The Same, On Plautius, Book X. He is also held to have been directed to pay creditors.

The Same, On Plautius, Book X. If the owner of the property promises indemnity against threatened injury, or has paid something on this account; or, on the other hand, the usufructuary has paid something, it is only just that one of them should enjoy the use of the house, or that the other should retain the ownership of the same without any risk. If the owner has paid anything on this account, the usufructuary should not be permitted to use the property unless he contributes his proportion. This also applies to the usufructuary, and the owner of the property will be compelled to contribute his share. Hence if the house should fall, the usufructuary can hold the ground until he is reimbursed for the damage, so that what the neighbor would have been entitled to, if he had been placed in possession, the usufructuary, who reimbursed him for the damage, should have. The same rule applies where even a very small amount is paid for damage sustained. 1Plautius: I demand security from a person whom I deny to be the owner of certain property, under the exception, “If he should not be the owner,” and I say that another, whom I consider to be the owner, must simply promise me indemnity. It has been settled that I cannot obtain both of these demands, but that I must choose which one of the parties I prefer to furnish me security.

The Same, On Plautius, Book X. When the Prætor says, “The work must be restored to its former condition,” this means that the plaintiff can also recover any damages which he may have sustained; for under the term “restitution” all the interest of the plaintiff is included.