Quibus modis usus fructus vel usus amittitur
(In what ways usufruct or use is lost.)
1 Ulpianus libro septimo decimo ad Sabinum. Non solum usum fructum amitti capitis minutione constat, sed et actionem de usu fructu. et parvi refert, utrum iure sit constitutus usus fructus an vero tuitione praetoris: proinde traditus quoque usus fructus, item in fundo vectigali vel superficie non iure constitutus capitis minutione amittitur. 1Sed ita demum amittitur capitis deminutione usus fructus, si iam constitutus est: ceterum si ante aditam hereditatem aut ante diem cedentem quis capite minutus est, constat non amitti. 2Si tibi fundus ex die legatus est et usum fructum mihi rogatus es restituere, videndum erit, si capite minutus fuero intra diem legato tuo insertum, ne forte salvus sit mihi usus fructus, quasi ante diem cedentem capitis minutio interveniat: quod benigne dici poterit. 3Usque adeo autem capitis minutio eum demum usum fructum peremit, qui iam constitutus est, ut si in singulos annos vel menses vel dies legatus sit, is demum amittitur, qui iam processit et, si forte in annos singulos legatus est, illius dumtaxat anni usus fructus amittetur et si in menses, eius mensis, si in dies, eius diei.
1 Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XVII. It is established that an usufruct is not only lost by forfeiture of civil rights, but that the right of action based on usufruct is also lost; and it makes little difference whether the usufruct was created by law or with the assistance of the Prætor. Hence, where an usufruct is delivered, or is created not strictly by law but through a perpetual lease, or occupancy of the surface of land, it is lost with the forfeiture of civil rights. 1Thus usufruct can be lost by a forfeiture of civil rights only where it has been already created; but if anyone forfeits his civil rights before the estate is entered upon, or before the usufruct has vested, it is held that it is not lost. 2Where an estate in land is devised to you from a certain day, and you are asked to deliver the usufruct to me, it should be considered whether, if I have lost my civil rights before the day mentioned in the devise to you, my usufruct is not safe; as the loss of civil rights must occur before the usufruct vests, which may be said to be a liberal interpretation. 3To such an extent is it a fact that the loss of civil rights not only destroys an usufruct which has already been created, but if an usufruct has been bequeathed for every year, month, or day, that only is lost which is running at the time; and where, for instance, it is bequeathed for separate years, the usufruct for that year only is lost, and if for separate months, that month, and if for separate days, that day.
2 Papinianus libro septimo decimo quaestionum. Si duobus separatim alternis annis usus fructus relinquatur, continuis annis proprietas nuda est, cum, si legatarium unum substituas, cui alternis annis legatus sit usus fructus, plena sit apud heredem proprietas eo tempore, quo ius fruendi legatario non est. quod si ex duobus illis alter decedat, per vices temporum plena proprietas erit: neque enim adcrescere alteri quicquam potest, quoniam propria quisque tempora non concurrente altero fructus integri habuit. 1Si non mors, sed capitis deminutio intercesserit, quia plura legata sunt, illius anni tantum, si modo ius fruendi habuit, fructus amissus erit: quod et in uno legatario, qui fructum in singulos annos accepit, defendendum est, ut commemoratio temporum repetitionis potestatem habeat. 2Cum singulis fructus alternis annis legatur, si consentiant in eundem annum, impediuntur, quod non id actum videtur, ut concurrerent: multum etenim refert, duobus simul alternis annis legetur (quod sane ultra primum annum procedere non poterit, non magis quam si uni legatus ita fuisset) an singulis alternis annis: nam si concurrere volent, aut impedient invicem propter voluntatem aut, si ea non refragabitur, singulorum annorum fructus vacabit.
2 Papinianus, Questions, Book XVII. Where an usufruct is left to two parties separately for alternate years, the property exists for years without the right of enjoyment; while, if it is left to one legatee alone to whom the usufruct for every other year is bequeathed, the entire property will vest in the heir during the time when the right of enjoyment does not belong to the legatee. Where, however, one of the two parties dies, the right to the property will be complete for the odd years, for there can be no accrual to the other party) since each one had his own times for the enjoyment of the entire usufruct without the other being associated with him. 1Where not death, but a loss of civil rights takes place, then, because there are several bequests, the usufruct only for that year will be lost, provided the party had the right of usufruct merely for that time; and this principle should be upheld in the case of a legatee who received the usufruct for a certain number of separate years, so that the mention of the terms has the effect of a renewal of the right. 2Where an usufruct is bequeathed to certain persons for alternate years, and they agree to enjoy it during the same year, they interfere with one another, since it does not seem to have been intended that they should enjoy it together; for it makes a great deal of difference whether an usufruct is bequeathed to two persons together for alternate years, (as then it cannot run longer than the first year, any more than if it had been bequeathed in the same way to one of them) or it is bequeathed to separate persons for alternate years; for if they wish to enjoy it together they will either interfere with one another, on account of this being contrary to the intention of the testator; or, if this is not the case, the usufruct for every other year will not be enjoyed by anyone.
3 Ulpianus libro septimo decimo ad Sabinum. Sicut in annos singulos usus fructus legari potest, ita et capitis minutione amissus legari potest, ut adiciatur: ‘quotiensque capite minutus erit, ei lego’, vel sic ‘quotiens amissus erit’: et tunc, si capitis minutione amittatur, repetitus videbitur. unde tractatum est, si cui quamdiu vivat usus fructus legatus sit, an videatur repetitus, quotiens amissus est? quod et Maecianus temptat: et puto repetitum videri. quare si usque ad tempus sit legatus, ut puta usque ad decennium, idem erit dicendum. 1Haec autem repetitio, quae fit post amissum capitis minutione usum fructum, quaeritur an et ius adcrescendi secum salvum habeat: ut puta Titio et Maevio usus fructus legatus est et, si Titius capite minutus esset, eidem usum fructum legavit: quaesitum est, si Titius ex repetitione usum fructum haberet, an inter eos ius adcrescendi salvum esset. et Papinianus libro septimo decimo quaestionum scribit salvum esse, perinde ac si alius esset Titio in usu fructu substitutus: hos enim tametsi non verbis, re tamen coniunctos videri. 2Idem Papinianus quaerit, si Titio et Maevio usu fructu legato in repetitione usus fructus non totum, sed partem Titio relegasset, an viderentur coniuncti. et ait, si quidem Titius amiserit, totum socio adcrescere: quod si Maevius amisisset, non totum adcrescere, sed partem ad eum, partem ad proprietatem redire. quae sententia habet rationem: neque enim potest dici eo momento, quo quis amittit usum fructum et resumit, etiam ipsi quicquam ex usu fructu adcrescere: placet enim nobis ei qui amittit usum fructum ex eo quod amittit nihil adcrescere. 3Morte quoque amitti usum fructum non recipit dubitationem, cum ius fruendi morte extinguatur, sicuti si quid aliud, quod personae cohaeret.
3 Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XVII. Just as an usufruct can be bequeathed for separate years, so also it can again be bequeathed if lost by forfeiture of civil rights, as where the addition is made: “Whenever So-and-So loses his civil rights I bequeath to him”; or, as follows: “Whenever it shall be lost”; and then, if it is lost by the forfeiture of civil rights, it will be considered to have been renewed. Wherefore, it has been discussed, where an usufruct is bequeathed to anyone for as long as he lives, whether it must be held to be renewed as often as it is lost? Marcianus adopts this opinion, and I think that it must be held to be renewed; therefore if an usufruct is bequeathed for a certain time, as for instance, for ten years, the same principle will apply. 1The question arises with reference to the renewal which takes place after an usufruct has been lost by forfeiture of civil rights, whether the right of accrual remains unimpaired; for example, where an usufruct was bequeathed to Titius and Mævius, and Titius, having lost his civil rights, the testator bequeathed him the usufruct a second time; and inquiry was made if Titius should again receive the usufruct by renewal whether the right of accrual would remain unimpaired between the parties? Papinianus states in the Seventeenth Book of Questions that it does remain unimpaired, just as if some other person had been substituted for Titius in the enjoyment of the usufruct; for these parties are held to be conjoined in fact, if not in words. 2Papinianus also asks if the testator, after having left the usufruct to Titius and Mævius, in the second bequest of the same, did not leave the entire usufruct but only a portion of it to Titius, would they be considered to be conjoined? He says in reply, that if Titius should lose his share, it would all accrue to his associate; but if Mævius should lose his, the whole would not accrue, but half would belong to him, and half would revert to the property. This opinion is reasonable, for it cannot be held that the ground on which a person loses the usufruct and takes it back will entitle him to any accrual from the usufruct; as it is our opinion that he who loses an usufruct can gain nothing by accrual out of what he loses. 3There is no doubt whatever that an usufruct can also be lost by death; since the right of enjoyment is extinguished by death, just as any other right which attaches to the person.
4 Marcianus libro tertio institutionum. Si legatum usum fructum legatarius alii restituere rogatus est, id agere praetor debet, ut ex fideicommissarii persona magis quam ex legatarii pereat usus fructus.
4 Marcianus, Institutes, Book III. Where the legatee of an usufruct is requested to deliver it to another person, the Prætor should provide that, if it is lost, it should rather affect the person of the trustee than that of the legatee.
5 Ulpianus libro septimo decimo ad Sabinum. Repeti potest legatus usus fructus amissus qualicumque ratione, dummodo non morte: nisi forte heredibus legaverit. 1Si quis usum fructum solum servi alienaverit, per quem usus fructus ei adquisitus est, dubium non est, quin usus fructus per eum adquisitus retineatur. 2Rei mutatione interire usum fructum placet: veluti usus fructus mihi aedium legatus est, aedes corruerunt vel exustae sunt: sine dubio extinguitur. an et areae? certissimum est exustis aedibus nec areae nec cementorum usum fructum deberi. et ita et Iulianus. 3Si areae sit usus fructus legatus et in ea aedificium sit positum, rem mutari et usum fructum extingui constat. plane si proprietarius hoc fecit, ex testamento vel de dolo tenebitur,
5 Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XVII. An usufruct which has been bequeathed may be renewed without reference to the way in which it was lost, provided that it was not lost by death, unless the testator, under such circumstances, bequeathed it to the heirs of the usufructuary. 1Where anyone alienates only the usufruct in a slave by whom he has acquired an usufruct, there is no doubt that he retains the usufruct which was acquired through him. 2It is established that an usufruct is terminated by a change of the property to which it belongs; for example, if a bequest was made to me of the usufruct in a house, and the house has been demolished, or burned, the usufruct is unquestionably extinguished. Does this also apply to the ground? It is absolutely certain that where the house is burned down, no usufruct remains in either the ground or the materials; and Julianus is of this opinion. 3Where the usufruct of the ground is bequeathed, and a house is built upon the latter, it is established that the property is changed, and that the usufruct is extinguished. It is clear that if the mere owner built it, he will be liable to an action on the will, or to one on the ground of fraud.
6 Pomponius libro quinto ad Sabinum. (sed et interdictum quod vi aut clam usufructuario competit)
6 Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book V. And the usufructuary will be entitled also to the interdict Quod vi aut clam;
7 Iulianus libro trigensimo quinto digestorum. nisi sublato aedificio usum fructum areae mihi cesserit, tempore scilicet quo usus fructus perit transacto.
7 Julianus, Digest, Book XXXV. Unless the building having been removed, the owner grants me an usufruct in the ground; that is where the time had elapsed by which the usufruct was lost.
8 Ulpianus libro septimo decimo ad Sabinum. Fundi usu fructu legato si villa diruta sit, usus fructus non extinguetur, quia villa fundi accessio est: non magis quam si arbores deciderint.
8 Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XVII. Where the usufruct of an estate is bequeathed, if the house should be destroyed the usufruct will not be extinguished, because the house is an accession to the land; any more than if trees were to fall.
9 Paulus libro tertio ad Sabinum. Sed et eo quoque solo, in quo fuit villa, uti frui potero.
9 Paulus, On Sabinus, Book III. But I could still use and enjoy the ground on which the house had stood.
10 Ulpianus libro septimo decimo ad Sabinum. Quid tamen si fundus villae fuit accessio? videamus, ne etiam fundi usus fructus extinguatur. et idem dicendum est, ut non extinguatur. 1Non tantum si aedes ad aream redactae sint, usus fructus extinguitur, verum etiam si demolitis aedibus testator alias novas restituerit: plane si per partes reficiat, licet omnis nova facta sit, aliud erit nobis dicendum. 2Agri vel loci usus fructus legatus, si fuerit inundatus, ut stagnum iam sit aut palus, procul dubio extinguetur. 3Sed et si stagni usus fructus legetur et exaruerit sic, ut ager sit factus, mutata re usus fructus extinguitur. 4Non tamen, si arvi usus fructus legetur et ibi vineae sint positae vel contra, puto extingui. certe silvae usu fructu legato si silva caesa illic sationes fuerint factae, sine dubio usus fructus extinguitur. 5Si massae usus fructus legetur et ex ea vasa sint facta vel contra, Cassius apud Urseium scribit interire usum fructum: quam sententiam puto veram. 6Proinde et ornamentum dissolutum aut transfiguratum extinguit usum fructum. 7In navis quoque usu fructu Sabinus scribit, si quidem per partes refecta sit, usum fructum non interire: si autem dissoluta sit, licet isdem tabulis nulla praeterea adiecta restaurata sit, usum fructum extinctum: quam sententiam puto veriorem. nam et si domus fuerit restituta, usus fructus extinguitur. 8Quadrigae usu fructu legato si unus ex equis decesserit, an extinguatur usus fructus quaeritur. ego puto multum interesse, equorum an quadrigae usus fructus sit legatus: nam si equorum, supererit in residuis, si quadrigae, non remanebit, quoniam quadriga esse desiit:
10 Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XVII. What would be the case, however, if the land was an accession to the house? Let us see whether, in this instance, the usufruct of the land would not also be extinguished, and we must hold the same opinion, namely, that it would not be extinguished. 1The usufruct is extinguished not only where the building has been levelled with the ground, but also where, after having demolished the house, the testator erects a new one in its place; for it is evident that if he repairs certain portions of it we must establish a different rule, even though the entire house should be renewed. 2Where the usufruct of a field or an enclosure is bequeathed, and it is inundated so as to become a pond, or a swamp, the usufruct will undoubtedly be extinguished. 3Moreover, where the usufruct of a pond is bequeathed, and it dries up so that it becomes a field; the property being changed, the usufruct is extinguished. 4I do not think, however, where the usufruct of tillable land is bequeathed and vineyards are planted thereon, or vice versa, that the usufruct is extinguished. It is certain, however, where the usufruct of a wood is bequeathed, and the trees are cut down, and seed sowed upon the land, that the usufruct is extinguished. 5Where the usufruct of a mass of metal is bequeathed, and vessels are made out of it, or vice versa, Cassius, as quoted by Urseius, says that the usufruct is terminated, and I think this opinion to be the correct one. 6Thus, where an ornament is destroyed, or its shape is changed, this extinguishes the usufruct therein. 7Sabinus also states with reference to the usufruct of a ship, that where certain portions of the same are repaired, the usufruct is not lost; but where it is taken apart, even though it should be rebuilt out of the same timber and nothing additional be supplied, the usufruct will be extinguished; and this opinion I think to be the better one, for where a house is rebuilt, the usufruct is extinguished. 8Where the usufruct in a team of four horses is bequeathed, and one of them dies, the question arises, is the usufruct extinguished? I think that it makes a great deal of difference whether the usufruct in the horses, or in the team was bequeathed; for, if it was that of the horses it will remain in the others, but if it was that of the team, it will not remain, as it has ceased to be a team:
11 Paulus libro tertio ad Sabinum. nisi alius ante diem legati cedentem substitutus sit.
11 Paulus, On Sabinus, Book III. Unless, before the legacy vests, another horse is put in the place of the one that died.
12 Ulpianus libro septimo decimo ad Sabinum. Si cui balinei usus fructus legatus sit et testator habitationem hoc fecerit, vel si tabernae et diaetam fecerit, dicendum est usum fructum extinctum. 1Proinde et si histrionis reliquerit usum fructum et eum ad aliud ministerium transtulerit, extinctum esse usum fructum dicendum erit.
12 Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XVII. Where the usufruct of a bath is bequeathed, and the testator changed it into a lodging, or a shop, or made a residence out of it, it must be held that the usufruct is extinguished. 1Hence, if anyone leaves an usufruct in an actor and then transfers him to some other kind of service, it must be said that the usufruct is extinguished.
13 Paulus libro tertio ad Sabinum. Si fructuarius messem fecit et decessit, stipulam, quae in messe iacet, heredis eius esse Labeo ait, spicam, quae terra teneatur, domini fundi esse fructumque percipi spica aut faeno caeso aut uva adempta aut excussa olea, quamvis nondum tritum frumentum aut oleum factum vel vindemia coacta sit. sed ut verum est, quod de olea excussa scripsit, ita aliter observandum de ea olea, quae per se deciderit, Iulianus ait: fructuarii fructus tunc fieri, cum eos perceperit, bonae fidei autem possessoris, mox quam a solo separati sint.
13 Paulus, On Sabinus, Book III. If an usufructuary has harvested a crop and then dies, Labeo says that the crop which is lying on the ground belongs to his heir, but that the grain still attached to the soil belongs to the owner of the land; for the crop is considered to be gathered when the heads of grain or stems of grass are cut, or the grapes are picked, or the olives are shaken off the trees, although the grain may not yet have been ground, or the oil made, or the vintage finished. But although what Labeo stated with reference to the olives being shaken off the trees is true, the rule is not the same concerning those which have fallen of themselves. Julianus says that the crops become the property of the usufructuary when he has gathered them, but that they belong to a bona fide possessor as soon as they are once separated from the soil.
14 Pomponius libro quinto ad Sabinum. Excepta capitis minutione vel morte reliquae causae vel pro parte interitum usus fructus recipiunt.
14 Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book V. With the exception of the loss of civil rights and death, other causes of the extinction of usufruct allow partial loss of the same.
15 Ulpianus libro octavo decimo ad Sabinum. Interdum proprietarius ad libertatem perducet, si forte usus fructus fuerit tamdiu legatus, quamdiu manumittatur: nam incipiente proprietario manumittere extinguetur usus fructus.
15 Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XVIII. Sometimes the mere owner can grant freedom to a slave, for example, where the usufruct was bequeathed until the slave should be manumitted; for the usufruct is extinguished whenever the owner begins the manumission.
16 Idem libro quinto disputationum. Si sub condicione mihi legatus sit usus fructus medioque tempore sit penes heredem, potest heres usum fructum alii legare: quae res facit, ut, si condicio extiterit mei legati, usus fructus ab herede relictus finiatur. quod si ego usum fructum amisero, non revertetur ad legatarium, cui ab herede pure legatus fuerat, quia ex diversis testamentis ius coniunctionis non contingit.
16 The Same, Disputations, Book V. Where an usufruct is bequeathed to me on a certain condition, and, in the meantime, it is in the possession of the heir, the latter can bequeath the usufruct to someone else; with the result that, if the condition on which my legacy depends is complied with, the usufruct left by the heir is terminated. But if I should lose the usufruct, it will not revert to the legatee to whom it was bequeathed absolutely by the heir, because the right of joint legatees cannot be acquired under different wills.
17 Iulianus libro tricensimo quinto digestorum. Si tibi fundi usus fructus pure, proprietas autem sub condicione Titio legata fuerit, pendente condicione dominium proprietatis adquisieris, deinde condicio extiterit, pleno iure fundum Titius habebit neque interest, quod detracto usu fructu proprietas legata sit: enim dum proprietatem adquiris, ius omne legati usus fructus amisisti.
17 Julianus, Digest, Book XXXV. Where the usufruct of land is bequeathed to you absolutely, and the mere ownership of the same is bequeathed to Titius conditionally, while the condition is unfulfilled you acquire the mere right of ownership, and after the condition has been complied with, Titius will be entitled to the land without any restriction; and it makes no difference that the property was bequeathed after the usufruct had been reserved, because when you acquired it you lost all the right to the legacy of the usufruct.
18 Pomponius libro tertio ad Sabinum. Si servo hereditario ante aditam hereditatem legatus usus fructus fuisset, magis placet adita hereditate eum usum fructum ad te transire nec interire quasi mutato dominio, quia nec dies ante cesserit, quam tu heres extiteris.
18 Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book III. Where an usufruct is bequeathed to a slave belonging to an estate before the estate is entered upon, the better opinion is that when it is entered upon, the usufruct vests in you, and is not terminated because of change of ownership, because it did not vest before you became the heir.
19 Gaius libro septimo ad edictum provinciale. Neque usus fructus neque iter actusve dominii mutatione amittitur.
19 Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book VII. Neither an usufruct, nor a right of way, nor a right to drive, is lost by change of ownership.
20 Paulus libro quinto decimo ad Plautium. Is qui usum fructum habet si tantum utatur, quia existimet se usum tantum habere, an usum fructum retineat? et si quidem sciens se usum fructum habere tantum uti velit, nihilo minus et frui videtur: si vero ignoret, puto eum amittere fructum: non enim ex eo quod habet utitur, sed ex eo quod putavit se habere.
20 Paulus, On Plautius, Book XV. Will a person who has an usufruct retain it if he only makes use of it because he thinks that he is solely entitled to the use of the same? I am of the opinion that if he knows that he is entitled to the usufruct, and he only exercises the use, he must, nevertheless, be considered to enjoy the usufruct; but if he does not know this, he will lose the usufruct as his use is based not on what he has, but on what he thinks he has.
21 Modestinus libro tertio differentiarum. Si usus fructus civitati legetur et aratrum in ea inducatur, civitas esse desinit, ut passa est Carthago, ideoque quasi morte desinit habere usum fructum.
21 Modestinus, Differences, Book III. Where an usufruct is bequeathed to a city, and the site of it is afterwards turned into a plowed field, it ceases to be a city, as was the fate of Carthage; therefore it ceases to have the usufruct, just as in case of death.
22 Pomponius libro sexto ad Quintum Mucium. Si mulieri usus domus legatus sit et illa trans mare profecta sit et constituto tempore ad amittendum usum afuerit, maritus vero domo usus fuerit, retinetur nihilo minus usus, quemadmodum si familiam suam in domu reliquisset eaque peregrinaretur. et hoc magis dicendum est, si uxorem in domu reliquerit maritus, cum ipsi marito usus domus legatus sit.
22 Pomponius, On Quintus Mucius, Book VI. Where the use of a house is bequeathed to a woman, and she goes beyond sea and is absent for the time established by law for the loss of the use, but her husband uses the house, the use is, nevertheless, retained; just as if she had left her slaves in her house, and herself had travelled in foreign countries. This must be stated even more forcibly if a husband leaves his wife at home, where the use of the house was bequeathed to the husband himself.
23 Idem libro vicensimo sexto ad Quintum Mucium. Si ager, cuius usus fructus noster sit, flumine vel mari inundatus fuerit, amittitur usus fructus, cum etiam ipsa proprietas eo casu amittatur: ac ne piscando quidem retinere poterimus usum fructum. sed quemadmodum, si eodem impetu discesserit aqua, quo venit, restituitur proprietas, ita et usum fructum restituendum dicendum est.
23 The Same, On Quintus Mucius, Book XXVI. Where a field whose usufruct is ours is flooded by a river or by the sea, the usufruct is extinguished, since even the ownership itself is lost in this instance; nor can we retain the usufruct even by fishing. But as the ownership is restored if the water recedes with the same rapidity with which it came, so also, it must be said that the usufruct is restored.
24 Iavolenus libro tertio ex posterioribus Labeonis. Cum usum fructum horti haberem, flumen hortum occupavit, deinde ab eo recessit: ius quoque usus fructus restitutum esse Labeoni videtur, quia id solum perpetuo eiusdem iuris mansisset. ita id verum puto, si flumen inundatione hortum occupavit: nam si alveo mutato inde manare coeperit, amitti usum fructum existimo, cum is locus alvei publicus esse coeperit, neque in pristinum statum restitui posse. 1Idem iuris in itinere et actu custodiendum esse ait Labeo: de quibus rebus ego idem quod in usu fructu sentio. 2Labeo. nec si summa terra sublata ex fundo meo et alia regesta esset, idcirco meum solum esse desinit, non magis quam stercorato agro.
24 Javolenus, On the Last Works of Labeo, Book III. If I have the usufruct of a garden, and a river covers it and then recedes; it is the opinion of Labeo that the usufruct is also restored, because the soil always remained in the same legal condition. I think that this is true only where the river covered the garden by reason of an inundation; for if its bed was changed and it flowed in that direction, I think that the usufruct is lost, as the ground of the former bed becomes public property, and cannot be restored to its former state. 1Labeo states that the same rule of law should be observed with reference to a right of way and a road; but I am of the same opinion with reference to these things as I am with reference to the usufruct. 2Labeo says that even if the surface of the ground is removed from my field and replaced with other soil, the land does not, for this reason, cease to be mine, any more than if the field were covered with manure.
25 Pomponius libro undecimo ex variis lectionibus. Placet vel certae partis vel pro indiviso usum fructum non utendo amitti.
25 Pomponius, Various Passages, Book XI. It is established that an usufruct may be lost by want of use, whether it is that of a share or is undivided.
26 Paulus libro primo ad Neratium. Si ager ab hostibus occupatus servusve captus liberatus fuerit, iure postliminii restituetur usus fructus.
26 Paulus, On Neratius, Book I. Where a field is occupied by enemies, or a slave is taken by them and afterwards liberated; the usufruct in either is restored by the right of postliminium:
27 Idem libro primo manualium. Si servus, in quo usus fructus alienus est, noxae dedatur a domino proprietatis usufructuario, liberabitur confusa servitute proprietatis comparatione.
27 The Same, Manuals, Book I. Where a slave in whom another party has an usufruct is surrendered, by way of reparation for damage, by the mere owner to the usufructuary; the servitude is merged and the usufruct terminated by the acquisition of the property.
28 Idem libro tertio decimo ad Plautium. Si usus fructus alternis annis legetur, non posse non utendo eum amitti, quia plura sunt legata.
28 The Same, On Plautius, Book XIII. If an usufruct is bequeathed for alternate years, it cannot be lost by not making use of it; because there are several legacies.
29 Ulpianus libro septimo decimo ad Sabinum. Pomponius quaerit, si fundum a me proprietarius conduxerit eumque fundum vendiderit Seio non deducto usu fructu, an usum fructum per emptorem retineam. et ait, licet proprietarius mihi pensionem solverit, tamen usum fructum amitti, quia non meo nomine, sed suo fruitus est emptor: teneri plane mihi ex locato proprietarium, quanti mea interfuit id factum non esse. quamquam si a me conductum usum fructum quis alii locaverit, retinetur usus fructus: sed si proprietarius eum locasset suo nomine, dicendum amitti: non enim meo nomine fruitur colonus. 1Sed si emptum a me usum fructum proprietarius vendidisset, amitterem usum fructum, quaerendum est. et puto amitti, quoniam et hic non ut a me empto fruitur fundi emptor. 2Idem Pomponius quaerit, si legatum mihi usum fructum rogatus sim tibi restituere, an per te frui videar nec amittatur usus fructus. et ait dubitare se de hac quaestione: sed est verius, quod Marcellus notat, nihil hanc rem fideicommissario nocere: suo enim nomine utilem actionem eum habiturum.
29 Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XVII. Pomponius asks the following question: Where the mere owner of land rents it from me as usufructuary, and sells the same land to Seius without the reservation of the usufruct; do I retain the usufruct on account of the act of the purchaser? He says in reply: that although the mere owner may pay me rent, the usufruct nevertheless is extinguished, because the purchaser enjoys it not in my name, but in his own. It is evident that the mere proprietor is liable to me on account of the lease, to the extent of the interest I had in his not doing this; although, if anyone rents the usufruct from me and leases it to another, the usufruct is retained; but if the mere owner leases it in his own name, it must be held to be lost, for the tenant does not enjoy it in my name. 1But if the mere owner should sell the usufruct after it had been purchased from me, it might be asked, would I lose the usufruct? I think that I would lose it; since the purchaser, in this instance also, does not enjoy it as having been bought from me. 2Pomponius also makes this inquiry: If I am asked to deliver to you an usufruct which has been bequeathed to me, am I held to enjoy it through you, so that the usufruct will not be lost? He replied that he is in doubt with reference to this question; but the better opinion is, as Marcellus states in a note, that this matter does, in no way, prejudice the beneficiary of the trust, as he will be entitled to a prætorian action in his own name.
30 Gaius libro septimo ad edictum provinciale. Caro et corium mortui pecoris in fructu non est, quia mortuo eo usus fructus extinguitur.
30 Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book VII. The flesh and hides of dead cattle do not form part of the product of the same, because the usufruct is extinguished as soon as they are dead.
31 Pomponius libro quarto ad Quintum Mucium. Cum gregis usus fructus legatus est et usque eo numerus pervenit gregis, ut grex non intellegatur, perit usus fructus.
31 Pomponius, On Quintus Mucius, Book IV. Where the usufruct of a flock is bequeathed, and the number of the same is reduced to such a point that it cannot be considered a flock, the usufruct terminates.