Ad edictum provinciale libri
Ex libro XIX
Dig. 11,7,5Gaius libro nono decimo ad edictum provinciale. Familiaria sepulchra dicuntur, quae quis sibi familiaeque suae constituit, hereditaria autem, quae quis sibi heredibusque suis constituit
Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XIX. “The family burying place” means one set apart by some one for himself and his household; but an “hereditary burial-place” is one which a man provides for himself and his heirs,
Dig. 11,7,7Gaius libro nono decimo ad edictum provinciale. Is qui intulit mortuum in alienum locum aut tollere id quod intulit aut loci pretium praestare cogitur per in factum actionem, quae tam heredi quam in heredem competit et perpetua est. 1Adversus eum, qui in alterius arcam lapideam, in qua adhuc mortuus non erit conditus, mortuum intulerit, utilem actionem in factum proconsul dat, quia non proprie vel in sepulchrum vel in locum alterius intulisse dici potest.
Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XIX. He who buries a dead body on land belonging to another can be compelled by an action in factum to either remove the body which he buried, or to pay the price of the land. This action can be brought by an heir as well as against one, and it is perpetual. 1Where a man placed a dead body in a stone chest which belongs to another, in which, as yet, no corpse has been laid; the Proconsul grants an equitable action in factum against him, since it cannot be properly said that he placed the body in a burial-place, or on land belonging to another.
Dig. 11,7,9Gaius libro nono decimo ad edictum provinciale. Liberum est ei qui prohibetur mortuum ossave mortui inferre aut statim interdicto uti, quo prohibetur ei vis fieri, aut alio inferre et postea in factum agere: per quam consequetur actor, quanti eius interfuerit prohibitum non esse, in quam computationem cadit loci empti pretium aut conducti merces, item sui loci pretium, quem quis, nisi coactus est, religiosum facturus non esset. unde miror, quare constare videatur neque heredi neque in heredem dandam hanc actionem: nam ut apparet, pecuniariae quantitatis ratio in eam deducitur: certe perpetuo ea inter ipsos competit.
Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XIX. Where some one is prevented from burying the body or bones of a deceased person, he can at once make use of an interdict by which it is forbidden to employ force against him, or he can make the interment elsewhere, and afterwards bring an action in factum, by means of which, as plaintiff, he will recover damages to the amount of his interest in not having been prevented from making the interment; and in the calculation shall be included the price of the land which he purchases or the rent of any which he leases, or the value of his own land which no one would render religious unless compelled to do so. Therefore, I wonder why it should appear to be settled that this action cannot be granted either in favor of, or against an heir; as it is evident that it involves the account of a certain sum of money which forms the basis of the claim; at all events the suit can be brought at any time between the parties themselves.
Dig. 11,7,13Gaius libro nono decimo ad edictum provinciale. vel a debitoribus si facile exigi possit.
Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XIX. Or he may collect the money from debtors to the estate if he can easily do so:
Dig. 11,7,29Gaius libro nono decimo ad edictum provinciale. Si mulier post divortium alii nupta decesserit, non putat Fulcinius priorem maritum, licet lucri dotem faciat, funeris impensam praestare. 1Is qui filiam familias funeravit antequam dos patri reddatur, cum marito recte agit: reddita dote patrem obligatum habet. utique autem, si cum marito actum fuerit, is eo minus patri mulieris restituturus est.
Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XIX. Where a woman, after a divorce, marries another man and then dies; Fulcinius does not think that the first husband should pay the expenses of the funeral, even though he may have profited by the dowry. 1Where anyone conducts the funeral of a daughter under paternal control, before her dowry is returned to her father; he can very properly bring suit against her husband, but where the dowry has been returned, he can hold her father liable; but, at all events, where suit is brought against the husband, he should return to the father of the woman that much less.
Dig. 39,2,20Idem libro nono decimo ad edictum provinciale. Inter fructuarium et dominum proprietatis ita damni infecti cautio locum habet, si fructuarius quidem de soli vitio caveri sibi desideret, dominus vero proprietatis de operis vitio, si quid fructuarius aedificet: nam de ruina aedium neuter ab altero cautionem desiderare potest, fructuarius ideo, quia refectio aedium ad eius ipsius onus non pertinet, proprietarius ideo, quia usitata stipulatio, qua de re restituenda fructuarius cavet, ad hunc quoque casum porrigitur.
The Same, On the Provincial Edict, Book XIX. Security against threatened injury takes place between the usufructuary and the owner of the property when the usufructuary demands that it be given him on account of bad condition of the ground, and the owner of the property on account of some defect of the work, when the usufructuary is constructing something, for neither of them can demand security from the other on account of a house which was in danger of falling; the usufructuary, because he is not responsible for the repair of the house, and the owner, for the reason that a stipulation is usually entered into by them, under which the usufructuary gives security to repair the property, a provision which applies to this case.