Digestorum libri
Ex libro XVIII
Dig. 6,1,49Celsus libro octavo decimo digestorum. Solum partem esse aedium existimo nec alioquin subiacere uti mare navibus. 1Meum est, quod ex re mea superest, cuius vindicandi ius habeo.
Celsus, Digest, Book XVIII. I am of the opinion that the land on which a house stands is a portion of the same; and not merely a support, as the sea is to ships. 1Whatever remains of my property, which I have the right to recover at law is mine.
Dig. 7,1,2Celsus libro octavo decimo digestorum. Est enim usus fructus ius in corpore, quo sublato et ipsum tolli necesse est.
Celsus, Digest, Book XVIII. For usufruct is a right in the material part of a thing, so that, if it is removed, the usufruct itself must be removed also.
Dig. 8,1,10Idem libro octavo decimo digestorum. Si iter legatum sit, qua nisi opere facto iri non possit, licere fodiendo substruendo iter facere Proculus ait.
The Same, Digest, Book XVIII. Where the right to walk through property is bequeathed which cannot be enjoyed unless certain work is performed, Proculus says that the legatee has a right to make a path by excavation, or by substructure.
Dig. 31,19Idem libro octavo decimo digestorum. Si is, cui legatus sit Stichus aut Pamphilus, cum Stichum sibi legatum putaret, vindicaverit, amplius mutandae vindicationis ius non habet: tamquam si damnatus heres alterutrum dare Stichum dederit, cum ignoret sibi permissum vel Pamphilum dare, nihil repetere possit.
Ad Dig. 31,19Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 329, Note 17; Bd. III, § 661, Note 7.The Same, Digest, Book XVIII. If he to whom Stichus or Pamphilus is bequeathed, thinking that Stichus has been bequeathed to him, should demand this slave, he will not have the right to exchange him for another, just as where an heir, having been charged with the delivery of one or the other of these slaves, gives Stichus, not being aware that he was allowed to give Pamphilus, he cannot recover anything from the legatee.
Dig. 33,2,14Celsus libro octavo decimo digestorum. Duos separatim uti frui sinere damnatus heres communiter uti frui passus est: quaerebatur, an utrique ex testamento teneretur. dixi teneri, si testator utrumque solidum habere voluit: nam ipsius onus est, ut solidum singulis legatum praestaret: qua parte igitur alterum uti frui sineret heres, ea parte eum non sinere alterum uti frui, ideoque per aestimationem unicuique quod deest replere debet.
Celsus, Digest, Book XVIII. Where an heir was charged to permit two persons to separately enjoy the usufruct of a tract of land, and he suffered them to enjoy it in common, the question arose whether, under the terms of the will, he would be liable to both. I held that he would be liable, if the testator had intended that each should enjoy the entire usufruct individually; for, in this instance, he would be required to deliver the entire legacy to each one of them. Therefore, if the heir should permit one of the legatees to use part of the usufruct, he could not permit the other to use the same part. Hence, he would be compelled to give to each of them the appraised value of that of which he was deprived.
Dig. 50,16,88Celsus libro octavo decimo digestorum. Propemodum tantum quisque pecuniae relinquit, quantum ex bonis eius refici potest: sic dicimus centies aureorum habere, qui tantum in praediis ceterisque similibus rebus habeat. non idem est in fundo alieno legato, quamquam is hereditaria pecunia parari potest. neque quisquam eum, qui pecuniam numeratam habet, habere dicit quidquid ex ea parari potest.
Celsus, Digest, Book XVIII. A man leaves only as much money as his estate is worth. Hence we say that the estate of anyone is worth a hundred aurei if he had that amount in land, or other property. The same rule does not apply to the devise of land belonging to another, although it may be bought with the money of the estate; for anyone who has only money is not considered to have what can be purchased with it.