Usufructuarius quemadmodum caveat
(In what way an usufructuary must give security.)
1 Ulpianus libro septuagensimo nono ad edictum. Si cuius rei usus fructus legatus sit, aequissimum praetori visum est de utroque legatarium cavere: et usurum se boni viri arbitratu et, cum usus fructus ad eum pertinere desinet, restituturum quod inde exstabit. 1Haec stipulatio, sive mobilis res sit sive soli, interponi debet. 2Illud sciendum est ad fideicommissa etiam aptari eam debere. plane et si ex mortis causa donatione usus fructus constituatur, exemplo legatorum debebit haec cautio praestari: sed et si ex alia quacumque causa constitutus fuerit usus fructus, idem dicendum est. 3Cavere autem debet viri boni arbitratu perceptu iri usum fructum, hoc est non deteriorem se causam usus fructus facturum ceteraque facturum, quae in re sua faceret. 4Recte autem facient et heres et legatarius, qualis res sit, cum frui incipit legatarius, si in testatum redegerint: ut inde possit apparere, an et quatenus rem peiorem legatarius fecerit. 5Utilis autem visum est stipulatione de hoc caveri, ut, si quis non viri boni arbitratu utatur, committatur stipulatio statim, nec expetabimus, ut amittatur usus fructus. 6Habet autem stipulatio ista duas causas, unam, si aliter quis utatur quam vir bonus arbitrabitur, aliam de usu fructu restituendo: quarum prior statim committetur, quam aliter fuerit usus, et saepius committetur, sequens committetur finito usu fructu. 7Sed quod diximus id quod inde exstabit restitutu iri, non ipsam rem stipulatur proprietarius (inutiliter enim rem suam stipulari videretur), sed stipulatur restitutu iri quod inde exstabit. interdum autem inerit proprietatis aestimatio, si forte fructuarius, cum possit usucapionem interpellare, neglexit: omnem enim rei curam suscipit.
1 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XCVII. Where the usufruct of anything is bequeathed, it seemed to the Prætor to be perfectly just that the legatee should give security with reference to two things; one, that will use the property as a good citizen should, and the other, that when the usufruct ceases to belong to him, he will restore what remains of it. 1This stipulation must be entered into, whether the property is movable, or consists of land. 2It must be borne in mind that this proceeding must also be employed in the case of trusts; for it is evident that if an usufruct is created by a donatio mortis causa, this security must be furnished in the case of legacies. Moreover, if the usufruct is created in any other manner, the same rule will apply. 3The party must give security that “the usufruct will be enjoyed as a good citizen would enjoy it”; that is to say, that the quality of the usufruct will not be deteriorated, and that he will do everything else which he would do, if the property belonged to him. 4The heir and the legatee will do well, as soon as the legatee begins to enjoy his right, to have it established by witnesses what the condition of the property is at the time, so that, by this means it may be apparent whether, and to what extent, the legatee has diminished the value of the property. 5It was considered more advisable that security should be given under these circumstances by means of a stipulation, so that if anyone should make use of the property in a way that a good citizen would not do, suit might be at once brought on the stipulation; and hence we do not have to wait until the usufruct terminates. 6This kind of a stipulation has reference to two cases; one where the party uses the property in a way which a good citizen would not do, and another where the usufruct must be restored; the first of these becomes operative as soon as an improper use of the property is made, and it may occur many times; the other takes effect when the usufruct expires. 7With reference to what we have stated, however, namely, that “he will restore what remains of it”; the owner does not stipulate for the thing itself, (as he would be considered to uselessly stipulate for his own property) he merely stipulates that whatever remains shall be restored. Sometimes, however, the provision for an appraisement of the property is inserted; for example, where an usufructuary who can prevent usucaption neglects to do so; as he undertakes to exercise every care over the property:
2 Paulus libro septuagensimo quinto ad edictum. Nam fructuarius custodiam praestare debet.
2 Paulus, On the Edict, Book LXXV. For the usufructuary must be responsible for its safe keeping.
3 Ulpianus libro septuagensimo nono ad edictum. Omnes autem casus continentur huic stipulationi, quibus usus fructus amittitur. 1Desinere pertinere usum fructum accipiemus etiam si nec coeperit pertinere, quamvis legatus sit, et committetur nihilo minus stipulatio, quasi desinat pertinere quod nec coepit. 2Si usus fructus repetitus erit legato, quotiensque amissus fuerit (nisi utiliter fuerit cautum), committetur ista stipulatio: sed exceptione opus erit. 3Sed et si quis usum fructum tibi legaverit et sub condicione ‘si liberos habueris’ proprietatem, amisso usu fructu committetur quidem stipulatio, sed exceptio locum habebit. 4Si heres alienaverit proprietatem et postea amittatur usus fructus, an ex stipulatu agere possit, videamus. et fortius dici potest ipso iure non committi stipulationem, quia neque heredi successoribusve eius restitui potest neque is cui potest, id est ad quem pervenit proprietas, pertinet ad stipulationem: sed is ad quem pervenit tempore quaesiti dominii sibi prospicere alia cautione debet: quod etsi non fecerit, nihilo minus in rem actione uti potest.
3 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXXIX. All cases in which the usufruct can be lost are included in this stipulation. 1We understand the usufruct to “cease to belong” to the usufructuary even if it has not commenced to belong to him at all, although it may have been bequeathed to him, and the stipulation will, nevertheless, become operative on the principle that property ceases to belong to a party in whom the ownership has not yet begun to vest. 2Where an usufruct is renewed by a legacy “every time that it is lost”, this stipulation will become operative, unless the bond is properly drawn up, but an exception will be required. 3Where, however, anyone leaves you an usufruct and the ownership of the property as well, on the condition that you have children, and the usufruct should be lost; and action can be brought on the stipulation, but an exception will be available. 4Where an heir alienates the property, and the usufruct afterwards is lost, let us consider whether he can bring suit on the stipulation. It may more forcibly be stated that, in accordance with the strict principles of law, the stipulation does not become operative because the property cannot be delivered to the heir or his successor; and the individual to whom it can be delivered—that is he in whom the ownership vests—was not a party to the stipulation. The latter, however, must provide for the protection of his own rights by means of another bond, at the time when he obtains the ownership; but if he should not do this, he will, nevertheless, be entitled to an action in rem.
4 Venuleius libro duodecimo stipulationum. Si fructuarius proprietatem adsecutus fuerit, desinit quidem usus fructus ad eum pertinere propter confusionem: sed si ex stipulatu cum eo agatur, aut ipso iure inutiliter agi dicendum est, si viri boni arbitrium huc usque porrigitur, aut in factum excipere debebit.
4 Venuleius, Stipulations, Book XII. If the usufructuary should obtain the property, the usufruct ceases to belong to him on account of the merger of the same; but if suit is brought against him on the stipulation, it must be held either that he has not proceeded in accordance with the strict principles of law, if the doctrine governing the conduct of a good citizen is considered applicable; or that the party must make use of an exception based on what has taken place.
5 Ulpianus libro septuagensimo nono ad edictum. Huic stipulationi ‘dolum malum abesse afuturumque esse’ continetur: et cum in rem sit doli mali mentio concepta, omnium dolum comprehendere videtur successorum et adoptivi patris. 1Sed si usus sine fructu legatus erit, adempta fructus causa satisdari iubet praetor: hoc merito, ut de solo usu, non etiam de fructu caveatur. 2Ergo et si fructus sine usu optigerit, stipulatio locum habebit. 3Et si habitatio vel operae hominis vel cuius alterius animalis relictae fuerint, stipulatio locum habebit, licet per omnia haec usum fructum non imitantur.
5 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXXIX. The provision, “That no fraud has been committed”, or will be committed, is contained in this stipulation; and as this mention of fraud always relates to matters in rem, it is held to include the bad faith of any of the parties, whether he be one of the successors or an adoptive father. 1Where the use without the enjoyment is bequeathed, the Prætor orders security to be given, with the enjoyment of the produce omitted. This is reasonable, since security is given solely with reference to the use, and not to the usufruct. 2Therefore the stipulation will be operative if the enjoyment is obtained without the use. 3Where the right of residence, or of the services of a slave or those of any other animal, are left, the stipulation will become necessary, although these things are not copied from the usufruct.
6 Paulus libro septuagensimo quinto ad edictum. Idem est et in reditu praedii, sicuti si vindemia legata esset vel messis, quamvis ex usu fructu ea percipiantur, quae legato morte legatarii ad heredem redeunt.
6 Paulus, On the Edict, Book LXXV. The same rule is applicable to the returns from land, as for instance, where a vintage or a harvest is bequeathed; just as property obtained by means of an usufruct, if bequeathed, reverts to the heir on the death of the legatee.
7 Ulpianus libro septuagensimo nono ad edictum. Si usus fructus nomine re tradita satisdatum non fuerit, Proculus ait posse heredem rem vindicare, et si obiciatur exceptio de re usus fructus nomine tradita, replicandum erit. quae sententia habet rationem: sed et ipsa stipulatio condici poterit. 1Cum usus fructus pecuniae legatus esset, exprimi debent hi duo casus in stipulatione: ‘cum morieris aut capite minueris, dari’: idcirco hi duo soli casus, quoniam pecuniae usus aliter amitti non potest quam his casibus.
7 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXXIX. Where property was delivered on account of an usufruct, and security was not given, Proculus says that the heir can bring an action for recovery, and if an exception is interposed on the ground that the property was delivered because of an usufruct, he will be entitled to a replication. This opinion is reasonable; but a personal action can be brought to compel the execution of a bond by the usufructuary. 1When the usufruct of a sum of money is bequeathed, the following two instances must be set forth in the stipulation, “Shall be paid when you die, or lose your civil rights”; and therefore these two instances alone are given, because the use of money cannot be lost in any other way than under such circumstances.
8 Paulus libro septuagensimo quinto ad edictum. Si tibi usus fructus et mihi proprietas legata sit, mihi cavendum est: sed si mihi sub condicione proprietas legata sit, quidam et Marcianus et heredi et mihi cavendum esse putant: quae sententia vera est. item si mihi legata sit et, cum ad me pertinere desierit, alii, et hic utrisque cavendum ut supra placuit. quod si duobus coniunctim usus fructus legatus sit, et invicem sibi cavere debebunt et heredi in casum illum: ‘si ad socium non pertineat usus fructus, heredi reddi’.
8 Paulus, On the Edict, Book LXXV. If the usufruct is bequeathed to you, and the mere ownership to me, security must be given to me; but where the mere ownership is bequeathed to me on a condition, some authorities, and among them Marcianus, are of the opinion that security must be given both to the heir and to myself; Which opinion is correct. Moreover, if the property is bequeathed to me, and when it ceases to belong to me, will belong to another; in this case also security must be given to both, as we established in the preceding instance. Where the usufruct is bequeathed to two parties jointly, they will be required to give security to another, as well as to the heir; the condition being referred to in the following terms: “To surrender the usufruct to the heir, if it does not belong to the co-legatee”.
9 Ulpianus libro quinquagensimo primo ad edictum. Si usus fructus mihi legatus sit eumque restituere sim Titio rogatus, videndum est, quis debeat cavere, utrum Titius an ego qui legatarius sum: an illud dicimus mecum heredem acturum, cum fideicommissario me agere debere? et est expeditius hoc dicere: si mihi spes aliqua durat usus fructus et, cum tu amiseris, potest ad me reccidere, hoc est ad legatarium, ita rem expediri, ut tu mihi, ego domino proprietatis caveam. quod si fideicommissarii causa usus fructus mihi relictus est nec est ulla spes ad me revertendi fructus, recta via fideicommissarium cavere oportet domino proprietatis. 1Illud sciendum est sive iure ipso quis usum fructum habet sive etiam per tuitionem praetoris, nihilo minus cogendum esse fructuarium cavere aut actiones suscipere. 2Plane si ex die proprietas alicui legata sit, usus fructus pure, dicendum esse Pomponius ait remittendam esse hanc cautionem fructuario, quia certum sit ad eum proprietatem vel ad heredem eius perventuram. 3Si vestis usus fructus legatus sit, scripsit Pomponius, quamquam heres stipulatus sit finito usu fructu vestem reddi, attamen non obligari promissorem, si eam sine dolo malo adtritam reddiderit. 4Si plures domini sint proprietatis, unusquisque pro sua parte stipulabitur.
9 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LI. Where an usufruct is bequeathed to me, and I am asked to deliver it to Titius, it should be considered who is obliged to give security, whether Titius should do so, or I, the legatee? Or shall we say that the heir can bring an action against me, and that I must sue the beneficiary of the trust? It is better to hold that if I have any expectation arising out of the usufruct, so that it may revert to me, that is to the legatee, if you lose it; the question can be settled by your giving security to me, and by my giving security to the mere owner of the property. If, however, the usufruct was left to me in trust for the beneficiary, and there is no hope of its reverting to me, then the beneficiary should give security directly to the mere owner of the property. 1It must be borne in mind that whether a party has an usufruct by direct operation of law, or even through the assistance of the Prætor, he should, nevertheless, be compelled to give security or to defend any actions which may be brought. 2Pomponius says it is evident that if the ownership is bequeathed to anyone from a certain time, and the usufruct absolutely; it must be held that the usufructuary is released from liability on his bond, because it is certain that the property will come into his hands or into those of his heir. 3When the usufruct of clothing is bequeathed, Pomponius holds that although the heir may have stipulated that the clothing should be returned when the usufruct comes to an end; nevertheless, the promisor is not liable if he delivers the clothing which was worn out without malicious intent. 4Where several parties are the mere owners of property, any one of them can enter into a stipulation with reference to his own share of the same.
10 Paulus libro quadragensimo ad edictum. Si servi, qui nobis communis erat, usum fructum tibi legavero, necessaria erit haec cautio heredi meo: quamvis enim de proprietate possit communi dividundo experiri, tamen causa usus fructus, qui tuus proprius est, ad officium communi dividundo iudicis non pertinebit.
10 Paulus, On the Edict, Book XL. If I bequeath to you the usufruct of a slave which both of us own in common, the security must be given to my heir; for although he can institute proceedings for partition of the property, still, the question of the usufruct, which belongs to you, is not included in the duty of the judge who is to preside.
11 Papinianus libro septimo responsorum. Usu quoque domus relicto viri boni arbitratu cautionem interponi oportet: nec mutat, si pater heredes filios simul habitare cum uxore legataria voluit.
11 Papinianus, Opinions, Book VII. Where the use of a house is left, security must be furnished which would be satisfactory to a good citizen; nor does it alter the case if the father wishes his sons, who are his heirs, to reside in the house with his widow, who is the legatee.
12 Ulpianus libro octavo decimo ad Sabinum. Si vasorum ipsorum usus fructus relictus sit, non erit cautio senatus consulti necessaria, sed illa sola ‘boni viri arbitratu usurum fruiturum’. si igitur tradita sunt fruendi causa, nemo dubitat non fieri eius qui accepit: non enim ideo traduntur, ut dominium recedat ab eo qui tradit, sed ut utatur fruatur legatarius. ergo cum non fiant fructuarii vasa, vindicari a proprietario possunt cautione non data. videndum est de condictione, an possit locum habere: et proditum est neminem rem suam nisi furi condicere posse.
12 Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XVIII. Where the usufruct of certain vessels is left, the security provided by the Decree of the Senate will not be necessary; but only that which states that “the party will use and enjoy as a good citizen should do”. Therefore, where the vessels were delivered for the purpose of being enjoyed, no one doubts that the ownership of the same is not transferred to the party who received them, for they are not delivered for this purpose; but that the legatee might use and enjoy them. Hence, as the said vessels do not become the property of the usufructuary, they can be recovered by the owner of the same, if security is not given. It should be considered whether a personal action will lie under such circumstances? It has been decided that no one can bring an action of this kind to recover his own property, except from a thief.