Corpus iurisprudentiae Romanae

Repertorium zu den Quellen des römischen Rechts

Digesta Iustiniani Augusti

Recognovit Mommsen (1870) et retractavit Krüger (1928)
Convertit in Anglica lingua Scott (1932)
Dig. VIII3,
De servitutibus praediorum rusticorum
Liber octavus
III.

De servitutibus praediorum rusticorum

(Concerning the Servitudes of Rustic Estates.)

1Ul­pia­nus li­bro se­cun­do in­sti­tu­tio­num. Ser­vi­tu­tes rus­ti­co­rum prae­dio­rum sunt hae: iter ac­tus via aquae duc­tus. iter est ius eun­di am­bu­lan­di ho­mi­ni, non et­iam iu­men­tum agen­di. ac­tus est ius agen­di vel iu­men­tum vel ve­hi­cu­lum: ita­que qui iter ha­bet, ac­tum non ha­bet, qui ac­tum ha­bet, et iter ha­bet et­iam si­ne iu­men­to. via est ius eun­di et agen­di et am­bu­lan­di: nam et iter et ac­tum in se via con­ti­net. aquae duc­tus est ius aquam du­cen­di per fun­dum alie­num. 1In rus­ti­cis com­pu­tan­da sunt aquae haus­tus, pe­co­ris ad aquam ad­pul­sus, ius pas­cen­di, cal­cis co­quen­dae, ha­re­nae fo­dien­dae. 2Tra­di­tio pla­ne et pa­tien­tia ser­vi­tu­tium in­du­cet of­fi­cium prae­to­ris.

1Ulpianus, Institutes, Book II. The following are the servitudes of rustic estates, namely: the right of walking, driving cattle, the right of way, and the right to conduct water. The first is the right a man has to pass or walk, but not to drive a beast of burden. The second is the right to drive a beast of burden, or a vehicle; and therefore a party who has the right to walk, has not the right to drive cattle; and he who has the latter privilege has also that of walking even without a beast of burden. The third is the right of passing, driving, or walking, for all are included in the right of way. The last is the right to conduct water over the land of another. 1Among rustic servitudes must be enumerated the right to draw water, as well as that to drive cattle to water, the right of pasturage, the rights of burning lime and of digging sand. 2It is clear that the delivery of servitudes and the toleration of the same admit of the intervention of the Prætor.

2Ne­ra­tius li­bro quar­to re­gu­la­rum. Rus­ti­co­rum prae­dio­rum ser­vi­tu­tes sunt li­ce­re al­tius tol­le­re et of­fi­ce­re prae­to­rio vi­ci­ni, vel cloa­cam ha­be­re li­ce­re per vi­ci­ni do­mum vel prae­to­rium, vel pro­tec­tum ha­be­re li­ce­re. 1Aquae duc­tus et haus­tus aquae per eun­dem lo­cum ut du­ca­tur, et­iam plu­ri­bus con­ce­di pot­est: pot­est et­iam, ut di­ver­sis die­bus vel ho­ris du­ca­tur: 2si aquae duc­tus vel haus­tus aquae suf­fi­ciens est, pot­est et plu­ri­bus per eun­dem lo­cum con­ce­di, ut et is­dem die­bus vel ho­ris du­ca­tur.

2Neratius, Rules, Book IV. Ad Dig. 8,3,2 pr.Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 210, Note 2.The servitudes of rustic estates include the right to raise a building and interfere with the residence of a neighbor, or to have a drain under the house or residence of a neighbor, or to have a projecting roof. 1The right to an aqueduct, or to draw water in order that it may be conducted over the same place, can also be granted to several persons; and this can be done on different days, or at different hours. 2Where the water-course or the supply of water to be drawn is sufficient, the right may be granted to several people to conduct the water over the same place, on the same days, or during the same hours.

3Ul­pia­nus li­bro sep­ti­mo de­ci­mo ad edic­tum. Item sic pos­sunt ser­vi­tu­tes im­po­ni, et ut bo­ves, per quos fun­dus co­li­tur, in vi­ci­no agro pas­can­tur: quam ser­vi­tu­tem im­po­ni pos­se Ne­ra­tius li­bro se­cun­do mem­bra­na­rum scri­bit. 1Idem Ne­ra­tius et­iam ut fruc­tus in vi­ci­ni vil­la co­gan­tur co­ac­ti­que ha­bean­tur et pe­d­amen­ta ad vi­neam ex vi­ci­ni prae­dio su­man­tur, con­sti­tui pos­se scri­bit. 2Eo­dem li­bro ait vi­ci­no, cu­ius la­pi­di­ci­nae fun­do tuo im­mi­neant, pos­se te ce­de­re ius ei es­se ter­ram ru­dus sa­xa ia­ce­re po­si­ta ha­be­re, et ut in tuum la­pi­des pro­vol­van­tur ibi­que po­si­ti ha­bean­tur in­de­que ex­por­ten­tur. 3Qui ha­bet haus­tum, iter quo­que ha­be­re vi­de­tur ad hau­rien­dum et, ut ait Ne­ra­tius li­bro ter­tio mem­bra­na­rum, si­ve ei ius hau­rien­di et ad­eun­di ces­sum sit, utrum­que ha­be­bit, si­ve tan­tum hau­rien­di, in­es­se et ad­itum si­ve tan­tum ad­eun­di ad fon­tem, in­es­se et haus­tum. haec de haus­tu ex fon­te pri­va­to. ad flu­men au­tem pu­bli­cum idem Ne­ra­tius eo­dem li­bro scri­bit iter de­be­re ce­di, haus­tum non opor­te­re et si quis tan­tum haus­tum ces­se­rit, ni­hil eum age­re.

3Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XVII. Moreover, servitudes may be created in such a way that oxen by means of which the land is cultivated may be pastured in neighboring fields; and Neratius, in the Second Book of Parchments, holds that such a servitude can be imposed. 1Neratius also says that a servitude can be created so that crops may be collected in the farm-house of a neighbor and kept there; and that the supports for vines may be taken from the land of a neighbor. 2In the same Book he says that where stone quarries belonging to a neighbor adjoin your land, you can grant him the right to throw dirt, rubbish, and rocks thereon, and to leave them there, or to let stones roll upon your land, to be left there until they are removed by you. 3Where anyone has the right to draw water, he is considered also to have the right of passage for the purpose of doing so; and, as Neratius says in the Third Book of Parchments, if the right to draw the water and the right of access for that purpose are both granted him, he will be entitled to both; but where only the right of drawing water is granted, the right of access is also included; or where only access to the spring is granted, the right to draw water is included. This has reference to water drawn from a private spring. In the case of a public stream, Neratius states in the same Book, that the right of passage to it must be granted, but the right to draw the water is not necessary, and where anyone grants only the right to draw water, the grant will be void.

4Pa­pi­nia­nus li­bro se­cun­do re­spon­so­rum. Pe­co­ris pas­cen­di ser­vi­tu­tes, item ad aquam ap­pel­len­di, si prae­dii fruc­tus ma­xi­me in pe­co­re con­sis­tat, prae­dii ma­gis quam per­so­nae vi­de­tur: si ta­men tes­ta­tor per­so­nam de­mons­tra­vit, cui ser­vi­tu­tem prae­sta­ri vo­luit, emp­to­ri vel he­redi non ea­dem prae­sta­bi­tur ser­vi­tus.

4Papinianus, Opinions, Book II. Servitudes for the pasturage of cattle, and also that of taking them to water, where the principal income of the land is derived from cattle, are held to be attached to the land, rather than to the person; but if a testator designated some certain individual in whose favor he desired the servitude to be established, it will not pass from the said person to the purchaser of the land, or to his own heir.

5Ul­pia­nus li­bro sep­ti­mo de­ci­mo ad edic­tum. Er­go se­cun­dum eum et vin­di­ca­ri pot­erit. 1Ne­ra­tius li­bris ex Plau­tio ait nec haus­tum nec ap­pul­sum pe­co­ris nec cre­tae ex­imen­dae cal­cis­que co­quen­dae ius pos­se in alie­no es­se, ni­si fun­dum vi­ci­num ha­beat: et hoc Pro­cu­lum et Ati­li­ci­num ex­is­ti­mas­se ait. sed ip­se di­cit, ut ma­xi­me cal­cis co­quen­dae et cre­tae ex­imen­dae ser­vi­tus con­sti­tui pos­sit, non ul­tra pos­se, quam qua­te­nus ad eum ip­sum fun­dum opus sit:

5Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XVII. Therefore, according to him, the servitude can be recovered by an action. 1Neratius, in his work on Plautius, says that the right of drawing water for cattle or of driving cattle to water, or of digging chalk or of burning lime, on the ground of another, cannot exist unless the party has adjoining land; and he states that Proculus and Atilicinus hold the same opinion. But he also says that, although there is no question that a servitude for burning lime and digging chalk can be established, still this cannot be done for a greater amount than the requirements of the dominant estate demand.

6Pau­lus li­bro quin­to de­ci­mo ad Plau­tium. vel­uti si figli­nas ha­be­ret, in qui­bus ea va­sa fie­rent, qui­bus fruc­tus eius fun­di ex­por­ta­ren­tur (sic­ut in qui­bus­dam fit, ut am­pho­ris vi­num eve­ha­tur aut ut do­lia fiant), vel te­gu­lae vel ad vil­lam ae­di­fi­can­dam. sed si, ut va­sa venirent, figli­nae ex­er­ce­ren­tur, usus fruc­tus erit. 1Item lon­ge re­ce­dit ab usu fruc­tu ius cal­cis co­quen­dae et la­pi­dis ex­imen­di et ha­re­nae fo­dien­dae ae­di­fi­can­di eius gra­tia quod in fun­do est, item sil­vae cae­duae, ut pe­d­amen­ta in vi­neas non de­sint. quid er­go si prae­dio­rum me­lio­rem cau­sam haec fa­ciant? non est du­bi­tan­dum, quin ser­vi­tu­tis sit: et hoc et Mae­cia­nus pro­bat in tan­tum, ut et ta­lem ser­vi­tu­tem con­sti­tui pos­se pu­tet, ut tu­gu­rium mi­hi ha­be­re li­ce­ret in tuo, sci­li­cet si ha­beam pas­cui ser­vi­tu­tem aut pe­co­ris ap­pel­len­di, ut si hiemps in­grue­rit, ha­beam quo me re­ci­piam.

6Paulus, On Plautius, Book XV. For example, when a man had a pottery, where vessels were made by means of which the produce of the land was taken away; just as in certain places it is usual for wine to be transported in jars, or vats to be constructed, or tiles to be made to be used in the construction of a house. If, however, the pottery was employed for the manufacture and sale of vessels, an usufruct would exist. 1Moreover, the right of burning lime, quarrying stone, and digging sand, for the purpose of building something on the land differs very greatly from an usufruct; and so does the right to cut stakes for vines so that supports may not be lacking. But what would be the case if these things improved the condition of the property? It cannot be doubted that they are of the nature of servitudes, and this Marcianus approves to such an extent that he thinks that a servitude can be created permitting me to build a hut on your land; provided, of course, that I possess a servitude of pasturage, or of driving cattle to water; so that I may have a place in which to take refuge when the weather is bad.

7Idem li­bro vi­cen­si­mo pri­mo ad edic­tum. Qui sel­la aut lec­ti­ca ve­hi­tur, ire, non age­re di­ci­tur: iu­men­tum ve­ro du­ce­re non pot­est, qui iter tan­tum ha­bet. qui ac­tum ha­bet, et plos­trum du­ce­re et iu­men­ta age­re pot­est. sed tra­hen­di la­pi­dem aut tig­num ne­utri eo­rum ius est: qui­dam nec has­tam rec­tam ei fer­re li­ce­re, quia ne­que eun­di ne­que agen­di gra­tia id fa­ce­ret et pos­sent fruc­tus eo mo­do lae­di. qui viam ha­bent, eun­di agen­di­que ius ha­bent: ple­ri­que et tra­hen­di quo­que et rec­tam has­tam re­fe­ren­di, si mo­do fruc­tus non lae­dat. 1In rus­ti­cis au­tem prae­diis im­pe­dit ser­vi­tu­tem me­dium prae­dium, quod non ser­vit.

7The Same, On the Edict, Book XXI. Where anyone is borne on a chair or a litter, he is said to have the right to go on foot, and not to drive; but a party who has only the right to pass on foot, cannot drive a beast of burden. If he has the right to drive cattle, he can drive a wagon or beast of burden, but in neither instance has he a right to haul stone or timber. Some authorities hold that he cannot carry a spear upright, because he would not do this if he were either walking or driving, and fruit might be injured by doing so. A party who has a right of way has also the right to pass on foot and to drive; and the greater number of authorities hold that he can drag objects also, and carry a spear upright, provided he does not injure the fruit. 1In the case of rustic estates, a field lying between them which is not subject to a servitude renders a servitude inoperative.

8Gaius li­bro sep­ti­mo ad edic­tum pro­vin­cia­le. Viae la­ti­tu­do ex le­ge duo­de­cim ta­bu­la­rum in por­rec­tum oc­to pe­des ha­bet, in an­frac­tum, id est ubi fle­xum est, se­de­cim.

8Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book VII. By the Law of the Twelve Tables, the width of a road subject to a right of way, must be eight feet, where it is straight; but where there is a bend, that is to say where the road curves, it must be sixteen.

9Pau­lus li­bro pri­mo sen­ten­tia­rum. Ser­vi­tus aquae du­cen­dae vel hau­rien­dae ni­si ex ca­pi­te vel ex fon­te con­sti­tui non pot­est: ho­die ta­men ex quo­cum­que lo­co con­sti­tui so­let.

9Paulus, Sentences, Book I. A servitude for the conducting or drawing of water from any other point than the source or spring cannot be established; but at present it is customary for it to be established from any place whatsoever.

10Idem li­bro qua­dra­gen­si­mo no­no ad edic­tum. La­beo ait ta­lem ser­vi­tu­tem con­sti­tui pos­se, ut aquam quae­re­re et in­ven­tam du­ce­re li­ceat: nam si li­ceat non­dum ae­di­fi­ca­to ae­di­fi­cio ser­vi­tu­tem con­sti­tue­re, qua­re non ae­que li­ceat non­dum in­ven­ta aqua ean­dem con­sti­tue­re ser­vi­tu­tem? et si, ut quae­re­re li­ceat, ce­de­re pos­su­mus, et­iam ut in­ven­ta du­ca­tur, ce­di pot­est.

10The Same, On the Edict, Book XLIX. Labeo says that a servitude may be created in such a way that a party can be permitted to look for water and convey it, if it is found; for if it is lawful to create a servitude relating to a house which is not yet built, why should it not be equally lawful to create one with reference to water which has not yet been found? Moreover, if it is lawful for us to grant a servitude for a party to seek for water, it can also be granted premitting him to conduct it after it has been found.

11Cel­sus li­bro vi­cen­si­mo sep­ti­mo di­ges­to­rum. Per fun­dum, qui plu­rium est, ius mi­hi es­se eun­di agen­di pot­est se­pa­ra­tim ce­di. er­go sup­ti­li ra­tio­ne non ali­ter meum fiet ius, quam si om­nes ce­dant et no­vis­si­ma de­mum ces­sio­ne su­pe­rio­res om­nes con­fir­ma­bun­tur: be­ni­gnius ta­men di­ce­tur et an­te­quam no­vis­si­mus ces­se­rit, eos, qui ant­ea ces­se­runt, ve­ta­re uti ces­so iu­re non pos­se.

11Celsus, Digest, Book XXVII. Where the right of passing or driving through land belongs to several persons, it can be granted to me separately by each of them. Therefore, strictly speaking, the right will not become mine unless all of them grant it; and when the last grant is made all those made previously will become operative. The more favorable construction, however, is, that before the last party makes the grant, those who have previously done so cannot prevent me from using the right already granted.

12Mo­des­ti­nus li­bro no­no dif­fe­ren­tia­rum. In­ter ac­tum et iter non­nul­la est dif­fe­ren­tia: iter est enim, qua quis pe­des vel eques com­mea­re pot­est, ac­tus ve­ro, ubi et ar­men­ta tra­ice­re et ve­hi­cu­lum du­ce­re li­ceat.

12Modestinus, Differences, Book IX. There is a difference between the right to drive cattle, and the right of passage; where anyone can travel either on foot, or on horseback, the latter right exists; but where he can drive a herd of cattle, or take a vehicle, the former right is implied.

13Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Cer­to ge­ne­ri agro­rum ad­quiri ser­vi­tus pot­est, vel­ut vi­neis, quod ea ad so­lum ma­gis quam ad su­per­fi­ciem per­ti­net. id­eo sub­la­tis vi­neis ser­vi­tus ma­ne­bit: sed si in con­tra­hen­da ser­vi­tu­te aliud ac­tum erit, do­li ma­li ex­cep­tio erit ne­ces­sa­ria. 1Si to­tus ager iti­ne­ri aut ac­tui ser­vit, do­mi­nus in eo agro ni­hil fa­ce­re pot­est, quo ser­vi­tus im­pe­dia­tur, quae ita dif­fu­sa est, ut om­nes glae­bae ser­viant, aut si iter ac­tus­ve si­ne ul­la de­ter­mi­na­tio­ne le­ga­tus est: mo­do de­ter­mi­na­bi­tur et qua pri­mum iter de­ter­mi­na­tum est, ea ser­vi­tus con­sti­tit, ce­te­rae par­tes agri li­be­rae sunt: igi­tur ar­bi­ter dan­dus est, qui utro­que ca­su viam de­ter­mi­na­re de­bet. 2La­ti­tu­do ac­tus iti­ne­ris­que ea est, quae de­mons­tra­ta est: quod si ni­hil dic­tum est, hoc ab ar­bi­tro sta­tuen­dum est. in via aliud iu­ris est: nam si dic­ta la­ti­tu­do non est, le­gi­ti­ma de­be­tur. 3Si lo­cus non ad­iec­ta la­ti­tu­di­ne no­mi­na­tus est, per eum qua­li­bet iri pot­erit: sin au­tem prae­ter­mis­sus est ae­que la­ti­tu­di­ne non ad­iec­ta, per to­tum fun­dum una pot­erit eli­gi via dum­ta­xat eius la­ti­tu­di­nis, quae le­ge com­pre­hen­sa est: pro quo ip­so, si du­bi­ta­bi­tur, ar­bi­tri of­fi­cium in­vo­can­dum est.

13Javolenus, On Cassius, Book X. A servitude may be acquired in favor of certain kinds of land, as for instance, vineyards, because this would have reference rather to the soil itself than to the surface of the same; so that, if the vineyards were removed, the servitude will remain. But if another intention existed when the servitude was created, an exception on the ground of malicious fraud will be necessary. 1Where an entire field is subject to a servitude of passage or the driving of cattle, the owner cannot do anything in the said field by which the servitude may be interfered with; because it is so extended that every clod is subject to it. But where the right of passage or to drive cattle is bequeathed without any limit, the limits shall be established at once, and where they are first established there will the servitudes be created, and the remaining parts of the field will be free. Hence, an arbiter must be appointed who, in both instances, should determine the direction of the right of way. 2The width of a driveway for cattle, and that of a pathway, is the one which was designated; and if nothing was said with reference to it, it must be fixed by the arbiter. In the case of a right of way the rule is different; for if the width is not stated, that which is established by law is the proper one. 3If the place is designated but the width is not given, the party can cross said place wherever he wishes. But if the place is not mentioned and the width is not stated, a right of way may be chosen over any portion of the land, but the width of the same must be that prescribed by law; and if there is any doubt as to the direction, the services of an arbiter must be enlisted to decide it.

14Pom­po­nius li­bro tri­gen­si­mo se­cun­do ad Quin­tum Mu­cium. Per quem lo­cum viam alii ces­se­ro, per eun­dem alii aquae duc­tum ce­de­re non pot­ero: sed et si aquae duc­tum alii con­ces­se­ro, alii iter per eun­dem lo­cum ven­de­re vel alias ce­de­re non pot­ero.

14Pomponius, On Quintus Mucius, Book XXXII. If I grant a right of way to anyone through a certain place, I cannot grant a water-course to another through the same place; and if I grant a water-course, I cannot sell or grant a footpath to another through the same place.

15Idem li­bro tri­gen­si­mo pri­mo ad Quin­tum Mu­cium. Quin­tus Mu­cius scri­bit, cum iter aquae vel cot­ti­dia­nae vel aes­ti­vae vel quae in­ter­val­la lon­gio­ra ha­beat per alie­num fun­dum erit, li­ce­re fis­tu­lam suam vel fic­ti­lem vel cu­ius­li­bet ge­ne­ris in ri­vo po­ne­re, quae aquam la­tius ex­pri­me­ret, et quod vel­let in ri­vo fa­ce­re, li­ce­re, dum ne do­mi­no prae­dii aqua­gium de­te­rius fa­ce­ret.

15The Same, On Quintus Mucius, Book XXXI. Quintus Mucius says that where a party has the right to conduct water every day, or during the summer, or for longer intervals, through the land of another; he has also the right to place pipes of earthenware or of any other material in the channel, so as to distribute the water more widely, and that he can do whatever he pleases in the channel, provided he does not render the water-course less valuable to the owner of the land.

16Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro ter­tio de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Di­vus Pius au­cu­pi­bus ita re­scrip­sit: οὐκ ἔστιν εὔλογον ἀκόντων τῶν δεσποτῶν ὑμᾶς ἐν ἀλλοτρίοις χωρίοις ἰξεύειν.

16Callistratus, On Judicial Inquiries, Book III. The Divine Pius stated in a Rescript to bird-catchers, “It is not proper for you to catch birds on the land of others without the consent of the owners”.

17Pa­pi­rius Ius­tus li­bro pri­mo de con­sti­tu­tio­ni­bus. Im­pe­ra­to­res An­to­ni­nus et Ve­rus Au­gus­ti re­scrip­se­runt aquam de flu­mi­ne pu­bli­co pro mo­do pos­ses­sio­num ad ir­ri­gan­dos agros di­vi­di opor­te­re, ni­si pro­prio iu­re quis plus si­bi da­tum os­ten­de­rit. item re­scrip­se­runt aquam ita de­mum per­mit­ti du­ci, si si­ne in­iu­ria al­te­rius id fiat.

17Papirius Justus, On Constitutions, Book I. The August Emperors Antoninus and Verus stated in a Rescript, that, “Where water is taken from a public river for the purpose of irrigating fields, it should be divided in proportion to the size of the same; unless someone can prove that, by virtue of a special privilege, he is entitled to more”. They also stated in a Rescript that, “A party should only be permitted to conduct water where this can be done without injury to another”.

18Ul­pia­nus li­bro quar­to de­ci­mo ad Sa­binum. Una est via et si per plu­res fun­dos im­po­na­tur, cum una ser­vi­tus sit. de­ni­que quae­ri­tur, an, si per unum fun­dum ie­ro, per alium non per tan­tum tem­pus, quan­to ser­vi­tus amit­ti­tur, an re­ti­neam ser­vi­tu­tem? et ma­gis est, ut aut to­ta amit­ta­tur aut to­ta re­ti­nea­tur: id­eo­que si nul­lo usus sum, to­ta amit­ti­tur, si vel uno, to­ta ser­va­tur.

18Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XIV. Where a right of way is created through several different tracts of land, it is still a single road, just as the servitude is also single, hence the question arises: If I pass through one tract of land but not through another for such a time as is necessary for the servitude to be extinguished, do I retain the servitude? The better opinion is that it is entirely lost, or entirely retained; therefore if I did not make use of either tract at all, the whole servitude is lost; but if I make use of one, the entire servitude is preserved.

19Pau­lus li­bro sex­to ad Sa­binum. Si unus ex so­ciis sti­pu­le­tur iter ad com­mu­nem fun­dum, in­uti­lis est sti­pu­la­tio, quia nec da­ri ei pot­est: sed si om­nes sti­pu­len­tur si­ve com­mu­nis ser­vus, sin­gu­li ex so­ciis si­bi da­ri opor­te­re pe­te­re pos­sunt, quia ita da­ri eis pot­est: ne, si sti­pu­la­tor viae plu­res he­redes re­li­que­rit, in­uti­lis sti­pu­la­tio fiat.

19Paulus, On Sabinus, Book VI. Where one of several joint-owners stipulates for a right of passage through land held in common, the stipulation is void, as the right can not be given him; but where they all stipulate, or a slave owned in common by them does so, each of the joint-owners can bring an action asking that the right of way be granted him, because this can be granted by you to all of them in this manner; lest if the stipulator for the right of way should die and leave several heirs, the stipulation may become of no effect.

20Pom­po­nius li­bro tri­gen­si­mo ter­tio ad Sa­binum. Si mi­hi eo­dem tem­po­re con­ces­se­ris et ire age­re per tuum lo­cum et uti frui eo ius es­se, de­in­de ego ti­bi con­ces­se­ro ius mi­hi uti frui non es­se: non ali­ter eo lo­co ute­ris frue­ris, quam ut ire age­re mi­hi rec­te li­ceat. item si et du­ce­re per tuum fun­dum aquam iu­re po­tue­ro et in eo ti­bi ae­di­fi­ca­re in­vi­to me ius non fue­rit: si ti­bi con­ces­se­ro ius es­se ae­di­fi­ca­re, ni­hi­lo mi­nus hanc ser­vi­tu­tem mi­hi prae­sta­re de­be­bis, ne ali­ter ae­di­fi­ces, quam ut duc­tus aquae meus ma­neat, to­tius­que eius rei con­di­cio ta­lis es­se de­bet, qua­lis es­set, si una dum­ta­xat in­itio con­ces­sio fac­ta es­set. 1Ser­vi­tus na­tu­ra­li­ter, non ma­nu fac­to lae­de­re pot­est fun­dum ser­vien­tem: quem­ad­mo­dum si im­bri cres­cat aqua in ri­vo aut ex agris in eum con­fluat aut aquae fons se­cun­dum ri­vum vel in eo ip­so in­ven­tus post­ea fue­rit. 2Si fun­do Se­ia­no con­fi­nis fons fue­rit, ex quo fon­te per fun­dum Se­ia­num aquam iu­re du­ce­bam, meo fac­to fun­do Se­ia­no ma­net ser­vi­tus. 3Hau­rien­di ius non ho­mi­nis, sed prae­dii est.

20Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XXXIII. If you grant me at the same time the right to walk and drive over your premises, and also the right to use and enjoy the same, and then I surrender to you my right of use and enjoyment, you cannot use and enjoy the property, unless you leave me the unimpaired right to pass through or drive. Moreover, if I have a right to conduct water through your land, and you do not have the right to build upon the same without my consent, and I grant you the right to build, you must, nevertheless, grant me the servitude that you will not erect any building except in such a way, that my water-course may remain unaltered; and the condition of everything must continue to be the same as it would have been if, in the beginning, only a single grant had been made. 1A servitude can damage the land subject to it naturally, and not through anything due to the agency of man; as, for instance, if the water in the channel should be increased by showers; or water should flow into it from an adjoining field; or a spring should afterwards be discovered along the channel or within it. 2If there is a spring adjoining the Seian Estate from which spring I have a right to conduct the water through the said estate, and the estate should become mine, the servitude will remain. 3The right to draw water does not attach to a person but to the land.

21Pau­lus li­bro quin­to de­ci­mo ad Sa­binum. Si mi­hi con­ces­se­ris iter aquae per fun­dum tuum non de­sti­na­ta par­te, per quam du­ce­rem, to­tus fun­dus tuus ser­viet:

21Paulus, On Sabinus, Book XV. If you grant me a water-course through your land without designating the part through which I shall conduct it, all your land will be subject to the servitude.

22Pom­po­nius li­bro tri­gen­si­mo ter­tio ad Sa­binum. sed quae lo­ca eius fun­di tunc, cum ea fie­ret ces­sio, ae­di­fi­ciis ar­bo­ri­bus vi­neis va­cua fue­rint, ea so­la eo no­mi­ne ser­vient.

22Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XXXIII. But then the only parts of the land which would be affected by the servitude are those which were free from buildings, trees, or vines, when the grant was made.

23Pau­lus li­bro quin­to de­ci­mo ad Sa­binum. Via con­sti­tui vel la­tior oc­to pe­di­bus vel an­gus­tior pot­est, ut ta­men eam la­ti­tu­di­nem ha­beat, qua ve­hi­cu­lum ire pot­est: alio­quin iter erit, non via. 1Si la­cus per­pe­tuus in fun­do tuo est, na­vi­gan­di quo­que ser­vi­tus, ut per­ve­nia­tur ad fun­dum vi­ci­num, im­po­ni pot­est. 2Si fun­dus ser­viens vel is cui ser­vi­tus de­be­tur pu­bli­ca­re­tur, utro­que ca­su du­rant ser­vi­tu­tes, quia cum sua con­di­cio­ne quis­que fun­dus pu­bli­ca­re­tur. 3Quae­cum­que ser­vi­tus fun­do de­be­tur, om­ni­bus eius par­ti­bus de­be­tur: et id­eo quam­vis par­ti­cu­la­tim ven­ie­rit, om­nes par­tes ser­vi­tus se­qui­tur et ita, ut sin­gu­li rec­te agant ius si­bi es­se eun­di. si ta­men fun­dus, cui ser­vi­tus de­be­tur, cer­tis re­gio­ni­bus in­ter plu­res do­mi­nos di­vi­sus est, quam­vis om­ni­bus par­ti­bus ser­vi­tus de­bea­tur, ta­men opus est, ut hi, qui non pro­xi­mas par­tes ser­vien­ti fun­do ha­be­bunt, trans­itum per re­li­quas par­tes fun­di di­vi­si iu­re ha­beant aut, si pro­xi­mi pa­tian­tur, trans­eant.

23Paulus, On Sabinus, Book XV. A right of way can be granted wider or narrower than eight feet, so long as it is wide enough to be traversed by a vehicle; otherwise it would be a right of passage and not a right of way. 1Where there is a permanent lake on your premises, the servitude of navigating it may be imposed, in order to obtain access to adjoining land. 2If the servient estate, or that to which the servitude is attached, should be confiscated, the servitude remains unimpaired in both instances, because land which is confiscated retains its former condition. 3Wherever a servitude is attached to an estate, it is attached to every part of it; and therefore if the property is sold a portion at a time, the servitude follows every portion; hence the separate owners can properly bring actions setting forth that they have a right of way over said land. Where, however, land subject to a servitude is divided into certain tracts among several owners, although the servitude attaches to all portions of the same, it will, nevertheless, be necessary for those who own shares that do not join the land subject to the servitude to have a legal right of passage through other parts of the land which has been divided; or traverse it, if the adjacent owners allow this to be done,

24Pom­po­nius li­bro tri­gen­si­mo ter­tio ad Sa­binum. Ex meo aquae duc­tu La­beo scri­bit cui­li­bet pos­se me vi­ci­no com­mo­da­re: Pro­cu­lus con­tra, ut ne in meam par­tem fun­di aliam, quam ad quam ser­vi­tus ad­quisi­ta sit, uti ea pos­sit. Pro­cu­li sen­ten­tia ve­rior est.

24Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XXXIII. Labeo states with reference to a water-course of mine, that I can lend it to any of my neighbors; but Proculus, on the other hand, says that it cannot be used for the benefit of any part of my land except that for which the servitude was acquired. The opinion of Proculus is the more correct one.

25Idem li­bro tri­gen­si­mo quar­to ad Sa­binum. Si par­tem fun­di mei cer­tam ti­bi ven­di­de­ro, aquae duc­tus ius, et­iam­si al­te­rius par­tis cau­sa ple­rum­que du­ca­tur, te quo­que se­que­tur: ne­que ibi aut bo­ni­ta­tis agri aut usus eius aquae ra­tio ha­ben­da est ita, ut eam so­lam par­tem fun­di, quae pre­tio­sis­si­ma sit aut ma­xi­me usum eius aquae de­si­de­ret, ius eius du­cen­dae se­qua­tur, sed pro mo­do agri de­ten­ti aut alie­na­ti fiat eius aquae di­vi­sio.

25The Same, On Sabinus, Book XXXIV. If I sell you a certain part of my land, the right to an aqueduct will also belong to you, even though it is principally used for the benefit of another part; and neither the excellence of the soil, nor the use of the water should be taken into consideration to imply that the right of conducting the water is only attached to that part of the property which is most valuable, or especially requires the use of it; but the division of the water must be made in proportion to the quantity of land reserved or alienated.

26Pau­lus li­bro qua­dra­gen­si­mo sep­ti­mo ad edic­tum. Si via iter ac­tus aquae duc­tus le­ge­tur sim­pli­ci­ter per fun­dum, fa­cul­tas est he­redi, per quam par­tem fun­di ve­lit, con­sti­tue­re ser­vi­tu­tem, si mo­do nul­la cap­tio le­ga­ta­rio in ser­vi­tu­te fit.

26Paulus, On the Edict, Book XLVII. Where a right of way, a right to pass on foot, a right to drive cattle, or a right to an aqueduct through land is bequeathed, it is in the power of the heir to establish the servitude over any part of the same that he wishes, provided no advantage is taken of the legatee with reference to the servitude.

27Iu­lia­nus li­bro sep­ti­mo di­ges­to­rum. Si com­mu­ni fun­do meo et tuo ser­viat fun­dus Sem­pro­nia­nus et eun­dem in com­mu­ne red­eme­ri­mus, ser­vi­tus ex­tin­gui­tur, quia par utrius­que do­mi­ni ius in utro­que fun­do es­se in­ci­pit. at si pro­prio meo fun­do et pro­prio tuo idem ser­viat, ma­ne­bit ser­vi­tus, quia pro­prio fun­do per com­mu­nem ser­vi­tus de­be­ri pot­est.

27Julianus, Digest, Book VII. If the Sempronian Estate is subject to a servitude in favor of land owned by you and me in common, and we purchase the same to be held in common, the servitude is extinguished; because the right of each owner has become the same in the two estates, respectively. But where the land purchased was subject to my own estate and to yours as well, the servitude will remain; because a servitude over an estate held in common can be attached to land owned in severalty.

28Idem li­bro tri­gen­si­mo quar­to di­ges­to­rum. Iti­ne­re ad prae­dium com­mu­ne duo­rum le­ga­to ni­si uter­que de lo­co iti­ne­ris con­sen­tiat, ser­vi­tus ne­que ad­quiri­tur ne­que de­per­it.

28The Same, Digest, Book XXXIV. Where a right to pass through land is bequeathed to an estate held in common by two persons, unless both of them agree as to the direction of the pathway, the servitude is neither acquired nor lost.

29Pau­lus li­bro se­cun­do epi­to­ma­rum Al­fe­ni di­ges­to­rum. Qui duo prae­dia con­fi­nia ha­bue­rat, su­pe­rio­rem fun­dum ven­di­de­rat: in le­ge ita di­xe­rat, ut aquam sul­co aper­to emp­to­ri edu­ce­re in fun­dum in­fe­rio­rem rec­te li­ceat: si emp­tor ex alio fun­do aquam ac­ci­pe­ret et eam in in­fe­rio­rem du­ce­re vel­let, quae­si­tum est, an pos­sit id suo iu­re fa­ce­re nec ne. re­spon­di ni­hil am­plius, quam quod ip­sius fun­di sic­can­di cau­sa de­ri­va­ret, vi­ci­num in­fe­rio­rem re­ci­pe­re de­be­re.

29Paulus, Epitomes of the Digest of Alfenus, Book II. A party who had two adjoining tracts of land and sold the upper one. In the agreement it was stated that the purchaser should have the lawful right to discharge water upon the lower tract of land through an open ditch. The question then arose, if the purchaser should receive water from another tract, and wishes to discharge it upon the lower one, can he do so legally, or not? I answered that the lower neighbor was not obliged to receive more water than was necessary for the purpose of draining the land of the purchaser.

30Idem li­bro quar­to epi­to­ma­rum Al­fe­ni di­ges­to­rum. Qui duo prae­dia ha­be­bat, in unius ven­di­tio­ne aquam, quae in fun­do nas­ce­ba­tur, et cir­ca eam aquam la­te de­cem pe­des ex­ce­pe­rat: quae­si­tum est, utrum do­mi­nium lo­ci ad eum per­ti­neat an ut per eum lo­cum ac­ce­de­re pos­sit. re­spon­dit, si ita re­ce­pis­set: ‘cir­ca eam aquam la­te pe­des de­cem’, iter dum­ta­xat vi­de­ri ven­di­to­ris es­se.

30The Same, Epitomes of the Digest of Alfenus, Book IV. A man who had two tracts of land, in the sale of one of them reserved the water which came from a spring on the land, and also a space of ten feet around it. The question arose whether the ownership of the ground reserved belonged to him, or merely whether he was entitled to access to it? The answer was that, “If what he retained was ten feet wide around said spring”, it should be held that the vendor had only a right of way.

31Iu­lia­nus li­bro se­cun­do ex Mi­n­icio. Tria prae­dia con­ti­nua trium do­mi­no­rum ad­iec­ta erant: imi prae­dii do­mi­nus ex sum­mo fun­do imo fun­do ser­vi­tu­tem aquae quae­sie­rat et per me­dium fun­dum do­mi­no con­ce­den­te in suum agrum du­ce­bat: post­ea idem sum­mum fun­dum emit: de­in­de imum fun­dum, in quem aquam in­du­xe­rat, ven­di­dit. quae­si­tum est, num imus fun­dus id ius aquae amis­is­set, quia, cum utra­que prae­dia eius­dem do­mi­ni fac­ta es­sent, ip­sa si­bi ser­vi­re non po­tuis­sent. ne­ga­vit amis­sis­se ser­vi­tu­tem, quia prae­dium, per quod aqua du­ce­ba­tur, al­te­rius fuis­set et quem­ad­mo­dum ser­vi­tus sum­mo fun­do, ut in imum fun­dum aqua veniret, im­po­ni ali­ter non po­tuis­set, quam ut per me­dium quo­que fun­dum du­ce­re­tur, sic ea­dem ser­vi­tus eius­dem fun­di amit­ti ali­ter non pos­set, ni­si eo­dem tem­po­re et­iam per me­dium fun­dum aqua du­ci de­sis­set aut om­nium tria si­mul prae­dia unius do­mi­ni fac­ta es­sent.

31Julianus, On Minicius, Book II. Three tracts of land which were contiguous belonged to three owners, and the owner of the lowest one had acquired for his tract from the highest one the servitude of a water-course, and this he conducted into his own land through the intervening tract with the permission of the owner of the same, and he afterwards bought the highest tract, and sold the lowest one on to which he had conducted the water. The question was asked whether the lowest tract had lost the right of conducting the water, because as both estates had become the property of the same owner no servitude could exist between them? It was denied that the lowest tract had lost the servitude because the land through which the water was conducted belonged to another, and as no servitude could be imposed in any other way upon the uppermost tract so that the water might reach the lowest one, except by being conducted through the intermediate tract; so the same servitude in favor of the same tract of land could not be lost, unless, at the same time, the watercourse should cease to be conducted through the intermediate tract, or unless all three tracts should simultaneously become the property of a single owner.

32Afri­ca­nus li­bro sex­to quaes­tio­num. Fun­dus mi­hi te­cum com­mu­nis est: par­tem tuam mi­hi tra­di­dis­ti et ad eun­dem viam per vi­ci­num tuum pro­prium. rec­te eo mo­do ser­vi­tu­tem con­sti­tu­tam ait ne­que quod di­ci so­leat per par­tes nec ad­quiri nec im­po­ni ser­vi­tu­tes pos­se is­to ca­su lo­cum ha­be­re: hic enim non per par­tem ser­vi­tu­tem ad­quiri, ut­po­te cum in id tem­pus ad­quira­tur, quo pro­prius meus fun­dus fu­tu­rus sit.

32Africanus, Questions, Book VI. Where a tract of land is held in common by you and myself, and you have conveyed your portion of it to me, and also a right of way to said tract through your own adjoining property; it was held that the servitude was properly created in that way; and that, in this instance, the ordinary rule that servitudes cannot either be imposed or acquired with reference to shares is not applicable; for in this case the servitude is not acquired with reference to a share, but is acquired with reference to the time when the entire property shall belong to me.

33Idem li­bro no­no quaes­tio­num. Cum es­sent mi­hi et ti­bi fun­di duo com­mu­nes Ti­tia­nus et Se­ia­nus et in di­vi­sio­ne con­ve­nis­set, ut mi­hi Ti­tia­nus, ti­bi Se­ia­nus ce­de­ret, in­vi­cem par­tes eo­rum tra­di­di­mus et in tra­den­do dic­tum est, ut al­te­ri per al­te­rum aquam du­ce­re li­ce­ret: rec­te es­se ser­vi­tu­tem im­po­si­tam ait, ma­xi­me si pac­to sti­pu­la­tio sub­di­ta sit. 1Per plu­rium prae­dia aquam du­cis quo­quo mo­do im­po­si­ta ser­vi­tu­te: ni­si pac­tum vel sti­pu­la­tio et­iam de hoc sub­se­cu­ta est, ne­que eo­rum cui­vis ne­que alii vi­ci­no poteris haus­tum ex ri­vo ce­de­re: pac­to enim vel sti­pu­la­tio­ne in­ter­ve­nien­ti­bus et hoc con­ce­di so­let, quam­vis nul­lum prae­dium ip­sum si­bi ser­vi­re ne­que ser­vi­tu­tis fruc­tus con­sti­tui pot­est.

33The Same, Questions, Book IX. Where you and I held two tracts of land, the Titian and Seian Estates, in common, and in dividing the same it was agreed that the Titian Estate should belong to me, and the Seian to you, and we conveyed our respective shares to one another, and in doing so it was stated that each one should be allowed to conduct water through the land of the other; it was held that the servitude was properly established, especially if a stipulation was added to the contract. 1You conduct water through the land of several persons. No matter in what way the servitude was created, unless an agreement was entered into, or a stipulation made with reference to it, you cannot grant to any of the owners, or to any neighbors the right to draw water from channels, but where an agreement or a stipulation was entered into, it is usual for this to be granted; although no land can be the subject of a servitude in favor of itself, nor can the usufruct of a servitude be created.

34Pa­pi­nia­nus li­bro sep­ti­mo quaes­tio­num. Unus ex so­ciis fun­di com­mu­nis per­mit­ten­do ius es­se ire age­re ni­hil agit: et id­eo si duo prae­dia, quae mu­tuo ser­vie­bant, in­ter eos­dem fue­rint com­mu­ni­ca­ta, quon­iam ser­vi­tu­tes pro par­te re­ti­ne­ri pla­cet, ab al­te­ro ser­vi­tus al­te­ri re­mit­ti non pot­est: quam­vis enim unus­quis­que so­cio­rum so­lus sit, cui ser­vi­tus de­be­tur, ta­men quon­iam non per­so­nae, sed prae­dia de­be­rent, ne­que ad­quiri li­ber­tas ne­que re­mit­ti ser­vi­tus per par­tem pot­erit. 1Si fons exa­rue­rit, ex quo duc­tum aquae ha­beo is­que post con­sti­tu­tum tem­pus ad suas ve­nas red­ie­rit, an aquae duc­tus amis­sus erit, quae­ri­tur:

34Papinianus, Questions, Book VII. If one joint-owner of a tract of land permits anyone to have a right to walk or drive over it, the grant is void, and therefore if two tracts, which are servient to one another, become the common property of the owners, then, since it is established that servitudes can be retained with reference to a share, the servitude cannot be released by one of the parties to the other; although each joint-owner to whom a servitude is due enjoys the right in severalty; still, since it is not the persons but the estates which are subject to the servitudes, freedom cannot be acquired, nor can a servitude be released with reference to a part of an estate. 1Where a spring from which I have the right to conduct water dries up, and after the time fixed by law for the extinction of the servitude, it begins to flow again, the question arises whether the right to convey the water is lost?

35Pau­lus li­bro quin­to de­ci­mo ad Plau­tium. et Ati­li­ci­nus ait Cae­sa­rem Sta­ti­lio Tau­ro re­scrip­sis­se in haec ver­ba: ‘Hi, qui ex fun­do Sutri­no aquam du­ce­re so­li­ti sunt, ad­ie­runt me pro­posue­runt­que aquam, qua per ali­quot an­nos usi sunt ex fon­te, qui est in fun­do Sutri­no, du­ce­re non po­tuis­se, quod fons exa­ruis­set, et post­ea ex eo fon­te aquam flue­re coe­pis­se: pe­tie­runt­que a me, ut quod ius non neg­le­gen­tia aut cul­pa sua amis­e­rant, sed quia du­ce­re non pot­erant, his re­sti­tue­re­tur. quo­rum mi­hi pos­tu­la­tio cum non in­iqua vi­sa sit, suc­cur­ren­dum his pu­ta­vi. ita­que quod ius ha­bue­runt tunc, cum pri­mum ea aqua per­ve­ni­re ad eos non po­tuit, id eis re­sti­tui pla­cet.’

35Paulus, On Plautius, Book XV. And Atilicinus says that the Emperor made the following statement in a Rescript to Statillus Taurus: “Those who were accustomed to obtain water from the Sutrine Estate appeared before me, and said that they were unable to conduct the water from the spring on the Sutrine Estate which they had used for several years, because the spring had dried up; and that afterwards the water began to flow from said spring, and they petitioned me that, as they had lost their right through no negligence of their own, but because they could not obtain the water, it might be restored to them. As their request did not seem to be unjust, I though that relief should be granted. It is therefore decreed that the right which they had on the first day when they could not succeed in obtaining water shall be restored to them.”

36Idem li­bro se­cun­do re­spon­so­rum. Cum fun­do, quem ex duo­bus re­ti­nuit ven­di­tor, aquae du­cen­dae ser­vi­tus im­po­si­ta sit, emp­to prae­dio quae­si­ta ser­vi­tus dis­trac­tum de­nuo prae­dium se­qui­tur: nec ad rem per­ti­net, quod sti­pu­la­tio, qua poe­nam pro­mit­ti pla­cuit, ad per­so­nam emp­to­ris, si ei for­te frui non li­cuis­set, re­la­ta est.

36The Same, Opinions, Book II. When a vendor retains one of two estates, and a servitude for the conduct of water is imposed upon it by him, the servitude acquired for the estate which is purchased will follow the same if a sale is afterwards made; nor does it matter whether the stipulation by which it was agreed that a penalty should be promised had reference to the person of the purchaser, and made certain provisions in the event that he should not be permitted to enjoy the servitude.

37Idem li­bro ter­tio re­spon­so­rum. Λούκιος Τίτιος Γαΐῳ Σεΐῳ τῷ ἀδελφῷ πλεῖστα χαίρειν. ὕδατος τοῦ ῥέοντος εἰς τὴν κρήνην τὴν κατασκευασθεῖσαν ἐν ἰσθμῷ ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρόσ μου δίδωμι καὶ χαρίζομαί σοι δάκτυλον εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν σου τὴν ἐν τῷ ἰσθμῷ, ἢ ὅπου δ’ ἄν βούλῃ. quae­ro, an ex hac scrip­tu­ra usus aquae et­iam ad he­redes Gaii Se­ii per­ti­neat. Pau­lus re­spon­dit usum aquae per­so­na­lem ad he­redem Se­ii qua­si usua­rii trans­mit­ti non opor­te­re.

37The Same, Opinions, Book III. “Lucius Titius to his brother Gaius Seius, Greeting: Of the water which flows into the reservoir which my father built on the isthmus, I give and grant to you gratuitously the depth of an inch, to be conducted either into the house which you have on said isthmus, or anywhere else you may wish”. I ask whether by these terms the use of the water also belongs to the heirs of Gaius Seius? Paulus answered that as the use of the water was personal, it could not be transmitted to the heirs of Seius, as they occupied the position of parties entitled to the use of the same.

38Idem li­bro pri­mo ma­nua­lium. Flu­mi­ne in­ter­ve­nien­te via con­sti­tui pot­est, si aut va­do trans­iri pot­est aut pon­tem ha­beat: di­ver­sum, si pon­to­ni­bus tra­icia­tur. haec ita, si per unius prae­dia flu­men cur­rat: alio­quin si tua prae­dia mi­hi vi­ci­na sint, de­in­de flu­men, de­in­de Ti­tii prae­dia, de­in­de via pu­bli­ca, in quam iter mi­hi ad­quiri vo­lo, di­spi­cia­mus ne ni­hil ve­tet a te mi­hi viam da­ri us­que ad flu­men, de­in­de a Ti­tio us­que ad viam pu­bli­cam. sed vi­dea­mus, num et si tu eo­rum prae­dio­rum do­mi­nus sis, quae trans flu­men in­tra viam pu­bli­cam sint, idem iu­ris sit, quia via con­sum­ma­ri so­let vel ci­vi­ta­te te­nus vel us­que ad viam pu­bli­cam vel us­que ad flu­men, in quo pon­to­ni­bus tra­icia­tur vel us­que ad pro­prium aliud eius­dem do­mi­ni prae­dium: quod si est, non vi­de­tur in­terr­rum­pi ser­vi­tus, quam­vis in­ter eius­dem do­mi­ni prae­dia flu­men pu­bli­cum in­ter­ce­dat.

38The Same, Manuals, Book I. A right of way can be granted through a place where a river flows, if it can either be crossed by a ford or there is a bridge; but it is different where it must be crossed by ferry-boats. This is the case where the river runs through the land of one of the parties; but it is otherwise if your land joins mine, and then comes the river, and the land of Titius, and then a highway up to which I wish to acquire a right of way. Let us consider whether there is anything to prevent you from giving me a right of way as far as the river, and then my receiving one from Titius as far as the highway. Again, let us consider whether the same legal principle will apply even if you are the owner of the land which is beyond the river on this side of the highway; because a right of way can be complete as far as a town, or as a highway, or as a river which must be crossed by ferry-boats, or as far as the land belonging to the same owner. If this be the case the servitude is not held to be interrupted, even though a public river intervenes between two tracts of land belonging to the same person.