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. XLVII7,
Arborum furtim caesarum
Liber quadragesimus septimus
VII.

Arborum furtim caesarum

(Concerning Trees Cut Down by Stealth.)

1Pau­lus li­bro no­no ad Sa­binum. Si fur­tim ar­bo­res cae­sae sint, et ex le­ge Aqui­lia et ex duo­de­cim ta­bu­la­rum dan­dam ac­tio­nem La­beo ait: sed Tre­ba­tius ita utram­que dan­dam, ut iu­dex in pos­te­rio­re de­du­cat id quod ex pri­ma con­se­cu­tus sit et re­li­quo con­dem­net.

1Paulus, On Sabinus, Book IX. Where trees are cut down by stealth, Labeo says that an action should be granted under the Aquilian Law, as well as under the Law of the Twelve Tables. Trebatius, however, holds that both actions should be granted in such a way that the court, in rendering a decision in the second action, should deduct the amount recovered in the first, and give judgment for the remainder.

2Gaius li­bro pri­mo ad le­gem duo­de­cim ta­bu­la­rum. Scien­dum est au­tem eos, qui ar­bo­res et ma­xi­me vi­tes ce­ci­de­rint, et­iam tam­quam la­tro­nes pu­ni­ri.

2Gaius, On the Law of the Twelve Tables, Book I. It should be remembered that those who cut down trees, and especially vines, are also punished as thieves.

3Ul­pia­nus li­bro qua­dra­gen­si­mo se­cun­do ad Sa­binum. Vi­tem ar­bo­ris ap­pel­la­tio­ne con­ti­ne­ri ple­ri­que ve­te­rum ex­is­ti­ma­ve­runt. 1Ede­rae quo­que et ha­run­di­nes ar­bo­res non ma­le di­cen­tur. 2Idem de sa­lic­te­to di­cen­dum est. 3Sed si quis sa­lig­neas vir­gas in­sti­tuen­di sa­lic­ti cau­sa de­fi­xe­rit hae­que, an­te­quam ra­di­ces co­ege­rint, suc­ci­dan­tur aut evel­lan­tur, rec­te Pom­po­nius scrip­sit non pos­se agi de ar­bo­ri­bus suc­ci­sis, cum nul­la ar­bor pro­prie di­ca­tur, quae ra­di­cem non con­ce­pe­rit. 4Quod si quis ex se­mi­na­rio, id est stir­pi­tus ar­bo­rem trans­tu­le­rit, eam, quam­vis non­dum com­pre­hen­de­rit ter­ram, ar­bo­rem ta­men vi­de­ri Pom­po­nius li­bro no­no de­ci­mo ad Sa­binum pro­bat. 5Id­eo ea quo­que ar­bor es­se vi­de­tur, cu­ius ra­di­ces de­si­nent vi­ve­re. 5aRa­dix au­tem ar­bo­ris non vi­de­tur ar­bo­ris ap­pel­la­tio­ne con­ti­ne­ri, quam­vis ad­huc ter­ra con­ti­nea­tur: quam sen­ten­tiam La­beo quo­que pro­bat. 6La­beo et­iam eam ar­bo­rem rec­te di­ci pu­tat, quae sub­ver­sa a ra­di­ci­bus et­iam­nunc re­po­ni pot­est, aut quae ita trans­la­ta est, ut po­ni pos­sit. 7Stir­pes oleae ar­bo­res es­se ma­gis est, si­ve iam ege­runt ra­di­ces si­ve non­dum. 8Om­nium igi­tur ha­rum ar­bo­rum, quas enu­me­ra­vi­mus, no­mi­ne agi pot­erit.

3Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XLII. The larger number of ancient authorities held that vines were included in the term “trees.” 1Ivy, as well as reeds, are not improperly styled trees. 2The same may be said to apply to willows. 3But when anyone, for the purpose of planting willows, has inserted branches into the ground, and these are cut down or torn up, before they have taken root, Pomponius very properly says that the action for cutting down trees cannot be brought, as that cannot properly be called a tree which has not yet become rooted. 4If anyone removes a tree from a nursery, that is to say, with its roots, although it may not yet have taken hold of the soil, Pomponius, in the Nineteenth Book on Sabinus, says that it should be considered a tree. 5Therefore, that also may be considered a tree whose roots have ceased to live, 5aalthough it still remains in the earth. This opinion is also adopted by Labeo. 6Labeo thinks that a tree can properly be so called which, having been torn out by the roots, cannot be replaced, or which has been removed in such a way that this can be done. 7Olive sprouts should be considered trees, whether they have thrown out roots or not. 8An action, therefore, can be brought on account of all the trees which we have above enumerated.

4Gaius li­bro ..... ad le­gem duo­de­cim ta­bu­la­rum. Cer­te non du­bi­ta­tur, si ad­huc ad­eo te­ne­rum sit, ut her­bae lo­co sit, non de­be­re ar­bo­ris nu­me­ro ha­be­ri.

4Gaius, On the Law of the Twelve Tables. It certainly cannot be doubted that, where a sprout is still so small as to resemble a blade of grass, it should not be included in the number of trees.

5Pau­lus li­bro no­no ad Sa­binum. Cae­de­re est non so­lum suc­ci­de­re, sed et­iam fe­ri­re cae­den­di cau­sa. cin­ge­re est de­gla­bra­re. sub­se­ca­re est sub­se­cuis­se: non enim pot­erat ce­ci­dis­se in­tel­le­gi, qui ser­ra se­cuis­set. 1Eius ac­tio­nis ea­dem cau­sa est, quae est le­gis Aqui­liae. 2Is, cu­ius usus fruc­tus est in fun­do, hanc ac­tio­nem non ha­bet: qui au­tem fun­dum vec­ti­ga­lem ha­bet, hanc ac­tio­nem ha­bet, sic­ut aquae plu­viae ar­cen­dae ac­tio­nem et fi­nium re­gun­do­rum.

5Paulus, On Sabinus, Book IX. To cut down is not merely to cut, but to cut with the intention of felling; to girdle is to remove the bark; to cut away is to cut underneath; for one cannot be understood to have cut down a tree who has divided it with a saw. 1In this proceeding the cause of action is the same as in that under the Aquilian Law. 2He who has the usufruct in the land cannot bring this suit. He who has leased land belonging to the State can bring this suit, just as he can the action for taking care of rain-water and the one to establish boundaries.

6Pom­po­nius li­bro vi­cen­si­mo ad Sa­binum. Si plu­res ean­dem ar­bo­rem fur­tim ce­ci­de­rint, cum sin­gu­lis in so­li­dum age­tur. 1At si ea­dem ar­bor plu­rium fue­rit, uni­ver­sis dum­ta­xat una et se­mel poe­na prae­sta­bi­tur. 2Si ar­bor in vi­ci­ni fun­dum ra­di­ces por­re­xit, re­ci­de­re eas vi­ci­no non li­ce­bit, age­re au­tem li­ce­bit non es­se ei ius (sic­uti tig­num aut pro­tec­tum) in­mis­sum ha­be­re. si ra­di­ci­bus vi­ci­ni ar­bor ale­tur, ta­men eius est, in cu­ius fun­do ori­go eius fue­rit.

6Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XX. Where several persons have cut down the same tree by stealth, the action can be brought against each one of them for the entire amount. 1When, however, the same tree belongs to several persons, the penalty can only be collected once by all of them together. 2Where a tree has extended its roots into the soil of a neighbor, the latter cannot cut them off, but he can bring an action to show that the tree does not belong to him; just as he can do if a beam, or a projecting roof extends over his premises. When a tree is nourished by roots in the soil of a neighbor it, nevertheless, belongs to him from whose land it derives its origin.

7Ul­pia­nus li­bro tri­gen­si­mo oc­ta­vo ad edic­tum. Fur­tim cae­sae ar­bo­res vi­den­tur, quae igno­ran­te do­mi­no ce­lan­di­que eius cau­sa cae­dun­tur. 1Nec es­se hanc fur­ti ac­tio­nem scri­bit Pe­dius, cum et si­ne fur­to fie­ri pos­sit, ut quis ar­bo­res fur­tim cae­dat. 2Si quis ra­di­ci­tus ar­bo­rem evel­le­rit vel ex­stir­pa­ve­rit, hac ac­tio­ne non te­ne­tur: ne­que enim vel cae­dit vel suc­ci­dit vel sub­se­cuit: Aqui­lia ta­men te­ne­tur, qua­si ru­pe­rit. 3Et­iam­si non to­ta ar­bor cae­sa sit, rec­te ta­men age­tur qua­si cae­sa. 4Si­ve au­tem quis suis ma­ni­bus, si­ve dum im­pe­rat ser­vo ar­bo­res cin­gi sub­se­ca­ri cae­di, hac ac­tio­ne te­ne­tur. idem et si li­be­ro im­pe­ret. 5Quod si ser­vo suo non prae­ce­pe­rit do­mi­nus, sed ip­se sua vo­lun­ta­te id amis­e­rit, Sa­b­inus ait com­pe­te­re noxa­le, ut in ce­te­ris ma­le­fi­ciis: quae sen­ten­tia ve­ra est. 6Haec ac­tio et­iam­si poe­na­lis sit, per­pe­tua est. sed ad­ver­sus he­redem non da­tur: he­redi ce­te­ris­que suc­ces­so­ri­bus da­bi­tur. 7Con­dem­na­tio au­tem eius du­plum con­ti­net.

7Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXVIII. Trees are considered to have been cut by stealth when they are felled without the knowledge of the owner, and with the intention of concealing it from him. 1Pedius says, that this action is not one of theft, as it is possible for a person to cut down trees by stealth without the intention of committing theft. 2If anyone should tear out a tree by its roots or extirpate it, he will not be liable to this action, for he did not cut it down, or cut it away, or cut it off. He will, however, be liable under the Aquilian Law for having broken it. 3Even if the entire tree has not been cut down, the action will properly be brought as if it had been cut down. 4A person will be liable under this action whether he girdles, cuts off, or cuts down trees with his own hands, or whether he orders his slave to do so. The same rule applies when he gives such an order to a freeman. 5When a master did not order his slave, but the latter committed the act voluntarily, Sabinus says that a noxal action will lie, as in other offences. This opinion is correct. 6This action, although it is a penal one, is perpetual, and is not granted against an heir, but it will be granted in favor of an heir and other successors. 7Judgment in a case of this kind includes double damages.

8Pau­lus li­bro tri­gen­si­mo no­no ad edic­tum. Fa­cien­da aes­ti­ma­tio­ne, quan­ti do­mi­ni in­ter­sit non lae­di: ip­sa­rum­que ar­bo­rum pre­tium de­du­ci opor­tet et eius quod su­per­est fie­ri aes­ti­ma­tio­nem. 1Fur­tim ar­bo­rem cae­dit, qui clam cae­dit. 2Igi­tur si ce­ci­de­rit et lu­cri fa­cien­di cau­sa con­trec­ta­ve­rit, et­iam fur­ti te­ne­bi­tur lig­no­rum cau­sa et con­dic­tio­ne et ad ex­hi­ben­dum. 3Qui per vim scien­te do­mi­no cae­dit, non in­ci­dit in hanc ac­tio­nem.

8Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXXIX. In computing the amount of the interest of the owner in not having the damage committed, the value of the trees themselves should be deducted, and an appraisement made of what remains. 1Whoever cuts down a tree clandestinely cuts it down by stealth. 2Therefore, if he should cut and remove it for the purpose of profiting by it, he will be liable for the theft of the wood, and also to a personal action, as well as to one for the production of property. 3Anyone who, with the knowledge of the owner, cuts down a tree by violence, is not liable to this action.

9Gaius li­bro ter­tio de­ci­mo ad edic­tum pro­vin­cia­le. Si co­lo­nus sit, qui ce­ci­de­rit ar­bo­res, et­iam ex lo­ca­to cum eo agi pot­est. pla­ne una ac­tio­ne con­ten­tus es­se de­bet ac­tor.

9Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XIII. When a tenant cuts down trees, suit can be brought against him under the lease; but it is clear that the plaintiff should be content with a single action.

10Iu­lia­nus li­bro ter­tio ex Mi­n­icio. Si ge­mi­na ar­bor es­set et su­pra ter­ram iunc­tu­ra eius emi­ne­ret, una ar­bor vi­de­tur es­se. sed si id qua iun­ge­re­tur non ex­sta­ret, to­ti­dem ar­bo­res sunt, quot spe­cies ea­rum su­pra ter­ram es­sent.

10Julianus, On Minicius, Book III. Where there are two parts of one tree, and they are united above the ground, they are regarded as a single tree. But if the point of union is not visible, there are as many trees as there are trunks above the surface.

11Pau­lus li­bro vi­cen­si­mo se­cun­do ad edic­tum. Sed si de ar­bo­ri­bus cae­sis ex le­ge Aqui­lia ac­tum sit, in­ter­dic­to quod vi aut clam red­di­to ab­sol­ve­tur, si sa­tis pri­ma con­dem­na­tio­ne gra­va­ve­rit reum, ma­nen­te ni­hi­lo mi­nus ac­tio­ne ex le­ge duo­de­cim ta­bu­la­rum.

11Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXII. Where, however, proceedings have been brought under the Aquilian Law for trees cut down, and judgment under the interdict Quod vi aut clam has been rendered, the defendant will be discharged, if, under the first decision, he has made a sufficient payment; but suit under the Law of the Twelve Tables can still be brought.

12Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro quin­to de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Qui agrum ven­di­dit, ni­hi­lo mi­nus fur­tim ar­bo­rum cae­sa­rum age­re pot­est.

12Javolenus, On Cassius, Book XV. Anyone who sells a field, can, nevertheless, bring an action for the cutting of trees before the sale has been concluded.