Ex Minicio libri
Ex libro II
Dig. 8,2,22Iulianus libro secundo ex Minicio. Qui aedificium habet, potest servitutem vicino imponere, ut non solum de his luminibus, quae in praesentia erunt, sed etiam de his quae postea fuerint, caveat.
Julianus, On Minicius, Book II. A man who owns a house can impose such a servitude upon his neighbor as to compel him to give security not only with reference to the lights which exist at the present time, but also with reference to any that may subsequently be made.
Dig. 8,2,34Iulianus libro secundo ex Minicio. Et qui duas areas habet, alteram tradendo servam alteri efficere potest.
Julianus, On Minicius, Book II. Where a man has two vacant lots, he can, by conveying one, subject it to a servitude in favor of the other.
Dig. 8,3,31Iulianus 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.
Julianus, 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.
Dig. 14,2,8Iulianus libro secundo ex Minicio. Qui levandae navis gratia res aliquas proiciunt, non hanc mentem habent, ut eas pro derelicto habeant, quippe si invenerint eas, ablaturos et, si suspicati fuerint, in quem locum eiectae sunt, requisituros: ut perinde sint, ac si quis onere pressus in viam rem abiecerit mox cum aliis reversurus, ut eandem auferret.
Julianus, On Minicius, Book II. Those who throw any property overboard for the purpose of lightening a ship, do not intend to consider it as abandoned; since if they should find it they can carry it away, and if they have any idea of the place where it has been cast by the sea, they can claim it; so that they are in the same condition as anyone who oppressed by a burden throws it down on the road, expecting to return presently with others and remove it.
Dig. 16,3,10Iulianus libro secundo ex Minicio. Nec adversus coheredes eius, qui dolo carent, depositi actio competit.
Julianus, On Minicius, Book II. The action on deposit does not lie against co-heirs who are not guilty of fraud.
Dig. 41,2,39Idem libro secundo ex Minicio. Interesse puto, qua mente apud sequestrum deponitur res. nam si omittendae possessionis causa et hoc aperte fuerit approbatum, ad usucapionem possessio eius partibus non procederet: at si custodiae causa deponatur, ad usucapionem eam possessionem victori procedere constat.
Ad Dig. 41,2,39Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 154, Note 6.The Same, On Minicius, Book II. I think that it makes a difference with what intention property is deposited in the hands of an arbiter; for if this is done for the purpose of relinquishing possession, and is clearly proved, the possession of the arbiter will be of no benefit to the parties for the purpose of usucaption. If, however, the property was deposited for safe-keeping, it is settled that he who gains the case can profit by the possession, in order to acquire the property by prescription.
Dig. 41,4,8Idem libro secundo ex Minicio. Si quis, cum sciret venditorem pecuniam statim consumpturum, servos ab eo emisset, plerique responderunt eum nihilo minus bona fide emptorem esse, idque verius est: quomodo enim mala fide emisse videtur, qui a domino emit? nisi forte et is, qui a luxurioso et protinus scorto daturo pecuniam servos emit, non usucapiet.
The Same, On Minicius, Book II. Where anyone buys slaves knowing that the vendor will immediately squander the money paid for them, many authorities have held that he will, nevertheless, be a bona fide purchaser in good faith; and this is true. For, how can he be considered to have acted in bad faith, who bought the slaves from their master, unless he bought them from a man of licentious life, who will immediately give the money to a harlot, for then he cannot acquire the slaves by usucaption?
Dig. 41,4,10Idem libro secundo ad Minicium. Servus domino ancillam, quam subripuerat, pro capite suo dedit: ea concepit: quaesitum est, an dominus eum partum usucapere possit. respondit: hic dominus quasi emptor partum usucapere potest, namque res ei abest pro hac muliere et genere quodammodo venditio inter servum et dominum contracta est.
The Same, On Minicius, Book II. A slave, in consideration of his freedom, gave to his master a female slave whom he had stolen. She conceived. The question arose whether her master could acquire her child by usucaption. The answer was that the master could, as purchaser, acquire the child by usucaption, for he gave something for the woman, and a kind of sale was made between the slave and his owner.
Dig. 41,7,7Idem libro secundo ex Minicio. Si quis merces ex nave iactatas invenisset, num ideo usucapere non possit, quia non viderentur derelictae, quaeritur. sed verius est eum pro derelicto usucapere non posse.
The Same, On Minicius, Book II. When anyone finds merchandise which has been thrown overboard from a ship, the question arises whether he cannot acquire it by usucaption, for the reason that it should be considered as abandoned. The better opinion is that he cannot acquire it by usucaption on the ground of abandonment.
Dig. 45,1,62Idem libro secundo ex Minicio. Servus vetante domino si pecuniam ab alio stipulatus sit, nihilo minus obligat domino promissorem.
The Same, On Minicius, Book II. If a slave, after having been forbidden by his master, stipulates for the payment of money by another, he will still render the promisor liable to his master.