Quemadmodum servitutes amittuntur
(How servitudes are lost.)
1 Gaius libro septimo ad edictum provinciale. Servitutes praediorum confunduntur, si idem utriusque praedii dominus esse coeperit.
1 Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book VII. The servitudes of estates are merged when the same person becomes the owner of both estates.
2 Paulus libro vicensimo primo ad edictum. Qui iter et actum habet, si statuto tempore tantum ierit, non perisse actum, sed manere Sabinus Cassius Octavenus aiunt: nam ire quoque per se eum posse qui actum haberet.
2 Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXI. Where a man has the right to both walk and drive, and only uses that of walking during the period established by law, the right to drive is not lost, but still remains in force; as Sabinus, Cassius, and Octavenus hold; and a party who has the right to drive can also make use of that to walk.
3 Gaius libro septimo ad edictum provinciale. Iura praediorum morte et capitis deminutione non perire volgo traditum est.
3 Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book VII. It is commonly held that servitudes attached to real property are not lost by death or by the forfeiture of civil rights.
4 Paulus libro vicensimo septimo ad edictum. Iter sepulchro debitum non utendo numquam amittitur.
4 Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXVII. The right of access to a burial-place is never lost by want of use.
5 Idem libro sexagensimo sexto ad edictum. Servitus et per socium et fructuarium et bonae fidei possessorem nobis retinetur:
5 The Same, On the Edict, Book LXVI. A servitude can be retained for our benefit through a joint-owner, an usufructuary, or a bona fide possessor:
6 Celsus libro quinto digestorum. nam satis est fundi nomine itum esse. 1Si ego via, quae nobis per vicini fundum debebatur, usus fuero, tu autem constituto tempore cessaveris, an ius tuum amiseris? et e contrario, si vicinus, cui via per nostrum fundum debebatur, per meam partem ierit egerit, tuam partem ingressus non fuerit, an partem tuam liberaverit? Celsus respondit: si divisus est fundus inter socios regionibus, quod ad servitutem attinet, quae ei fundo debebatur, perinde est, atque si ab initio duobus fundis debita sit: et sibi quisque dominorum usurpat servitutem, sibi non utendo deperdit nec amplius in ea re causae eorum fundorum miscentur: nec fit ulla iniuria ei cuius fundus servit, immo si quo melior, quoniam alter dominorum utendo sibi, non toti fundo proficit. 1aSed si is fundus qui servierit ita divisus est, plusculum dubitationis ea res habet: nam si certus ac finitus viae locus est, tunc, si per longitudinem eius fundus divisus est, eadem omnia servanda erunt, quae si initio constituendae eius servitutis similiter hic duo fundi fuissent: si vero per latitudinem viae fundus divisus est (nec multum refert, aequaliter id factum est an inaequaliter), tunc manet idem ius servitutis, quod fundo indiviso fuerat, nec aut usu detineri aut non utendo deperire nisi tota via poterit: nec si forte inciderit, ut semita, quae per alterum dumtaxat fundum erit, uteretur, idcirco alter fundus liberabitur, quoniam unum atque eo modo individuum viae ius est. 1bPossunt tamen alterutrum fundum liberare, si modo hoc specialiter convenit: certe si is cui servitus debebatur alterum ex ea divisione fundum redemerit, num ideo minus ea re fundi alterius servitus permanebit? nec video, quid absurde consecuturum sit eam sententiam fundo altero manente servo: si modo et ab initio potuit angustior constitui via quam lege finita est et adhuc id loci superest in eo fundo, cui remissa servitus non est, ut sufficiat viae: quod si minus loci superest quam viae sufficiat, uterque fundus liberabitur, alter propter redemptionem, alter, quia per eum locum qui superest via constitui non potest. 1cCeterum si ita constitutum est ius viae, ut per quamlibet partem fundi ire agere liceat, idque vel subinde mutare nihil prohibet atque ita divisus est fundus: si per quamlibet eius partem aeque ire atque agi possit, tunc perinde observabimus atque si ab initio duobus fundis duae servitutes iniunctae fuissent, ut altera retineri, altera non utendo possit deperire. 1dNec me fallit alieno facto ius alterius immutatu iri, quoniam ante satius fuerat per alteram partem ire agere, ut idem ius ei in altera parte fundi retineretur: contra illud commodum acessisse ei cui via debebatur, quod per duas pariter vias ire agere possit bisque octonos in porrectum et senos denos in anfractum.
6 Celsus, Digest, Book V. For it is sufficient that there should be a right of access on account of the land. 1Where you and I have a right of way through the land of a neighbor, and I use it, but you cease to do so for the period prescribed by law, will you lose your right? And, on the other hand, if a neighbor who has a right of way through our land, walks or drives through my portion of the same, but does not enter yours, will this free yours? Celsus answered that if the estate is divided by metes and bounds between the joint-owners, then, so far as the servitude to which the land is entitled is concerned, it is the same as if it had been attached to both estates from the beginning, and either one of the owners can make use of his own servitude, and each can lose his own by want of use, and the interests of the two estates are no further involved; no injury is done to the party whose land is subject to the servitude, but in fact, his condition is improved, since one of the owners by making use of the right benefits himself and not the entire estate. 1aBut where the estate subject to the servitude is divided in this way, the matter is involved in a little more doubt; for if the location of the right of way is certain and well defined, then, if the estate is divided in the line of the right of way, everything must be observed just as if there had been two distinct estates in the beginning, when the servitude was established; but if the land is divided across the line of the right of way, (and it does not make much difference if this is done equally or unequally) then the right of servitude remains just as it was when the land was undivided, and nothing less than the entire right of way can be retained by using it, or lost by failure to do so; and if it should happen that the owner uses only as much of the way as crosses one of the tracts of land, the other will not become free for that reason, since a right of way is one, and hence is indivisible. 1bThe parties can, however, liberate either of the estates from the servitude, provided they expressly agree to do so; and, at all events, if the party who is entitled to the servitude should purchase one estate, after the division, will the servitude to which the other tract of land is subject remain operative? I do not see how anything absurd can result from this opinion, while one of the estates remains subject to the servitude; provided that, from the beginning, a narrower right of way was created than was mentioned in the contract, and that space enough still remains in the estate, with reference to which the servitude was not released, for the right of way to be made use of; but if insufficient space remains for this purpose, then, both estates should be freed; one on account of the purchase, the other because a right of way cannot be created over the space which remains. 1cIf, however, the right of way was so established that the party was at liberty to walk or drive over any portion of the estate that he chose; and there was nothing to prevent his changing his direction from time to time, and afterwards the estate was divided; if he could walk and drive equally over any portion that he chose, then we must consider the case just as if, in the beginning, two servitudes had been imposed on both estates in such a way that one could be retained and the other lost by want of use. 1dI know perfectly well that, under these circumstances, the right of one of the parties would be impaired by the act of the other, since, formerly it would have been sufficient if the party had walked or driven over part of the land to enable him to retain the same right over the rest of it; but the party entitled to the right of way secured the advantage of being able to walk or drive over two roads equally; that is, over two roads each eight feet wide where straight and sixteen feet where curved.
7 Paulus libro tertio decimo ad Plautium. Si sic constituta sit aqua, ut vel aestate ducatur tantum vel uno mense, quaeritur quemadmodum non utendo amittatur, quia non est continuum tempus, quo cum uti non potest, non sit usus. itaque et si alternis annis vel mensibus quis aquam habeat, duplicato constituto tempore amittitur. idem et de itinere custoditur. si vero alternis diebus aut die toto aut tantum nocte, statuto legibus tempore amittitur, quia una servitus est: nam et si alternis horis vel una hora cottidie servitutem habeat, Servius scribit perdere eum non utendo servitutem, quia id quod habet cottidianum sit.
7 Paulus, On Plautius, Book XIII. If the right to conduct water is granted in such a way that this can only be done during the summer, or for one month, the question arises how it may be lost by want of use; because there is no continuous term during which the party could use it but did not do so? Therefore, if anyone has the use of water for alternate years or alternate months, the right is lost by lapse of double the time prescribed by law; and the same rule applies with reference to a right of way. If, however, the party has a right which he can make use of on alternate days, or only by day, or only by night, this will be lost by the lapse of time established by law, because it is but a single servitude; for Servius says that if he has a servitude which he can make use of every other hour, or only for one hour each day, he will lose the servitude by not using it, because what he has can be made use of every day.
8 Idem libro quinto decimo ad Plautium. Si stillicidii immittendi ius habeam in aream tuam et permisero ius tibi in ea area aedificandi, stillicidii immittendi ius amitto. et similiter si per tuum fundum via mihi debeatur et permisero tibi in eo loco, per quem via mihi debetur, aliquid facere, amitto ius viae. 1Is qui per partem itineris it totum ius usurpare videtur.
8 The Same, On Plautius, Book XV. If I have the right to allow the water from my roof to fall on your land, and I permit you to build there, I lose my right to allow the water to fall. In like manner, if I have a right of way over your land, and I permit you to build anything on the place over which I have the right of way, I lose it. 1A person who transfers a portion of a roadway to which he has a right, is considered to be using the whole of it.
9 Iavolenus libro tertio ex Plautio. Aqua si in partem aquagi influxit, etiamsi non ad ultima loca pervenit, omnibus tamen partibus usurpatur.
9 Javolenus, On Plautius, Book III. Where water flows into a part of a canal, even though if it does not reach the extreme end of the same, all parts of said canal are held to be used.
10 Paulus libro quinto decimo ad Plautium. Si communem fundum ego et pupillus haberemus, licet uterque non uteretur, tamen propter pupillum et ego viam retineo. 1Si is, qui nocturnam aquam habet, interdiu per constitutum ad amissionem tempus usus fuerit, amisit nocturnam servitutem, qua usus non est. idem est in eo, qui certis horis aquae ductum habens aliis usus fuerit nec ulla parte earum horarum.
10 Paulus, On Plautius, Book XV. Where I and my ward hold land in common, even though we both do not make use of a right of way attached to the same, I retain the right of way on account of the benefit to the ward. 1Where a party has a right to make use of water at night, but only uses it during the day for the period established by law for the loss of a servitude, he loses the right to make use of it at night, because he failed to exercise his privilege. The same rule applies to a party who has a right to use an aqueduct during certain hours, and makes use of it at others, and not during any part of the hours which are mentioned.
11 Marcellus libro quarto digestorum. Is cui via vel actus debebatur, ut vehiculi certo genere uteretur, alio genere fuerat usus: videamus ne amiserit servitutem et alia sit eius condicio, qui amplius oneris quam licuit vexerit, magisque hic plus quam aliud egisse videatur: sicuti latiore itinere usus esset aut si plura iumenta egerit quam licuit aut aquae admiscuerit aliam. ideoque in omnibus istis quaestionibus servitus quidem non amittitur, non autem conceditur plus quam pactum est in servitute habere. 1Heres, cum legatus esset fundus sub condicione, imposuit ei servitutes: extinguentur, si legati condicio existat. videamus, an adquisitae sequantur legatarium: et magis dicendum est, ut sequantur.
11 Marcellus, Digest, Book IV. Where a party who was entitled to a right of way or a right to drive, provided he made use of vehicles of a certain kind, used one of another kind; let us consider whether he has not lost his servitude, and whether the case is not different where a party has been transporting a heavier load than he had a right to do; for the latter may be held to have made an excessive use of his right of way rather than to have done so wrongfully; just as if he had used a wider road, or had driven more beasts of burden than he should have done, or had obtained water from some ether source. Therefore, in all these instances, the servitude is not lost, but the party is not permitted to have as a servitude more than is included in the contract. 1Where land was left as a legacy under a condition, and the heir imposed certain servitudes upon it; if the condition of the legacy is complied with, the servitude will be extinguished. Let us consider whether if they had been acquired by the land, they would follow the legacy for the benefit of the legatee, and the better opinion is that they would.
12 Celsus libro vicensimo tertio digestorum. Qui fundum alienum bona fide emit, itinere quod ei fundo debetur usus est: retinetur id ius itineris: atque etiam si precario aut vi deiecto domino possidet: fundus enim qualiter se habens ita, cum in suo habitu possessus est, ius non deperit, neque refert, iuste nec ne possideat, qui talem eum possidet. quare fortius et si aqua per rivum sua sponte perfluxit, ius aquae ducendae retinetur. quod et Sabino recte placet, ut apud Neratium libro quarto membranarum scriptum est.
12 Celsus, Digest, Book XXIII. Where a party in good faith purchases land which did not belong to the vendor, and uses a right of way which is attached to the land, the right will be retained; and this also will be the case even if he is a possessor by sufferance, or, after the owner has been ejected by force; for where land is invested with a certain character so that it is held in possession in that condition, the right is not lost; and it does not make any difference whether or not the party in possession, who holds it as it is, does so legally or not. Wherefore, it may be stated even more positively, that if water flows through a channel of itself, the right of conducting it there is retained; which opinion was very properly held by Sabinus, and is mentioned in Neratius in the Fourth Book of Parchments.
13 Marcellus libro septimo decimo digestorum. Si quis ex fundo, cui viam vicinus deberet, vendidisset locum proximum servienti fundo non imposita servitute et intra legitimum tempus, quo servitutes pereunt, rursus eum locum adquisisset, habiturus est servitutem, quam vicinus debuisset.
13 Marcellus, Digest, Book XVII. Where a party who owns an estate entitled to a right of way over neighboring land sells a portion of the same adjoining the servient estate, but does not impose the servitude, and before the prescribed time by which a servitude is lost has elapsed, again acquires the portion which he sold, he will be entitled to the servitude which his neighbor owed.
14 Iavolenus libro decimo ex Cassio. Si locus, per quem via aut iter aut actus debebatur, impetu fluminis occupatus esset et intra tempus, quod ad amittendam servitutem sufficit, alluvione facta restitutus est, servitus quoque in pristinum statum restituitur: quod si id tempus praeterierit, ut servitus amittatur, renovare eam cogendus est. 1Cum via publica vel fluminis impetu vel ruina amissa est, vicinus proximus viam praestare debet.
14 Javolenus, On Cassius, Book X. Where a place subject to a right of way or a right to walk or drive is overflowed by a river, and before the time established for the loss of the servitude has elapsed, the land is restored by a deposit of alluvium, the servitude is also restored to its former condition. If, however, so much time should elapse that the servitude is lost, the owner of the land can be compelled to renew it. 1Where a highway is destroyed by the overflow of a river, or by the destruction of a building, the nearest neighbor must furnish a roadway.
15 Idem libro secundo epistularum. Si, cum servitus mihi per plures fundos deberetur, medium fundum adquisivi, manere servitutem puto, quia totiens servitus confunditur, quotiens uti ea is ad quem pertineat non potest: medio autem fundo adquisito potest consistere, ut per primum et ultimum iter debeatur.
15 The Same, Epistles, Book II. Where I am entitled to a servitude over several tracts of land, and I acquire one of the tracts situated between two others, I think that the servitude remains, for a servitude is merged only when the party to whom it belongs cannot make use of it; but where he has acquired land between two other tracts, it may be held that he is entitled to a right of way through the first and last of these.
16 Proculus libro primo epistularum. Aquam, quae oriebatur in fundo vicini, plures per eundem rivum iure ducere soliti sunt, ita ut suo quisque die a capite duceret, primo per eundem rivum eumque communem, deinde ut quisque inferior erat, suo quisque proprio rivo, et unus statuto tempore, quo servitus amittitur, non duxit. existimo eum ius ducendae aquae amississe nec per ceteros qui duxerunt eius ius usurpatum esse: proprium enim cuiusque eorum ius fuit neque per alium usurpari potuit. quod si plurium fundo iter aquae debitum esset, per unum eorum omnibus his, inter quos is fundus communis fuisset, usurpari potuisset. item si quis eorum, quibus aquae ductus servitus debebatur et per eundem rivum aquam ducebant, ius aquae ducendae non ducendo eam amisit, nihil iuris eo nomine ceteris, qui rivo utebantur, adcrevit idque commodum eius est, per cuius fundum id iter aquae, quod non utendo pro parte unius amissum est: libertate enim huius partis servitutis fruitur.
16 Proculus, Epistles, Book I. Several persons by reason of a right were accustomed to conduct through the same canal water which had its source on the land of a neighbor, in such a way that each one, on a certain day allotted to him, conducted the water from its source through a ditch which was held in common, and then through one of his own, each succeeding the other who was immediately above him; and one of them failed to conduct any water during the time established by law for the loss of a servitude. I think that he lost the right to conduct the water, for it was not exercised by the others who did conduct it, and this right belonged to each one of the parties as his own, and could not be exercised by another. But where a water-course was attached to land belonging to several parties, it could have been used by one of them for the benefit of all those by whom the land was held in common. Again, where one of the parties entitled to a right of conducting water, and who did conduct it through the same channel loses the right to do so by failure to use his privilege, no right for this reason will accrue to the others who used the channel; and the benefit of the right which was lost as to the share of one party by non-user will belong to him through whose land was traversed by the water-course, and he would enjoy freedom from this much of the servitude.
17 Pomponius libro undecimo ex variis lectionibus. Labeo ait, si is, qui haustum habet, per tempus, quo servitus amittitur, ierit ad fontem nec aquam hauserit, iter quoque eum amississe.
17 Pomponius, Various Passages, Book XI. Labeo says that if anyone who has a right to draw water should, during the time by the lapse of which a servitude is lost, go to a spring but not draw any water, he will lose the right of way also.
18 Paulus libro quinto decimo ad Sabinum. Si quis alia aqua usus fuerit, quam de qua in servitute imponenda actum est, servitus amittitur. 1Tempus, quo non est usus praecedens fundi dominus, cui servitus debetur, imputatur ei, qui in eius loco successit. 2Si, cum ius haberes immittendi, vicinus statuto tempore aedificatum non habuerit ideoque nec tu immittere poteris, non ideo magis servitutem amittes, quia non potest videri usucepisse vicinus tuus libertatem aedium suarum, qui ius tuum non interpellavit.
18 Paulus, On Sabinus, Book XV. Where anyone uses other water than that which is agreed upon at the time when the servitude was imposed, the servitude is lost. 1The time during which the last owner of the land to which a servitude is attached did not use the water is counted against the party who succeeds to his place. 2If you have the right to insert a beam into an adjacent house, and your neighbor has not built it within the time prescribed by law, and therefore you are unable to insert it, you do not, for that reason, lose your right; because your neighbor cannot be considered to have acquired by usucaption freedom from the servitude to which his house was subject, since he never interrupted the use of your right.
19 Pomponius libro trigensimo secundo ad Sabinum. Si partem fundi vendendo lege caverim, uti per eam partem in reliquum fundum meum aquam ducerem, et statutum tempus intercesserit, antequam rivum facerem, nihil iuris amitto, quia nullum iter aquae fuerit, sed manet mihi ius integrum: quod si fecissem iter neque usus essem, amittam. 1Si per fundum meum viam tibi legavero et adita mea hereditate per constitutum tempus ad amittendam servitutem ignoraveris eam tibi legatam esse, amittes viam non utendo. quod si intra idem tempus, antequam rescires tibi legatam servitutem, tuum fundum vendideris, ad emptorem via pertinebit, si reliquo tempore ea usus fuerit, quia scilicet tua esse coeperat: ut iam nec ius repudiandi legatum tibi possit contingere, cum ad te fundus non pertineat.
19 Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XXXII. If, when selling a portion of my land, I provide in the contract that I shall have a right to conduct water over that portion to the remainder of my premises, and the time prescribed by law elapses before I excavate a ditch, I do not lose any right, as there is no place for the water to flow, and my right remains unimpaired; but if I dug the ditch and did not use it, I would lose my right. 1If I bequeath to you a right of way over my land, and, my estate having been entered upon, you should, for the time fixed by law for the loss of a servitude, remain ignorant that this right had been left to you; you will lose the right of way by failure to make use of it. But if, before the time had expired, you sell your land without having ascertained that the servitude had been bequeathed to you, the right of way will belong to the purchaser, if he should make use of it for the remaining time, because, in fact it had already commenced to be yours, and it might happen that you would never have the right even to reject the legacy, as the land would not belong to you.
20 Scaevola libro primo regularum. Usu retinetur servitus, cum ipse cui debetur utitur quive in possessionem eius est aut mercennarius aut hospes aut medicus quive ad visitandum dominum venit vel colonus aut fructuarius:
20 Scævola, Rules, Book I. A servitude is retained by use when it is made use of by the party entitled to it or who is in possession of the same, or by his hired servant, his guest, his physician, or anyone who comes to pay him a visit, or his tenant, or an usufructuary:
21 Paulus libro quinto sententiarum. fructuarius licet suo nomine.
21 Paulus, Sentences, Book V. Even though the usufructuary should enjoy it in his own name;
22 Scævola, Rules, Book I. In fine, whoever makes use of the right of way just as if he is entitled to do so,
23 Paulus libro quinto sententiarum. (sive ad fundum nostrum facit, vel ex fundo)
23 Paulus, Sentences, Book V. Whether he uses it in order to approach our land or to leave it,
24 Scævola, Rules, Book I. Even though he may be a possessor in bad faith, the servitude will be retained.
25 Paulus libro quinto sententiarum. Servitute usus non videtur nisi is, qui suo iure uti se credidit: ideoque si quis pro via publica vel pro alterius servitute usus sit, nec interdictum nec actio utiliter competit.
25 Paulus, Sentences, Book V. A party is not held to use a servitude except when he believes that he is exercising a right which belongs to him; and therefore where anyone makes use of it as a highway or as a servitude belonging to another, he will not be entitled to an interdict or to any other legal proceeding.