Ex posterioribus Labeonis libri
Ex libro IX
Dig. 19,2,57Iavolenus libro nono ex posterioribus Labeonis. Qui domum habebat, aream iniunctam ei domui vicino proximo locaverat: is vicinus cum aedificaret in suo, terram in eam aream amplius quam fundamenta caementicia locatoris erant congessit, et ea terra adsiduis pluviis inundata, ita parieti eius qui locaverat umore praestituto madefacto, aedificia corruerunt. Labeo ex locato tantummodo actionem esse ait, quia non ipsa congestio, sed umor ex ea congestione postea damno fuerit, damni autem iniuriae actio ob ea ipsa sit, per quae, non extrinsecus alia causa oblata, damno quis adfectus est: hoc probo.
Javolenus, On the Last Works of Labeo, Book IX. A man who owned a house leased an empty space adjoining the same to his next neighbor. The said neighbor, while building upon his own ground, threw the dirt for the excavation upon the said vacant space, and heaped it up higher than the stone foundation of the lessor; and the earth, having become wet by constant rains, weakened the wall of the lessor with moisture to such an extent that the building collapsed. Labeo says that only an action on lease will lie, because it was not the heaping up of the earth itself, but the moisture arising therefrom that subsequently caused the injury, but that an action on the ground of unlawful damage will only lie where the damage has not been produced by some outside cause. I approve this opinion.
Dig. 47,2,91Iavolenus libro nono ex posterioribus Labeonis. Fullo actione locati de domino liberatus est: negat eum furti recte acturum Labeo. item si furti egisset, priusquam ex locato cum eo ageretur et, antequam de furto iudicaretur, locati actione liberatus esset, et fur ab eo absolvi debet. quod si nihil eorum ante accidisset, furem ei condemnari oportere. haec idcirco, quoniam furti eatenus habet actionem, quatenus eius interest. 1Nemo opem aut consilium alii praestare potest, qui ipse furti faciendi consilium capere non potest.
Javolenus, On the Last Works of Labeo, Book IX. A fuller was released from liability to the owner in an action on hiring. Labeo denies that an action for theft will lie. Again, if he should bring an action for theft before the action for hiring was brought against him, and before judgment had been rendered with reference to the thief he should be released by the action on hiring, and the thief ought also to be discharged so far as he is concerned. If nothing of this kind previously occurred, judgment should be rendered against the thief in favor of the fuller, and this is the case because he has a right to the action for theft only to the extent of his interest. 1No one can give aid and advice to another who himself has no intention of committing a theft.
Dig. 47,10,44Iavolenus libro nono ex posterioribus Labeonis. Si inferiorum dominus aedium superioris vicini fumigandi causa fumum faceret, aut si superior vicinus in inferiores aedes quid aut proiecerit aut infuderit, negat Labeo iniuriarum agi posse: quod falsum puto, si tamen iniuriae faciendae causa inmittitur.
Javolenus, On the Last Works of Labeo, Book IX. If the owner of a lower house causes smoke to affect the building of his neighbor above him, or if a neighbor occupying a higher house throws or pours anything upon that of another, which is situated below, Labeo says that an action for injury cannot be brought. I think that this is not true provided it was thrown down upon the neighbor’s premises for the purpose of injuring him.
Dig. 49,15,27Iavolenus libro nono ex posterioribus Labeonis. Latrones tibi servum eripuerant: postea is servus ad Germanos pervenerat: inde in bello victis Germanis servus venierat. negant posse usucapi eum ab emptore Labeo Ofilius Trebatius, quia verum esset eum subreptum esse, nec quod hostium fuisset aut postliminio redisset, ei rei impedimento esse.
Javolenus, On the Last Works of Labeo, Book IX. Robbers stole your slave from you, and afterwards the said slave fell into the hands of the Germans, and then, the Germans having been defeated in battle, the slave was sold. Labeo, Ofilius, and Trebatius deny that the slave can be acquired through usucaption by the purchaser, because it was true that he had been stolen, and although he belonged to the enemy, and returned with the right of postliminium, this would be an obstacle.