1Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XVIII. The Senate decreed that, “the usufruct of all property which it is established could belong to the patrimony of any individual, can be bequeathed”; and, as the result of this Decree of the Senate, it is held that the usufruct of those things which are destroyed or diminished by use can be bequeathed.

2Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book VII. In the case of money, however, it is necessary for security to be given to those at whose charge the usufruct of this money is bequeathed. 1By this Decree of the Senate it was not brought about that an usufruct of money should actually exist, for natural reason cannot be altered by the authority of the Senate; but where the remedy of security is introduced, a quasi usufruct was created.

3Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XVIII. After this the usufruct of anything can be bequeathed. But does this apply to an obligation? Nerva says that it does not; but the better opinion is the one entertained by Cassius and Proculus, namely, that it can be bequeathed. Nerva, moreover, says that the usufruct can be bequeathed to the debtor himself, and if this is done he must be released from paying interest.

4Paulus, On Neratius, Book I. Therefore security can also be required of him.

5Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XVIII. This Decree of the Senate not only has reference to a party who bequeaths the usufruct of money or other things which he has, but also where they belong to others. 1Where the usufruct of money is bequeathed, or that of anything else which consists in the consumption of the same, and security is not given; it must be considered when the usufruct is terminated, whether the money, or the other articles which are used by consumption can be recovered by a personal action? But so long as the usufruct exists, if anyone wishes to bring suit to compel the execution of a bond, it may be stated that an action can be brought for an uncertain sum on account of the omitted bond; but after the usufruct is terminated, Sabinus thinks that proceedings can be instituted for the recovery of the entire amount. This opinion Celsus adopts in the Eighteenth Book of the Digest, and it does not seem to me devoid of ingenuity. 2What we have stated with reference to the usufruct of money or of other articles which are made use of by consumption, also applies to the use of the same; for both Julianus and Pomponius state in the Eighth Book of Stipulations, that the use and usufruct of money are identical.

6Julianus, Digest, Book XXXV. If ten thousand aurei are bequeathed to you and the usufruct of the same ten thousand to me, the entire ten thousand will belong to you; but five thousand must be paid to me on condition that I give security to you that, “At the time of my death or loss of civil rights, they will be delivered to you”; for, if a tract of land is devised to you, and the usufruct of the same land to me, you would, indeed, have the ownership of the entire tract, but you would have part of it together with the usufruct, and part of it without, and I should give security which would be approved by a good citizen to you and not to the heir. 1But where the usufruct of the same ten thousand aurei is bequeathed to two persons, they will each receive five thousand, and must give security to one another and also to the heir.

7Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book VII. Where the usufruct of oil, wine, or grain is bequeathed, the property should be delivered to the legatee, and he should be required to give a bond that, “Whenever he dies or forfeits his civil rights, articles of the same quality shall be delivered”; or the former article must be appraised and security be given for a certain sum of money, which is more convenient. We understand the same rule to apply to other things, the value of which is embraced in their use.

8Ad Dig. 7,5,8Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 204, Note 7.Papinianus, Questions, Book XVII. Three heirs having been appointed by a testator, he bequeathed to Titius the usufruct of fifteen thousand aurei, and ordered two of the heirs to give security for the legatee. It was decided that there was a Valid legacy of the security, and that the Decree of the Senate did not oppose this interpretation, because the execution of the bond was not prevented; and that one of the legacies was for a certain amount, and the other for an amount which was uncertain, and therefore that suit might be brought for a part of the money as usufruct against the heir who had received security from his co-heir; and that he was liable to an action for an uncertain amount if he himself did not give security. With reference, however, to the heir who furnished security, and who, on account of the delay of his co-heir, had not received any, he would not, in the meantime, be liable under the Decree of the Senate for the usufruct, nor would he be liable to the action for uncertain damages because he had given security to his co-heir. We are also of the opinion that the legatee can be compelled to promise; but when the usufruct is terminated, if the co-heirs are sued on account of their suretyship, they will not be entitled to an action on mandate, as no mandate was ever undertaken, but they only obeyed the will of the testator, and, in short, are released by the legacy of security. It is not necessary to enter into a long discussion with reference to the following question, namely, that the second legacy, that is to say the one of the security, does not seem to have been left to the heirs but to the party to whom the usufruct of the money was bequeathed, and for whom the testator wished to provide, and whose interest he thought it was that he should not seek for sureties at his own risk.

9Paulus, On Neratius, Book I. In a stipulation having reference to the restoration of the usufruct of money, two occurrences also are mentioned, namely, death, and the loss of civil rights.

10Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXXIX. Since the use of money cannot be lost in any other way than by the said occurrences. 1Where only the use of money is bequeathed, since it must be understood, in this particular instance, that the term “use” also includes the profits, a stipulation must be entered into. Certain authorities hold that a stipulation should not be entered into before the money has been paid; but I am of the opinion that the stipulation will be valid whether it is made before, or after the money has been paid.

11The Same, On Sabinus, Book XVIII. Where the usufruct of wool, perfumes, or spices is bequeathed, it is held that no usufruct is legally created in these substances, but recourse must be had to the Decree of the Senate which provides for security with reference to them.

12Marcianus, Institutes, Book VII. Where money was left to Titius in such a way that after the death of the legatee it was to go to Mævius; the Divine Severus and Antoninus stated in a Rescript that, although it had been added that Titius was to have the use of the money, still, the property of the same was bequeathed to him, and that mention was made of the use because the money was to be paid over after his death.