Interdictorum libri
Ex libro I
Dig. 41,2,52Venuleius libro primo interdictorum. Permisceri causas possessionis et usus fructus non oportet, quemadmodum nec possessio et proprietas misceri debent: nam neque impediri possessionem, si alius fruatur, neque alterius fructum amputari, si alter possideat. 1Eum, qui aedificare prohibeatur, possidere quoque prohiberi manifestum est. 2Species inducendi in possessionem alicuius rei est prohibere ingredienti vim fieri: statim enim cedere adversarium et vacuam relinquere possessionem iubet, quod multo plus est quam restituere.
Venuleius, Interdicts, Book I. The titles to the possession and usufruct of property must not be confused, just as possession and ownership should not be intermingled. For possession is prevented if another has the use and enjoyment, nor can the usufruct of one person be computed if another is in possession of the property. 1It is clear that when anyone is forbidden to build, he is also forbidden to retain possession. 2One method of placing a person in possession of property is to prohibit any violence being manifested toward him when he enters upon it. For the judge orders the adverse party immediately to surrender and relinquish possession, which is much more decisive than to order him merely to restore it.
Dig. 43,19,4Venuleius libro primo interdictorum. Veteres nominatim adiciebant, ut ea quoque, quae ad refectionem utilia essent, adportanti vis non fieret: quod supervacuum est, quoniam qui adportari non patitur ea, sine quibus refici iter non possit, vim facere videtur, quo minus reficiatur. 1Si quis autem, cum posset compendiaria adportare, quae refectioni necessaria sunt longiori itinere velit adportare, ut deteriorem causam eundi faciat, impune ei vis fiet, quia ipse sibi impedimento sit, quo minus reficiat.
Venuleius, Interdicts, Book I. The ancients expressly added that violence should not be employed to prevent anyone from bringing materials suitable for repairing a road. This provision is superfluous, as anyone who does not permit materials to be brought without which a road cannot be repaired is considered to use violence to prevent the repairs from being made. 1If, however, anyone who can bring the materials necessary for the repairs by a shorter route prefers to bring them by a longer one, in order to subject him who owes the servitude to annoyance, force can be used against him with impunity, because it is he himself who interferes with the repair of the road.
Dig. 43,21,4Venuleius libro primo interdictorum. De rivis reficiendis ita interdicetur, ut non quaeratur, an aquam ducere actori liceret: non enim tam necessariam refectionem itinerum quam rivorum esse, quando non refectis rivis omnis usus aquae auferretur et homines siti necarentur. et sane aqua pervenire nisi refecto rivo non potest: at non refecto itinere difficultas tantum eundi agendique fieret, quae temporibus aestivis levior esset.
Venuleius, Interdicts, Book I. The interdict is also granted where aqueducts ought to be repaired, and no inquiry is made whether a right to conduct the water exists or not. For the repair of roads is not as necessary as that of aqueducts, for if the latter are not repaired, the entire use of the water will be stopped, and persons will be exposed to death by thirst. It is evident that water cannot be obtained without repairing aqueducts; but if a road is not repaired, passage to and fro will only be rendered difficult, and this is less during the summer time.
Dig. 43,23,2Venuleius libro primo interdictorum. Quamquam de reficienda cloaca, non etiam de nova facienda hoc interdicto comprehendatur, tamen aeque interdicendum Labeo ait, ne facienti cloacam vis fiat, quia eadem utilitas sit: praetorem enim sic interdixisse, ne vis fieret, quo minus cloacam in publico facere liceret: idque Ofilio et Trebatio placuisse. ipse dicendum ait, ut ne factam cloacam purgare et restituere permittendum sit per interdictum, novam vero facere is demum concedere debeat, cui viarum publicarum cura sit.
Venuleius, Interdicts, Book I. Although the repair of existing sewers, and not the construction of new ones, is included in this interdict, Labeo says that an interdict should, nevertheless, be granted to prevent anyone from employing violence against another who builds a sewer, because the same question of public welfare is involved; as the Prætor has, by an interdict, forbidden force to be used to hinder anyone from constructing a sewer in a public place. This opinion is also adopted by Ofilius and Trebatius. Labeo also says that anyone ought, without interference, to be permitted by the interdict to clean and repair a sewer already constructed; but that the officer in charge of the public highways should grant permission to build a new one.