum Labeo scribit: immississe enim eum videri. 27Proinde et si fossam quis in fundo suo fecerit, ut ibi aqua collecta in viam decurrat, hoc interdicto tenebitur: immissum enim habere etiam hunc videri. 28Idem Labeo scribit, si quis in suo ita aedificaverit, ut aqua in via collecta restagnet, non teneri eum interdicto, quia non immittat aquam, sed non recipit: Nerva autem melius scribit utrumque teneri. plane si fundus viam publicam contingat et ex eo aqua derivata deteriorem viam faciat, quae tamen aqua ex vicini fundo in tuum veniat: si quidem necesse habeas eam aquam recipere, interdictum locum habebit adversus vicinum tuum: si autem necesse non sit, non teneri vicinum tuum, te tamen teneri: eum enim videri factum habere, qui usum eius aquae habeat. idem Nerva scribit, si tecum interdicto agatur, nihil ultra te facere cogendum, quam ut arbitratu eius qui tecum experitur cum vicino experiaris: ceterum aliter observantibus futurum, ut tenearis etiam, si iam bona fide cum vicino egeris neque per te stet, quo minus arbitratu actoris cum vicino experiaris. 29Idem ait, si odore solo locus pestilentiosus fiat, non esse ab re de re ea interdicto uti. 30Hoc interdictum etiam ad ea, quae pascuntur in via publica itinereve publico et deteriorem faciant viam, locum habet. 31Deinde ait praetor: ‘quo ea via idque iter deterius sit fiat’. hoc sive statim deterior via sit, sive postea: ad hoc enim pertinent haec verba ‘sic fiat’: etenim quaedam sunt talia, ut statim facto suo noceant, quaedam talia, ut in praesentiarum quidem nihil noceant, in futurum autem nocere debeant. 32Deteriorem autem viam fieri sic accipiendum est, si usus eius ad commeandum corrumpatur, hoc est ad eundum vel agendum, ut, cum plane fuerit, clivosa fiat vel ex molli aspera aut angustior ex latiore aut palustris ex sicca. 33Scio tractatum, an permittendum sit specus et pontem per viam publicam facere: et plerique probant interdicto eum teneri: non enim oportere eum deteriorem viam facere. 34Hoc interdictum perpetuum et populare est condemnatioque ex eo facienda est, quanti actoris intersit. 35Praetor ait: ‘Quod in via publica itinereve publico factum immissum habes, quo ea via idve iter deterius sit fiat, restituas’. 36Hoc interdictum ex eadem causa proficiscitur, ex qua et superius: et tantum interest, quod hoc restitutorium, illud prohibitorium est. 37Hoc interdicto non is tenetur, qui in via publica aliquid fecit, sed is, qui factum habet. proinde si alius fecit, alius factum habet, is tenetur, qui factum habet: et est hoc utilius, quia is potest restituere, qui factum immissum habet. 38Habere eum dicimus, qui utitur et iure possessionis fruitur, sive ipse opus fecit sive ex causa emptionis vel conductionis vel legato vel hereditate vel quo alio modo adquisiit. 39Unde Ofilius putat eum, qui pro derelicto reliquit id opus quod fecit, si viam publicam corrupit et reliquit, non teneri hoc interdicto: non enim habet quod fecit. sed an in eum actio debeat dari, videbimus. et puto utile interdictum competere, ut, quod in via publica aedificavit, restituat. 40Si ex fundo tuo arbor in viam publicam sic ceciderit, ut itineri sit impedimento, eamque pro derelicto habeas, non teneri Labeo scribit: si tamen, inquit, actor sua impensa arborem tollere paratus fuerit, recte tecum acturum interdicto de via publica reficienda. sed si pro derelicto non habeas, recte tecum agi hoc interdicto. 41Idem Labeo scribit, si vicinus meus viam opere corruperit, quamvis opus, quod fecit, tam mihi quam ipsi utile sit, tamen si is vicinus fundi sui causa id fecerit, me tamen non posse hoc interdicto conveniri: si autem communiter hoc opus fieri curaverimus, utrumque nostrum teneri. 42Hoc interdictum locum habet etiam adversus eum, qui dolo malo fecit, quo minus possideret vel haberet: etenim parem esse condicionem oportet eius, qui quid possideat vel habeat, atque eius, cuius dolo malo factum sit, quo minus possideret vel haberet: et mihi videtur vera Labeonis sententia. 43‘Restituas’ inquit. restituere videtur, qui in pristinum statum reducit: quod fit, sive quis tollit id quod factum est vel reponat quod sublatum est. et interdum suo sumptu: nam si ipse, quo qui interdixit, fecerit, vel iussu eius alius, aut ratum habitum sit quod fecit, ipse suis sumptibus debet restituere: si vero nihil horum intervenit, sed habet factum, tunc dicemus patientiam solam eum praestare debere. 44Interdictum hoc non esse temporarium sciendum est: pertinet enim ad publicam utilitatem: condemnatioque ex eo facienda est, quanti actoris intersit tolli quod factum est. 45Praetor ait: ‘Quo minus illi via publica itinereve publico ire agere liceat, vim fieri veto’.
2 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXVIII. The Prætor says: “Nothing shall be done in a public place, or brought there, which will cause any damage to it; except what is permitted by some law, decree of the Senate, Edict, or Rescript of the Emperors, and if anything of this kind is done, I will grant an interdict.” 1This interdict is prohibitory. 2By means of it, the public as well as the private welfare is protected. For public places are intended for the use of private persons, that is to say, as the property of the State, and not as belonging to any individual; and we have only as much right to their enjoyment as anyone of the people has to prevent their being interfered with. For which reason, if any work is done in a public place which tends to the injury of a private individual, the person responsible for it can be proceeded against under the prohibitory interdict which has been introduced for this purpose. 3Labeo defines the term, “public place,” as applying to such localities, houses, fields, highways, and roads as belong to the community at large. 4I do not think that this interdict has reference to places which belong to the Treasury, for no one can do anything in such places, nor can any private person prevent anything from being done there. Property of the Treasury, to a certain extent, belongs to the Emperor as his own. Therefore, if anyone builds anything on said property, there will be no ground for the application of this interdict. If any controversy arises on this point, the Imperial Prefects will be the judges. 5Hence, this interdict relates to places which are intended for the use of the public, and if anything is done there which may injure a private individual, the Prætor can intervene by means of this interdict. 6If anyone has an awning suspended over his portico, which shuts off the light from his neighbor, the interdict will be issued in the following terms: “Do not place anything in the public street which may interfere with the light of Gaius Seius.” 7If anyone wishes to repair anything in a public place, Aristo says that there will be ground for the application of this interdict, in order to prevent him from doing so. 8This interdict is available against anyone who builds a foundation in the sea, by a person who may be injured by it; but if no one sustains any damage, he who builds upon the shore, or constructs a foundation in the sea, should be protected. 9Where anyone is prevented from fishing in, or sailing upon the sea, he will not be entitled to this interdict, just as in the case of a person who is prevented from taking part in games in a public field, or bathing in a public bath, or being present in a theater; but in all these cases an action for reparation of injury must be employed. 10The Prætor very properly says, “where any injury is sustained by the party on this account.” For where anything is allowed to be done in a public place permission should be granted, for it to be done without causing injury to anyone, and the Emperor is accustomed to grant permission when a request is made for the construction of any new work. 11Moreover, injury is considered to be sustained when any benefit of any description whatever, which is derived from a public place, is lost. 12Hence, if the view enjoyed by anyone, or his approach to a public place is interfered with, and diminished, or restricted, this interdict should be employed. 13Labeo thinks if I erect a building in a public place, so as to prevent the water from flowing from my premises upon yours, which they formerly did without any right enjoyed by me, that I will not be liable under the interdict. 14It is clear that if the building which I erected should intercept the light of your house, this interdict will lie. 15He also says that if I erect a building in a public place, and it interferes with one which you have already erected in the same place, this interdict will not apply, as you also have built contrary to law, unless you have done so by virtue of some special privilege which has been granted to you. 16If anyone obtains from the Emperor general permission to build in a public place, it must not be believed that he can erect the building in such a way as to cause inconvenience to anyone; for such a concession is not understood to be granted unless this was expressly stated. 17If anyone constructs a house in a public place without anyone preventing it, he cannot be compelled to remove it, for fear that the city may be marred by its demolition; and because the interdict is prohibitory and not restitutory. If, however, the said building interferes with public use, it should be demolished on the application of the officer in charge of public works; but if it does not interfere with anything, a land tax can be imposed upon it, for the tax receives this name because it is paid on account of the ground. 18But if no work has yet been done, it is the duty of the judge having jurisdiction to require security that it will not be done, and the bond must be drawn up in such a way as to render the heir and other successors liable. 19The rule with reference to sacred places is different, for we not only forbid any work to be done in a sacred place, but where any has been done, we order everything to be restored to its former condition. This rule has been adopted for the sake of religion. 20The Prætor says: “I forbid anything to be built on a public highway or road, or to be placed there, by which the said highway or road is, or may be damaged.” 21By a public highway we mean one whose soil belongs to the people, for we do not understand a private road to mean the same as a public one. In the case of a private road, the soil belongs to another, and we have only the right of walking and driving over it; but the soil of a public highway is owned by the community, and has been established with reference to direction, and within certain limits, by him who had the right to render it public, in order that everyone might travel upon it, and traverse it. 22Some roads are public, some are private, and others are local, belonging to the neighborhood. We call roads public which the Greeks designated as royal, and we name prætorian or consular roads. Private roads are such as some persons style agrarian. Local, or neighborhood roads are those which are situated in villages, or lead to towns; certain authorities also call these public roads. This, however, is only true where they have not been established by the contribution of land by private persons; but it is otherwise if they are repaired at the expense of individuals, for a road is not private on this account. The repairs of the same are common, because such a road is for the common use and benefit. 23Private roads are understood to be of two kinds, some of them are through land upon which a servitude to furnish a right of way to the land of another has been imposed, others give access to certain tracts of land, and anyone can make use of them, after leaving a consular road, when a lane; a path, or a road for driving is found leading to a farm. I think that roads which lead from a consular highway to farms or villages are also public. 24This interdict only applies to roads in the country and not to those in cities, for the magistrates are charged with the care of the latter. 25If traffic is intercepted on a public highway, or it is closed, the magistrates shall intervene. 26If anyone conducts a sewer across a public highway, and, for that reason, it becomes less fit for use, Labeo says that he who placed it there will be liable. 27Hence, if anyone digs a ditch on his own land, and the water collected by it runs over the highway, he will be liable under this interdict, for he will be considered to have obstructed it. 28Labeo also says that if anyone builds a house on his own ground, and the water then collects upon the highway, he will not be liable under the interdict, because he did not cause the water to flow upon the highway, but he merely did not take care of it. Nerva, however, says, more properly, that he will be liable in both instances, as it is clear that if the land adjoins the public highway, the water flowing from it injures the latter; for if the water flows from the land of a neighbor upon yours, and you are compelled to take care of that water, there will be ground for an interdict against your neighbor. If, however, it is not necessary for you to take care of it, your neighbor will not be liable, but you will be; for he who had the use of the water is considered to have committed the act which damaged the highway. Nerva also says that if proceedings under the interdict are instituted against you, you will not be obliged to do anything more, or bring an action against your neighbor to force him to do what will satisfy the person who has sued you. If it should be decided otherwise, you will be considered responsible, even if you have brought a bona fide action against your neighbor, and it is not your fault that the person who sued you is not content with what you have done. 29He also says that if the place where the road is situated becomes unhealthy on account of a bad odor, an interdict cannot be employed on this account. 30This interdict also applies where animals are pastured on a public highway, or road, and injured. 31The Prætor also says, “by which the said highway or road is, or may be damaged.” Therefore this applies, whether the road is immediately damaged, or whether this takes place afterwards, for this is the meaning of the words, “is, or may be.” For there are certain things which injure a road immediately, and others which do not do so at once, but will in the future. 32Moreover, a road is understood to be damaged if it is rendered less available for travel, that is to say, for walking or driving; as, for instance, if, having been level, it becomes hilly; or, having been smooth, it becomes rough; or, having been wide, it becomes narrow; or, having been dry, it becomes muddy. 33I know that the point has been discussed whether an arch or a bridge can be constructed across a public highway. Many authorities hold that the person who does this will be liable under the interdict, because a highway must not be rendered less available for use. 34This interdict is perpetual, and popular, and judgment should be rendered to the extent of the interest of the plaintiff. 35The Prætor says: “You shall restore everything to its former condition, if you have done any work, or placed anything upon the public highway by means of which the said highway or road is, or may be damaged.” 36This interdict is founded upon the same reason as the former one, and the only difference between them is that this is restitutory, and the other prohibitory. 37He is not liable under this interdict who builds anything on the public highway, but he who is in possession of what has been built. Hence, if one person should erect something, and another should hold it, the latter will be liable; and this is more fitting, for he who has control of the obstruction can restore the highway to its original condition. 38We consider him to have possession of the building who holds or enjoys it by the right of possession, whether he himself constructed it or acquired it by purchase, lease, bequest, inheritance, or in any other way. 39Hence Ofilius thinks that if anyone abandons an obstruction which he has raised upon the highway, by which it is injured, he will not be liable under this interdict; for he does not have possession of what he constructed. But let us see whether an action can be granted against him. I think that an interdict will be available to compel him to remove whatever1 he built upon the public highway, and restore the latter to its former condition. 40If a tree falls from your land upon the public highway, in such a way as to obstruct it, and you consider the tree as abandoned, Labeo says that you will not be liable. He adds that if the complainant is ready to remove the tree at his own expense, he can properly proceed against you under the interdict relating to the repair of highways. If, however, you do not consider the tree as abandoned, he can properly proceed against you under this interdict. 41Labeo also says that if my neighbor obstructs the public highway by some work which he does, that is as advantageous to me as to himself, but did this only for the benefit of his own land, I can not be sued under the interdict; but if we caused this work to be performed in common, both of us will be liable. 42This interdict also applies against a person who has fraudulently avoided having possession of, or holding the structure which injures the highway; for he who is in possession of, or holds it, and he who has acted fraudulently to avoid doing so, must be subject to the same restrictions. The opinion of Labeo seems to me to be correct. 43When the Prætor says, “you shall restore it to its former condition,” he is understood to mean that it shall be placed in its original state, which is accomplished either by removing what has been built, or by replacing what has been taken away, and this sometimes at his own expense. For if the party who is sued under the interdict did the work, or someone else did it by his order, or he ratified what the latter had done, he must restore everything to its original condition at his own expense. If, however, nothing of this kind took place, but he merely holds possession of what has been constructed, we, in this instance, say that he must only suffer the work to be removed. 44It must be remembered that this interdict is not a temporary one, for it has reference to the public welfare. Judgment is rendered under it to the extent of the interest of the plaintiff in having the work which has been constructed demolished. 45The Prætor says: “I forbid violence to be employed to prevent anyone from freely passing and driving over a public highway, or road.”
3 Celsus libro trigensimo nono digestorum. Litora, in quae populus Romanus imperium habet, populi Romani esse arbitror: 1Maris communem usum omnibus hominibus, ut aeris, iactasque in id pilas eius esse qui iecerit: sed id concedendum non esse, si deterior litoris marisve usus eo modo futurus sit.
3 Celsus, Digest, Book XXXIX. I think that the shores of the sea over which the Roman people have control belong to them. 1The use of the sea as well as that of the air is common to all men, and the piles which are driven into it belong to the person who has placed them there; but this should not be conceded if the shore is damaged, or the future use of the sea is impaired on account of it.
4 Scaevola libro quinto responsorum. Respondit in litore iure gentium aedificare licere, nisi usus publicus impediretur.
4 Scævola, Opinions, Book V. “It is allowed by the Law of Nations to build upon the sea-shore, unless the public use of it is interfered with by doing so.”
5 Paulus libro sexto decimo ad Sabinum. Si per publicum locum rivus aquae ductus privato nocebit, erit actio privato ex lege duodecim tabularum, ut noxa domino sarciatur.
5 Paulus, On Sabinus, Book XVI. If a stream which conducts water through a public place injures a private person, he will be entitled to an action under the Law of the Twelve Tables to compel security to be given for any damage caused by the owner.
6 Iulianus libro quadragensimo tertio digestorum. Ei, qui hoc interdicto experitur ‘ne quid in loco publico fiat, quo damnum privato detur’, quamvis de loco publico interdicat, nihilo minus procuratoris dandi facultas est.
6 Julianus, Digest, Book XLIII. He who avails himself of this interdict to prevent any work done in a public place from causing damage to a private individual can employ an attorney, although the proceeding under the interdict has reference to a public place.
7 Idem libro quadragensimo octavo digestorum. Sicut is, qui nullo prohibente in loco publico aedificaverat, cogendus non est demolire, ne ruinis urbs deformetur, ita qui adversus edictum praetoris aedificaverit, tollere aedificium debet: alioqui inane et lusorium praetoris imperium erit.
7 The Same, Digest, Book XLVIII. Just as a person who builds in a public place without anyone attempting to prevent him is not compelled to demolish what he has constructed in order to prevent the city from being defaced by the ruins, so anyone who builds contrary to the Prætorian Edict should remove what he has erected; otherwise, the authority of the Prætor becomes vain and illusory.