De servitutibus praediorum urbanorum
(Concerning Servitudes of Urban Estates.)
1 Paulus libro vicensimo primo ad edictum. Si intercedat solum publicum vel via publica, neque itineris actusve neque altius tollendi servitutes impedit: sed immittendi protegendi prohibendi, item fluminum et stillicidiorum servitutem impedit, quia caelum, quod supra id solum intercedit, liberum esse debet. 1Si usus fructus tuus sit, aedium proprietas mea, quae onera vicini sustinere debeant, mecum in solidum agi potest, tecum nullo modo.
1 Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXI. Where land belonging to the public or a highway intervenes, this does not prevent the servitudes of a right of way, or for driving cattle, or for raising the height of a house, from being enjoyed; but it does interfere with the right of supporting a beam by a wall, or of a projecting roof, and it also interferes with the servitudes for the flowing and dripping of water, for the reason that the sky over the aforesaid ground should be free. 1Where the usufruct of a house is yours, and I have the mere ownership of the same, and it is subject to the support of the building of a neighbor; suit can be brought against me for all of it, but no legal proceedings can be instituted against you.
2 Gaius libro septimo ad edictum provinciale. Urbanorum praediorum iura talia sunt: altius tollendi et officiendi luminibus vicini aut non extollendi: item stillicidium avertendi in tectum vel aream vicini aut non avertendi: item immittendi tigna in parietem vicini et denique proiciendi protegendive ceteraque istis similia.
2 Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book VII. The following are the rights to which urban estates are subject, namely: that of raising a house and obscuring the lights of a neighbor, or of preventing a raising of this kind; that of allowing the dripping of rain-water on the roof or the ground of a neighbor; and also that of not allowing the right of inserting beams into the wall of a neighbor, and that of the projection of a building; and others similar to these.
3 Ulpianus libro vicensimo nono ad Sabinum. Est et haec servitus, ne prospectui officiatur.
3 Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXIX. A servitude providing against obstructing a view also exists.
4 Paulus libro secundo institutionum. Luminum in servitute constituta id adquisitum videtur, ut vicinus lumina nostra excipiat: cum autem servitus imponitur, ne luminibus officiatur, hoc maxime adepti videmur, ne ius sit vicino invitis nobis altius aedificare atque ita minuere lumina nostrorum aedificiorum.
4 Paulus, Institutes, Book II. Where a servitude of lights is created, it is held that what is acquired is that a neighbor must not interfere with our lights, but if the servitude imposed is to prevent the obscuring of lights, we seem to have especially acquired the right that a neighbor shall not raise his building any higher against our will, so as to lessen the amount of light in our house.
5 Ulpianus libro septimo decimo ad edictum. Invitum autem in servitutibus accipere debemus non eum qui contra dicit, sed eum qui non consentit. ideo Pomponius libro quadragensimo et infantem et furiosum invitos recte dici ait: non enim ad factum, sed ad ius servitutis haec verba referuntur.
5 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XVII. We must understand the unwillingness of anyone in matters relating to servitudes to mean, not that he objects in so many words, but that he does not consent. Therefore, Pomponius states in the Fortieth Book, that even an infant and an insane person may be properly said to be unwilling; for these terms do not relate to the act, but to the right to impose servitudes.
6 Gaius libro septimo ad edictum provinciale. Haec autem iura similiter ut rusticorum quoque praediorum certo tempore non utendo pereunt: nisi quod haec dissimilitudo est, quod non omnimodo pereunt non utendo, sed ita, si vicinus simul libertatem usucapiat. veluti si aedes tuae aedibus meis serviant, ne altius tollantur, ne luminibus mearum aedium officiatur, et ego per statutum tempus fenestras meas praefixas habuero vel obstruxero, ita demum ius meum amitto, si tu per hoc tempus aedes tuas altius sublatas habueris: alioquin si nihil novi feceris, retineo servitutem. item si tigni immissi aedes tuae servitutem debent et ego exemero tignum, ita demum amitto ius meum, si tu foramen, unde exemptum est tignum, obturaveris et per constitutum tempus ita habueris: alioquin si nihil novi feceris, integrum ius suum permanet.
6 Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book VII. Moreover, these servitudes just as those of rustic estates, are lost by want of use after a certain time has elapsed; except that this distinction exists between them, namely: that they are not absolutely lost by want of use, but only where the neighbor obtains freedom by usucaption at the same time. For instance, if your house is servient to mine so that it cannot be raised any higher lest it may obstruct the lights of my building, and I have my windows closed or obstructed during the time established by law; I lose my right only where you have had your house raised and remaining higher during the time aforesaid; otherwise, if you construct nothing new, I will retain the servitude. Moreover, if your house is subject to the servitude of the insertion of a beam, and I remove the beam, I only lose my right if you fill up the hole from which the beam was taken, and retain things in this state during the time prescribed by law; but if you make no change, my right remains unimpaired.
7 Pomponius libro vicensimo sexto ad Quintum Mucium. Quod autem aedificio meo me posse consequi, ut libertatem usucaperem, dicitur, idem me non consecuturum, si arborem eodem loco sitam habuissem, Mucius ait, et recte, quia non ita in suo statu et loco maneret arbor quemadmodum paries, propter motum naturalem arboris.
7 Pomponius, On Quintus Mucius, Book XXVI. Mucius says, with reference to what is stated about my acquiring freedom for my building by usucaption, that I could not have acquired it by planting a tree in that same place; and this is correct, because the tree would not remain in the same condition and place as a wall would do, on account of the natural motion of the tree.
8 Gaius libro septimo ad edictum provinciale. Parietem, qui naturali ratione communis est, alterutri vicinorum demoliendi eum et reficiendi ius non est, quia non solus dominus est.
8 Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book VII. Where a wall is, according to natural law, common property, neither of two neighbors has a right to tear it down, or repair it, because he is not the sole owner.
9 Ulpianus libro quinquagensimo tertio ad edictum. Cum eo, qui tollendo obscurat vicini aedes, quibus non serviat, nulla competit actio.
9 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LIII. Where a man by raising his own house shuts off the lights of his neighbor, and is not subject to a servitude imposed upon his building, no action can be brought against him.
10 Marcellus libro quarto digestorum. Gaurus Marcello: binas aedes habeo, alteras tibi lego, heres aedes alteras altius tollit et luminibus tuis officit: quid cum illo agere potes? et an interesse putes, suas aedes altius tollat an hereditarias? et de illo quaero, an per alienas aedes accessum heres ad eam rem quae legatur praestare debet, sicut solet quaeri, cum usus fructus loci legatus est, ad quem locum accedi nisi per alienum non potest. Marcellus respondit: qui binas aedes habebat, si alteras legavit, non dubium est, quin heres alias possit altius tollendo obscurare lumina legatarum aedium: idem dicendum est, si alteri aedes, alteri aliarum usum fructum legaverit. non autem semper simile est itineris argumentum, quia sine accessu nullum est fructus legatum, habitare autem potest et aedibus obscuratis. ceterum usu fructu loci legato etiam accessus dandus est, quia et haustu relicto iter quoque ad hauriendum praestaretur. sed ita officere luminibus et obscurare legatas aedes conceditur, ut non penitus lumen recludatur, sed tantum relinquatur, quantum sufficit habitantibus in usus diurni moderatione.
10 Marcellus, Digest, Book IV. Gaurus to Marcellus: I have two houses, I bequeathed one of them to you, and my heir raised the other and obstructed your lights; can you bring an action against him, and do you think that it makes any difference whether the house which he raised was his own or the one which he inherited? I wish also to ask whether an heir is obliged to grant access to property, which has been bequeathed, through a house belonging to another; as this inquiry is frequently made where the usufruct of land is bequeathed, which cannot be reached except through the property of another. Marcellus answered: Where a man has two houses and bequeathed one of them, there is no doubt that the heir can obstruct the light to the one bequeathed by raising the other; and the same must be said where a party bequeathed a house to one legatee, and the usufruct of another house to another. A similar rule, however, is not always applicable to a right of way, because, without access, the legacy of usufruct is worthless; but a man can live in a house where the light has been obstructed. Moreover, where an usufruct of land is bequeathed, access to it should also be given, because if what was left was the privilege of drawing water, a right of way for this purpose ought also to be granted. It should, however, be stated that the heir is permitted to obstruct the light and to darken the house, only to such an extent that the light should not be entirely cut off, but as much left as will be sufficient for the ordinary requirements of the inmates of the house during the day.
11 Ulpianus libro primo de officio consulis. Qui luminibus vicinorum officere aliudve quid facere contra commodum eorum vellet, sciet se formam ac statum antiquorum aedificiorum custodire debere. 1Si inter te et vicinum tuum non convenit, ad quam altitudinem extolli aedificia, quae facere instituisti, oporteat, arbitrum accipere poteris.
11 Ulpianus, On the Office of Consul, Book I. Where anyone wishes to cut off his neighbors’ lights, or to do anything else which may interfere with their convenience, he must remember that he is obliged to preserve the original form and position of the building. 1Where no agreement exists between you and your neighbor as to the height of a building which you have undertaken to erect, you can have an arbiter appointed.
12 Iavolenus libro decimo ex Cassio. Aedificia, quae servitutem patiantur ne quid altius tollatur, viridia supra eam altitudinem habere possunt: at si de prospectu est eaque obstatura sunt, non possunt.
12 Javolenus, On Cassius, Book X. Where buildings are subject to a servitude that no portion of them shall be raised any higher, shrubs can be placed upon them above that height; but where the servitude relates to the view and the shrubs would obstruct it, this cannot be done.
13 Proculus libro secundo epistularum. Quidam Hiberus nomine, qui habet post horrea mea insulam, balnearia fecit secundum parietem communem: non licet autem tubulos habere admotos ad parietem communem, sicuti ne parietem quidem suum per parietem communem: de tubulis eo amplius hoc iuris est, quod per eos flamma torretur paries: qua de re volo cum hibero loquaris, ne rem illicitam faciat. Proculus respondit: nec Hiberum pro ea re dubitare puto, quod rem non permissam facit tubulos secundum communem parietem extruendo. 1Parietem communem incrustare licet secundum Capitonis senteniam, sicut licet mihi pretiosissimas picturas habere in pariete communi: ceterum si demolitus sit vicinus et ex stipulatu actione damni infecti agatur, non pluris quam vulgaria tectoria aestimari debent: quod observari et in incrustatione oportet.
13 Proculus, Epistles, Book II. A certain Hiberus, who owns a building in the rear of my warehouse, built bathrooms against the party-wall; although it is not lawful for anyone to conduct pipes along a party-wall, just as he has no right to build another wall over it; and the law applies with much more force to pipes, because, by means of them, the wall may be burned. I wish that you would speak to Hiberus about this, in order to prevent him from doing what is illegal. Proculus answered, “I do not think that Hiberus has any doubt in this instance that he is doing something which is not allowed in placing pipes along a party-wall”. 1According to the opinions of Capito, it is permitted to encrust a party wall with ornamental stucco, as I can have very valuable paintings on a wall of this kind; but if my neighbor demolishes the wall, and proceedings are instituted for the prevention of threatened injury, on a stipulation, paintings of this description cannot be appraised any higher than ordinary plaster; and this rule must also be observed with reference to decorative encrustation.
14 Papirius Iustus libro primo de constitutionibus. Imperatores Antoninus et [ed. maior Severus] <ed. minor Verus> Augusti rescripserunt in area, quae nulli servitutem debet, posse dominum vel alium voluntate eius aedificare intermisso legitimo spatio a vicina insula.
14 Papirius Justus, On the Constitutions, Book I. The Emperors Antoninus and Verus stated in a Rescript, that the owner, or anyone else with his consent, has a right to build on vacant land which is not subject to a servitude, if he leaves the lawful space between where he builds and the neighboring house.
15 Ulpianus libro vicensimo nono ad Sabinum. Inter servitutes ne luminibus officiatur et ne prospectui offendatur aliud et aliud observatur: quod in prospectu plus quis habet, ne quid ei officiatur ad gratiorem prospectum et liberum, in luminibus autem, non officere ne lumina cuiusquam obscuriora fiant. quodcumque igitur faciat ad luminis impedimentum, prohiberi potest, si servitus debeatur, opusque ei novum nuntiari potest, si modo sic faciat, ut lumini noceat.
15 Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXIX. Different rules are observed with reference to servitudes which provide against obstructing lights, or impeding the view; because with reference to the view, as the dominant owner has a greater interest in having a pleasant and unobstructed prospect; but, so far as the lights are concerned, nothing must be done by which they may be obscured, and therefore whatever the servient owner does to this end can be prohibited, if a servitude exists; and notice of a new structure can be served upon him, provided he acts in such a way as to obstruct the light.
16 Paulus libro secundo epitomarum Alfeni digestorum. Lumen id est, ut caelum videretur, et interest inter lumen et prospectum: nam prospectus etiam ex inferioribus locis est, lumen ex inferiore loco esse non potest.
16 Paulus, Epitomes of the Digest of Alfenus, Book II. Light is the power of seeing the sky, and a difference exists between light and view; for a view of lower places may be had, but light cannot be obtained from a place which is lower.
17 Ulpianus libro vicensimo nono ad Sabinum. Si arborem ponat, ut lumini officiat, aeque dicendum erit contra impositam servitutem eum facere: nam et arbor efficit, quo minus Caeli videri possit. si tamen id quod ponitur lumen quidem nihil impediat, solem autem auferat, si quidem eo loci, quo gratum erat eum non esse, potest dici nihil contra servitutem facere: sin vero heliocamino vel solario, dicendum erit, quia umbram facit in loco, cui sol fuit necessarius, contra servitutem impositam fieri. 1Per contrarium si deponat aedificium vel arboris ramos, quo facto locus opacus quondam coepit solis esse plenus, non facit contra servitutem: hanc enim debuit, ne luminibus officiat, nunc non luminibus officit, sed plus aequo lumen facit. 2Interdum dici potest eum quoque, qui tollit aedificium vel deprimit, luminibus officere: si forte κατὰ ἀντανάκλασιν vel pressura quadam lumen in eas aedes devolvatur. 3Haec lex traditionis ‘stillicidia uti nunc sunt, ut ita sint’ hoc significat impositam vicinis necessitatem stillicidiorum excipiendorum, non illud, ut etiam emptor stillicidia suscipiat aedificiorum vicinorum: hoc igitur pollicetur venditor sibi quidem stillicidiorum servitutem deberi, se autem nulli debere. 4Quae de stillicidio scripta sunt, etiam in ceteris servitutibus accipienda sunt, si in contrarium nihil nominatim actum est.
17 Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXIX. Where anyone plants a tree so as to interfere with the light, it may be stated with perfect propriety that he acts in opposition to a servitude which has been imposed; for even a tree renders the sky less plainly visible. Where, however, what is placed there does not at all interfere with the light, but only cuts off the rays of the sun; if this is done in a place where it was more pleasant to be without it, it can be said that no act has been committed in violation of the servitude; but if it is done so as to cut off the sunshine from a room, or from a sundial, it must be said that, by producing shade in a place where sunshine was necessary, he acts in violation of the servitude imposed. 1On the other hand, if a man removes the building or the branches of a tree, by which a place which was formerly shady becomes exposed to the sun, he does not violate the servitude; for he must act in such a way as not to obstruct the light, and in this instance he does not obstruct it, but he causes too much light. 2Sometimes, however, it may be said that even where a party removes or lowers a building, he still obstructs the light; if for instance, the light entered into a house by reflection or repercussion, or in some other way. 3The following clause with reference to delivery: “The dripping from the roof to remain as it is at present”; means that the neighbors are required to allow the dripping of water from the roof, but not to the extent that the purchaser is to tolerate it from neighboring buildings; and therefore the vendor alleges that he is entitled to a servitude of the dripping of water from a roof but is not subject to this so far as anyone else is concerned. 4What has been stated here with reference to the dripping of water from a roof, must be understood to apply to all other servitudes also, if nothing to the contrary has been expressly agreed upon.
18 Pomponius libro decimo ad Sabinum. Si fistulae, per quas aquam ducas, aedibus meis applicatae damnum mihi dent, in factum actio mihi competit: sed et damni infecti stipulari a te potero.
18 Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book X. Where pipes through which you conduct water being attached to my house cause me damage, I am entitled to an action in factum, and I can also demand from you a stipulation for the prevention of threatened injury.
19 Paulus libro sexto ad Sabinum. Fistulam iunctam parieti communi, quae aut ex castello aut ex caelo aquam capit, non iure haberi Proculus ait: sed non posse prohiberi vicinum, quo minus balineum habeat secundum parietem communem, quamvis umorem capiat paries: non magis quam si vel in triclinio suo vel in cubiculo aquam effunderet. sed Neratius ait, si talis sit usus tepidarii, ut adsiduum umorem habeat et id noceat vicino, posse prohiberi eum. 1Iuxta communem parietem cameram ex figlino opere factam, si ita retineatur, ut etiam sublato pariete maneat, si modo non impediat refectionem communis parietis, iure haberi licet. 2Scalas posse me ad parietem communem habere Sabinus recte scribit, quia removeri hae possunt.
19 Paulus, On Sabinus, Book VI. Proculus says that a pipe attached to a party-wall, and which carries water from a cistern, or from the sky, is something which cannot legally exist; but that a neighbor cannot be prevented from having a bath-room against a wall of this kind, even though the wall might become damp; any more than he could be prevented from pouring out water in his own dining or bed-room. Neratius, however, says that the neighbor can be prevented from doing this, if the apartment was used for warm baths, so that it kept the wall constantly damp, and this was a source of injury to his neighbor. 1Where a room of earthenware is built against a party-wall, it can legally exist if it is so constructed that it will remain even if the party-wall is removed, provided it does not interfere with the repairs of the same. 2Sabinus says very properly that I can have a stairway against a party wall because it can be removed.
20 Idem libro quinto decimo ad Sabinum. Servitutes, quae in superficie consistunt, possessione retinentur. nam si forte ex aedibus meis in aedes tuas tignum immissum habuero, hoc, ut immissum habeam, per causam tigni possideo habendi consuetudinem. idem eveniet et si menianum in tuum immissum habuero aut stillicidium in tuum proiecero, quia in tuo aliquid utor et si quasi facto quodam possideo. 1Si domo mea altior area tua esset tuque mihi per aream tuam in domum meam ire agere cessisti nec ex plano aditus ad domum meam per aream tuam esset, vel gradus vel clivos propius ianuam meam iure facere possum, dum ne quid ultra quam quod necesse esset itineris causa demoliar. 2Si sublatum sit aedificium, ex quo stillicidium cadit, ut eadem specie et qualitate reponatur, utilitas exigit, ut idem intellegatur: nam alioquin si quid strictius interpretetur, aliud est quod sequenti loco ponitur: et ideo sublato aedificio usus fructus interit, quamvis area pars est aedificii. 3Si servitus stillicidii imposita sit, non licet domino servientis areae ibi aedificare, ubi cassitare coepisset stillicidium. 4Si antea ex tegula cassitaverit stillicidium, postea ex tabulato vel ex alia materia cassitare non potest. 5Stillicidium quoquo modo adquisitum sit, altius tolli potest: levior enim fit eo facto servitus, cum quod ex alto, cadet lenius et interdum direptum nec perveniat ad locum servientem: inferius demitti non potest, quia fit gravior servitus, id est pro stillicidio flumen. eadem causa retro duci potest stillicidium, quia in nostro magis incipiet cadere, produci non potest, ne alio loco cadat stillicidium, quam in quo posita servitus est: lenius facere poterimus, acrius non. et omnino sciendum est meliorem vicini condicionem fieri posse, deteriorem non posse, nisi aliquid nominatim servitute imponenda immutatum fuerit. 6Qui in area, in qua stillicidium cadit, aedificat, usque ad eum locum perducere aedificium potest, unde stillicidium cadit: sed et si in aedificio cadit stillicidium, supra aedificare ei conceditur, dum tamen stillicidium recte recipiatur.
20 The Same, On Sabinus, Book XV. Servitudes which are only attached to the surface of the ground are retained by possession; for if I should happen to have a beam extending from my house and inserted into yours, then, since I have the right of such insertion, I have possession of the privilege on account of the said beam. The result will be the same if I have a balcony supported by something on your land, or if I permit the dripping of water on your premises since I am using something which belongs to you, and thus, as it were have possession by my own act. 1If my yard is higher than your house, and you have granted me the right to walk or drive through your yard to my house, and there is no level approaching to my house through your yard; I can legally build steps, or an inclined plane to my door, so long as I do not demolish anything more than is necessary for the purpose of establishing the right of way. 2Where a building from which water drips from the roof is removed in order that another of the same shape and nature may be erected there, the public welfare requires that the latter should be understood to be the same structure; for, otherwise, if a strict interpretation is made, the building afterwards erected on the ground will be a different one; and therefore when the original building is removed the usufruct will be lost, even though the site of a building is a portion of the same. 3Where the servitude of the dripping of water is imposed, the owner of the ground subject to the same cannot legally build upon the place where the water falls. 4Where the water was discharged in the first place from a tile-roof it can not subsequently be discharged from the one of boards, or one constructed of any other material. 5In whatever manner a servitude of the dripping of water was acquired, the fall can be made greater by raising the building to a higher level, since by this means the servitude will be more easily tolerated, as what falls from a height does so more gently, and sometimes is dispersed, and does not reach the place subject to the servitude; but it cannot be lowered, because that the servitude would become more onerous, that is to say, instead of a drip there will be a stream. For the same reason the drip may be carried back, as in this instance, it will begin to fall more on our premises; but it cannot be brought forward, since it would then fall on another place than that subject to the servitude; for we can render anything less onerous, but not more so. And, by all means, it should be borne in mind that the condition of a neighbor may be improved, but not made worse, unless at the time that the servitude was imposed, some change was expressly provided for. 6Where anyone builds upon ground which is subject to the servitude of a drip from a roof, he has the right to raise his building to the place from which the drip proceeds; and indeed, if it falls upon the building itself he can erect it still higher, provided, however, the drip is still properly taken care of.
21 Pomponius libro trigensimo tertio ad Sabinum. Si domus tua aedificiis meis utramque servitutem deberet, ne altius tolleretur et ut stillicidium aedificiorum meorum recipere deberet, et tibi concessero ius esse invito me altius tollere aedificia tua, quod ad stillicidium meum attinet, sic statui debebit, ut, si altius sublatis aedificiis tuis stillicidia mea cadere in ea non possint, ea ratione altius tibi aedificare non liceat: si non impediantur stillicidia mea, liceat tibi altius tollere.
21 Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XXXIII. Where your house is subject to two servitudes in favor of buildings belonging to me, namely: that it must not be raised higher, and must receive the water from off my building, and I grant you the right to raise your house without my consent; it must be held, so far as relates to the drip of my water, that if your house is raised higher, and it is impossible for the rain-water from mine to fall upon it, you will not for that reason be permitted to raise it any higher, but if the drip from mine is not interfered with, you can raise it higher.
22 Iulianus libro secundo ex Minicio. Qui aedificium habet, potest servitutem vicino imponere, ut non solum de his luminibus, quae in praesentia erunt, sed etiam de his quae postea fuerint, caveat.
22 Julianus, On Minicius, Book II. A man who owns a house can impose such a servitude upon his neighbor as to compel him to give security not only with reference to the lights which exist at the present time, but also with reference to any that may subsequently be made.
23 Pomponius libro trigensimo tertio ad Sabinum. Si servitus imposita fuerit ‘lumina quae nunc sunt, ut ita sint’, de futuris luminibus nihil caveri videtur: quod si ita sit cautum ‘ne luminibus officiatur’, ambigua est scriptura, utrum ne his luminibus officiatur quae nunc sint, an etiam his quae postea quoque fuerint: et humanius est verbo generali omne lumen significari, sive quod in praesenti sive quod post tempus conventionis contigerit. 1Futuro quoque aedificio, quod nondum est, vel imponi vel adquiri servitus potest.
23 Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XXXIII. Where a servitude is imposed as follows, “The lights which are now in existence are to remain in their present condition”: this is not held to provide anything with respect to future lights; but if the words of the bond are: “Lights are not to be obstructed”, this clause is ambiguous, and does not indicate whether the lights which now exist are not to be obstructed, or whether other lights which may be afterwards made are included. The more favorable construction is that the clause refers in general terms to all lights, whether they exist at the present time, or are made after the contract has been executed. 1Even where a building has been planned but has not yet been erected, a servitude may be acquired by or imposed upon it.
24 Paulus libro quinto decimo ad Sabinum. Cuius aedificium iure superius est, ei ius est in infinito supra suum aedificium imponere, dum inferiora aedificia non graviore servitute oneret quam pati debent.
24 Paulus, On Sabinus, Book XV. Where a person has a building which is higher than that of another, he can legally raise his own house as high as he wishes, so long as this does not impose a more onerous servitude on the buildings below than they should bear.
25 Pomponius libro trigensimo tertio ad Sabinum. Hoc, quod dictum est de immissis, locum habet ex aedificio alio in aliud: aliter enim supra alienum aedificium superius habere nemo potest. 1Si ex tribus aedibus in loco impari positis aedes mediae superioribus serviant aedibus, inferiores autem nulli serviant, et paries communis, qui sit inter aedes inferiores et medias, altius a domino inferiorum aedium sublatus sit, iure eum altius habiturum Sabinus ait.
25 Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XXXIII. What has been stated concerning the insertion of timbers into a building is applicable where one house supports something belonging to another; otherwise, no one can have his building rest upon that of another, 1Where three houses stand on sloping ground, and the middle house is subject to a servitude in favor of the upper one, but the lowest is not servient to any, and the party-wall dividing the lower and the middle houses is raised by the owner of the lowest one, Sabinus says that in this instance the said owner can legally retain the wall which has been raised.
26 Paulus libro quinto decimo ad Sabinum. In re communi nemo dominorum iure servitutis neque facere quicquam invito altero potest neque prohibere, quo minus alter faciat (nulli enim res sua servit): itaque propter immensas contentiones plerumque res ad divisionem pervenit. sed per communi dividundo actionem consequitur socius, quo minus opus fiat aut ut id opus quod fecit tollat, si modo toti societati prodest opus tolli.
26 Paulus, On Sabinus, Book XV. Where property is held in common, none of the owners can, by virtue of a servitude, build anything without the consent of the others, or prevent the others from building anything; since no one can have a servitude attached to his own property. Therefore, on account of the interminable controversies that may result, the property is usually divided; but, by means of an action in partition, one of the parties in interest can prevent any work from being done, or can cause the others to remove anything which has already been constructed, provided this is for the benefit of all.
27 Pomponius libro trigensimo tertio ad Sabinum. Sed si inter te et me communes sunt Titianae aedes et ex his aliquid non iure in alias aedes meas proprias immissum sit, nempe tecum mihi agere licet aut rem perdere. idem fiet, si ex tuis propriis aedibus in communes meas et tuas aedes quid similiter esset proiectum: mihi enim soli tecum est actio. 1Si in area communi aedificare velis, socius prohibendi ius habet, quamvis tu aedificandi ius habeas a vicino concessum, quia invito socio in iure communi non habeas ius aedificandi.
27 Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XXXIII. However, if you and I are joint-owners of the Titian House, and something is illegally inserted from it into my own house, I undoubtedly will have a right of action against you for this reason; or what has been inserted must be removed. The same rule applies where, under similar circumstances, some portion of your house has been made to project over the one owned by you and me in common, since I, alone, am entitled to an action against you. 1If you intend to build upon ground held in common your joint-owner has the right to prevent it, even though the privilege of building has been granted you by a neighbor; because you have no right to build on common property against the consent of the other joint-owner.
28 Paulus libro quinto decimo ad Sabinum. Foramen in imo pariete conclavis vel triclinii, quod esset proluendi pavimenti causa, id neque flumen esse neque tempore adquiri placuit. hoc ita verum est, si in eum locum nihil ex caelo aquae veniat (neque enim perpetuam causam habet quod manu fit): at quod ex caelo cadit, etsi non adsidue fit, ex naturali tamen causa fit et ideo perpetuo fieri existimatur. omnes autem servitutes praediorum perpetuas causas habere debent, et ideo neque ex lacu neque ex stagno concedi aquae ductus potest. stillicidii quoque immittendi naturalis et perpetua causa esse debet.
28 Paulus, On Sabinus, Book XV. Where an opening is made in the lower portion of the wall of a room or a hall belonging to another, which was done for the purpose of washing the floor; it is not considered to be a ground for the creation of a servitude for a flow of water, or an act by which a right can be acquired by lapse of time. This is true because no water falls on that place from the sky, since what is performed by the hands is not perpetual; but water that falls from the sky, although it is not continuous, is, nevertheless, due to a natural cause, and for that reason is considered as perpetual. Again, all servitudes attaching to real property must be based upon perpetual causes, and therefore the right to conduct water which has its source in a reservoir or a pond, cannot be granted as a servitude. The right to have water drip from a roof must also depend upon a natural and perpetual cause.
29 Pomponius libro trigensimo secundo ad Quintum Mucium. Si quid igitur ex eo foramine, ex quo servitus non consistit, damnum vicinus sensisset, dicendum est damni infecti stipulationem locum habere.
29 Pomponius, On Quintus Mucius, Book XXXII. Hence, if the neighbor suffers damage as the result of such an opening as has been mentioned and with reference to which no servitude exists; it must be said that there is good ground for a stipulation providing against threatened injury.
30 Paulus libro quinto decimo ad Sabinum. Si quis aedes, quae suis aedibus servirent, cum emisset traditas sibi accepit, confusa sublataque servitus est, et si rursus vendere vult, nominatim imponenda servitus est: alioquin liberae veniunt. 1Si partem praedii nanctus sim, quod mihi aut cui ego serviam, non confundi servitutem placet, quia pro parte servitus retinetur. itaque si praedia mea praediis tuis serviant et tuorum partem mihi et ego meorum partem tibi tradidero, manebit servitus. item usus fructus in alterutris praediis adquisitus non interrumpit servitutem.
30 Paulus, On Sabinus, Book XV. Where anyone purchases and receives by delivery a house on which a servitude is imposed for the benefit of his own, the servitude is merged and extinguished; and if he wishes afterwards to sell the house, the servitude must be expressly renewed; otherwise the house will be sold free. 1If I obtained a portion of an estate over which I have a servitude, or to which I owe one, it is established that the servitude is not merged; as it is retained with reference to a portion of said estate. Therefore, if my land is servient to yours, and I transfer a share of mine to you, and you transfer a share of yours to me, the servitude will remain unimpaired. Moreover, an usufruct acquired in either of the two tracts of land will not interrupt the servitude.
31 Idem libro quadragensimo octavo ad edictum. Si testamento damnatus heres, ne officeret vicini luminibus servitutemque praestaret, deposuit aedificium, concedenda erit legatario utilis actio, qua prohibeatur heres, si postea extollere supra priorem modum aedificium conabitur.
31 The Same, On the Edict, Book XLVIII. Where the heir is charged by the will not to obstruct the lights of a neighbor but to grant him a servitude, and he demolishes the building; a prætorian action should be granted the legatee by which the heir can be prevented from proceeding, if he afterwards attempts to raise the building above its former height.
32 Iulianus libro septimo digestorum. Si aedes meae serviant aedibus Lucii Titii et aedibus Publii Maevii, ne altius aedificare mihi liceat, et a Titio precario petierim, ut altius tollerem, atque ita per statutum tempus aedificatum habuero, libertatem adversus Publium Maevium usucapiam: non enim una servitus Titio et Maevio debebatur, sed duae. argumentum rei praebet, quod, si alter ex his servitutem mihi remississet, ab eo solo liberarer, alteri nihilo minus servitutem deberem. 1Libertas servitutis usucapitur, si aedes possideantur: quare si is, qui altius aedificatum habebat, ante statutum tempus aedes possidere desiit, interpellata usucapio est. is autem, qui postea easdem aedes possidere coeperit, integro statuto tempore libertatem usucapiet. natura enim servitutium ea est, ut possideri non possint, sed intellegatur possessionem earum habere, qui aedes possidet.
32 Julianus, Digest, Book VII. If my house is servient to those of Lucius Titius and Publius Mævius, the provision being that I shall not be permitted to build my house any higher, and I ask permission of Titius to raise it, and I keep it raised for the time established by law; I will obtain freedom from the servitude by usucaption as against Publius Mævius; for Titius and Mævius were not entitled to one servitude together, but to two. The proof of this is that if either one of them should release me from the servitude, I would be free from that one alone, and should still be subject to the servitude for the benefit of the other. 1Freedom from a servitude is obtained by usucaption, where the house is held in possession; and therefore if a party who has raised his house relinquishes possession of the same before the time provided by law has expired, the usucaption is interrupted; and any other person who subsequently acquires possession of the same house, will obtain freedom by usucaption by the lapse of the entire term established by law. For the nature of servitudes is such that they cannot be possessed, but the party who possesses the house is understood to have possession of the servitude.
33 Paulus libro quinto epitomarum Alfeni digestorum. Eum debere columnam restituere, quae onus vicinarum aedium ferebat, cuius essent aedes quae servirent, non eum, qui imponere vellet. nam cum in lege aedium ita scriptum esset: ‘paries oneri ferundo uti nunc est, ita sit’, satis aperte significari in perpetuum parietem esse debere: non enim hoc his verbis dici, ut in perpetuum idem paries aeternus esset, quod ne fieri quidem posset, sed uti eiusdem modi paries in perpetuum esset qui onus sustineret: quemadmodum si quis alicui cavisset, ut servitutem praeberet, qui onus suum sustineret, si ea res quae servit et tuum onus ferret, perisset, alia in locum eius dari debeat.
33 Paulus, Epitomes of the Digest of Alfenus, Book V. The person who is required to replace a column which supported a neighboring house is the owner of the house subject to the servitude, and not he who wishes this to be done; for where it is stated in the written contract for the sale of a house that, “The wall must support the same burden as at present”, the meaning is clear enough that the wall must exist in perpetuity; for it is not stated in these words that the wall must be there forever, as this indeed could not happen, but that there should always be a wall of this kind to support the weight; just as where anyone binds himself to another that he will grant him a servitude in order to support his building, and if the house which is subject to the servitude and sustains the burden should be destroyed, another will be erected in its place.
34 Iulianus libro secundo ex Minicio. Et qui duas areas habet, alteram tradendo servam alteri efficere potest.
34 Julianus, On Minicius, Book II. Where a man has two vacant lots, he can, by conveying one, subject it to a servitude in favor of the other.
35 Marcianus libro tertio regularum. Si binarum aedium dominus dixisset eas quas venderet servas fore, sed in traditione non fecisset mentionem servitutis, vel ex vendito agere potest vel incertum condicere, ut servitus imponatur.
35 Marcianus, Rules, Book III. Where the owner of two houses sells one, and states that it is to be subject to a servitude, but does not mention the servitude when he delivers it; he can bring an action on sale, or sue for recovery of an uncertain amount of damages in order to have the servitude imposed.
36 Papinianus libro septimo quaestionum. Binas quis aedes habebat una contignatione tectas: utrasque diversis legavit. dixi, quia magis placeat tignum posse duorum esse ita, ut certae partes cuiusque sint contignationis, ex regione cuiusque domini fore tigna nec ullam invicem habituros actionem ius non esse immissum habere: nec interest, pure utrisque an sub condicione alteri aedes legatae sint.
36 Papinianus, Questions, Book VII. A man had two houses covered with a single wooden roof; and bequeathed them to different persons. I said that, because it is established that the timbers of a building could belong to two persons since they own certain parts of the same edifice, in this instance the timbers over their houses will belong to the two persons; for they will not have rights of action against one another to prevent the insertion of beams into their respective houses; and it makes no difference whether the houses are bequeathed to both absolutely, or to one of them conditionally.
37 Iulianus libro septimo digestorum. Idemque esse et si duobus aedes cesserit.
37 Julianus, Digest, Book VII. The same rule applies where the houses have been transferred to two parties.
38 Paulus libro secundo quaestionum. Si aedes meae a tuis aedibus tantum distent, ut prospici non possint, aut medius mons earum conspectum auferat, servitus imponi non potest:
38 Paulus, Questions, Book II. If my house is so distant from yours that neither can be seen from the other, or a mountain stands between them and cuts off the view, a servitude cannot be imposed upon one for the benefit of the other.
39 Idem libro primo manualium. nemo enim propriis aedificiis servitutem imponere potest, nisi et is qui cedit et is cui ceditur in conspectu habeant ea aedificia, ita ut officere alterum alteri possit.
39 The Same, Manuals, Book I. For no one can impose a servitude upon his own building, unless the grantor and the grantee have the buildings in sight, so that one can interfere with the other.
40 Idem libro tertio responsorum. Eos, qui ius luminis immittendi non habuerunt, aperto pariete communi nullo iure fenestras immississe respondi.
40 The Same, Opinions, Book III. I stated as my opinion, that persons who did not have the right to do so, had acted contrary to law by making openings in a party-wall and inserting windows therein.
41 Scaevola libro primo responsorum. Olympico habitationem et horreum, quod in ea domo erat, quoad viveret, legavit: iuxta eandem domum hortus et cenaculum, quod olympico legatum non est, fuerunt: ad hortum autem et cenaculum semper per domum, cuius habitatio relicta erat, aditus fuit: quaesitum est, an olympicus aditum praestare deberet. respondi servitutem quidem non esse, sed heredem transire per domum ad ea quae commemorata sunt posse, dum non noceat legatario. 1Lucius Titius aperto pariete domus suae, quatenus stillicidii rigor et tignorum protectus competebat, ianuam in publico aperuit: quaero, cum neque luminibus Publii Maevii vicini neque itineri vicini officeret neque stillicidium ne vicini domo cadat, an aliquam actionem Publius Maevius vicinus ad prohibendum haberet. respondi secundum ea quae proponerentur nullam habere.
41 Scævola, Opinions, Book I. A testator bequeathed the right of habitation and the right to use a wareroom in the same house to Olympicus, during his lifetime; and adjoining said house there was a garden and an upper room which was not bequeathed to Olympicus, but access had always existed to the garden and the room through the house in which the right of habitation was bequeathed. The question arose whether Olympicus was obliged to permit this access? I answered that this was not a servitude, but that the heir could go through the house to those portions of the same which have been referred to, provided he did not inconvenience the legatee. 1Lucius Titius, having opened the wall of his house, made a doorway leading to ground owned by the public, without exceeding what was prescribed for the drip from the roof and the projection of the gutters; I ask, since he did not obstruct the lights of Publius Mævius, his neighbor, or what space he required for his passage, or did not interfere with the drip of rain-water from his neighbor’s house, whether his said neighbor, Publius Mævius, would have any right to prevent him from doing these things? I answered that, according to what had been stated, he would have none.