ne est; quia singula corpora, id est, singula grana, quæ cujusque propria fuerunt, consensu vestro communicata sunt. Quod si casu id mistum fuerit, vel Titius id miscuerit sine tua volnntate, non videtur commune esse: quia singula corpora in suâ substantiâ durant Sed nec magis istis casibus commune fit frumentum, quam grex intelligitur esse communis, si pecora, Titii, tuis pecoribus mista fuerint. Sed, si ab alterutro vestrum, totum id frumentum retineatur, in rem quidem actio pro modo frumenti cujusque competit: arbitrio autem judicis continetur, ut ipse æstimet, quale cujusque frumentum fuerit. single bodies or grains, which were the private property of each, are, with your consent, intermixed. But, if the intermixture were accidental, or if Titius made it without consent, it then seems that the corn is not in common; because the grains still remain distinct, and in their proper substance; for corn, in such a case, no more becomes in common, than a flock would be, if the sheep of Titius should intermix with yours. But, if the whole quantity of corn should be retained by either of you, then an action in rem lies for each man's portion; and it is the duty of the judge to make an estimate of the quality, or value, of each portion. De his quæ solo cedunt. De ædificatione in suo solo ex alienâ materiâ. § XXIX. Cum in suo solo aliquis ex aliena materiâ ædificaverit, ipse intelligitur dominus ædificii: quia omne, quod solo inædificatur, solo cedit. Nec tamen ideò is, qui materiæ dominus fuerat, desinit dominus ejus esse: sed tantisper neque vindicare eam potest, neque ad exhibendum de câ re agere, propter legem duodecim tabularum, quá cavetur, ne quis tignum alienum ædibus suis junctum eximere cogatur, sed duplum pro eo præstet, per actionem, quæ vocatur, de tigno juncto. Appellatione autem tigni, omnis materia significatur, ex qua ædificia fiunt. Quod ideò provisum est, ne ædificia rescindi necesse sit. Quod si aliquá ex causâ dirutum sit ædificium, poterit materiæ dominus, si non fuerit duplum jam consequutus, $ 29. If a man hath raised a building upon his own ground with the materials of another, he is considered the proprietor■ for every building is an accession to the ground upon which it stands: But, the owner of the materials, does not lose his right of ownership'; for though he cannot demand them specifically, or bring an action for the exhibition of them; since it is provid ed, by a law of the twelve tables, that a person who has used the materials of another, cannot be compelled to separate them from the building; yet by the action, de tigno juncto, he may be obliged to pay deuble value: (all materials for building are comprehended under the ge neral term tignum.) The above cited provision, in the law of the tunc eam vindicare, et ad exhiben- twelve tables, was made to pre dum de ea re agere. De ædificatione ex suâ § XXX. Ex diverso, si quis in alieno solo ex suà materiâ domum ædificaverit, illius fit domus, cujus et solum est. Sed hoc casu, materiæ dominus proprietatem ejus amittit, quia voluntate ejus intelligitur esse alienata; utique si non ignorabat, se in alieno solo ædificare: et ideò, licet diruta sit domus, materiam tamen vindicare non potest. Certè illud constat, si, in possessione constituto ædificatore, soli dominus petat domum suam esse, nec solvat pretium materiæ et mercedes fabrorum, posse eum per exceptionem doli mali repelli; utiquè si bonæ fidei possessor fuerit, qui ædificavit. Nam scienti, solum alienum esse, potest objici culpa, quod ædificaverit temerè in eo solo, quod intelligebat alienum esse. vent the demolition of buildings. But, if it happen, that in any case, a building should be dissevered, or pulled down, then the owner of the materials, if he hath not already obtained double the value of them, is not prohibited from claiming his identical materials, and to bring his action ad exhibendum. materiâ in solo alieno. $30. On the contrary, if a man shall have built with his own materials upon the ground of another, the edifice becomes the property of him to whom the ground belongs in this case the owner of the materials loses his property, because he is understood to have made a voluntary alienation of it, if he knew he was building upon another's land; therefore, if the edifice should fall, or be pulled down, such person cannot, even then, claim the materials. But it is clear, that if the builder be in confirmed possession, and the proprietor of the ground should claim the edifice as his, and refuse to pay the price of the materials and the wages of the workmen, he may be repelled by an exception of fraud: provided the builder was in possession bonâ fide Otherwise it might be fairly objected, "that he had built rashly upon that ground which he knew to be the property of another." De plantatione. XXXI. Si Titius alienam plan 31. If Titius sets another man's tam in solo suo posuerit, ipsius erit; plant in his own ground, the plant et ex diverso, si Titius suam plantam in Mævii solo posuerit, Mævii planta erit; si modo utroque casu radices egerit: ante enim quam radices egerit, ejus permanet, cujus fuerat. Adeò autem ex eo tempore, quo radices egerit planta, proprietas ejus commutatur, ut, si vicini arbor ita terram Titii presserit, ut in ejus fundum radices egerit, Titii effici arborem dicamus: ratio enim non patitur, ut alterius arbor esse intelligatur, quam cujus in fundum radices egerit: et ideò, circa confinium arbor posita, si etiam in vicini fundum radices egerit, communis ft. will belong to Titius: on the contrary, if Titius shall have set his own plant in Mævius's ground, the plant will belong to Mævius; provided in either case, it hath taken root. for, until then, the property remains in him who planted it. But from the instant it hath taken root, the property is changed: so that, if the tree of a neighbour borders so closely upon the ground of Titius, as to take root in it, and be wholly nourished there, we may affirm, that such tree is become the property of Titius: for reason doth not permit, that a tree should be deemed the property of any other, than of him, in whose ground it hath rooted therefore, if a tree, planted near the bounds of one person, shall also extend its roots into the lands of another, it will become common to both. De satione. § XXXII. Quâ ratione autem plantæ, quæ terræ coalescunt, solo cedunt, eadem ratione frumenta quoque, quæ sata sunt, solo cedere intelliguntur. Cæterum sicut is, qui in alieno solo ædificavit, si ab eo dominus petat ædificium, defendi potest per exceptionem doli mali, secundum ea, quæ diximus; ita ejusdem exceptionis auxilio, tutus esse potest is, qui alienum fundum suâ impensâ bonâ fide consevit. § 32. As plants appertain to the soil, in which they have rooted, so grain also is understood to follow the property of that ground, in which it is sowed. But as he, who hath built upon the ground of another, may (a¤• cording to what we have said) be defended by an exception of fraud, if the proprietor of the ground should demand the edifice; so he, who at his own expense and bonà fide hath sowed in another man's land, may also be benefitted by the help of this exception. De scriptura. §. XXXIII. Literæ quoque, licet § 33. As whatever is built upon, aureæ sint, perindè chartis mem- or sowed in the ground, belongs to branisve cedunt, ac solo cedere solent ea, quæ inædificantur, aut inseruntur. Ideòque, si in chartis membranisve tuis carmen vel historiam vel orationem Titius scripserit, hujus corporis non Titius, sed tu dominus esse videris. Sed, si à Titio petas tuos libros, tuasve membranas, nec impensas scripturæ solvere paratus sis, poterit se Titius defendere per exceptionem doli mali, utique si earum chartarum membranarumve possessionem bona fide nactus est. that ground by accession; so letters also, although written with gold, appertain to the paper or parchment, upon which they are writtent. And therefore, if Titius shall have written a poem, a history, or an oration, upon your paper or parchment, then you and not Titius will be deemed the owner of the written owner of the written paper. But if you demand the books or parchments from Titius, and refuse to defray the expense of the writing, then Titius can defend himself by an exception of fraud: allowing that he obtained possession of such papers and parchments bonâ fide. De picturâ. § XXXIV. Si quis in alienâ tabula pinxerit, quidam putant tabulam picturæ cedere: aliis videtur, picturam (qualiscunque sit) tabulæ cedere sed nobis videtur meliùs esse, tabulam picturæ cedere: ridiculum est enim, picturam Apellis vel Parrhasii in accessionem vilissimæ tabulæ cedere. Undè, si à domino tabula imaginem possidente) is, qui pinxit, eam petat, nec solvat pretium tabulæ, poterit per exceptionem doli mali submoveri. At, si is, qui pinxit, eam possideat, consequens est, ut utilis actio domino tabulæ adversus eum detur: quo casu, si non solvat impensam picturæ, poterit per exceptionem doli mali repelli utique si bonæ fidei possessor fuerit ille, qui picturam imposuit. Illud enim palàm est, quod M 34. If any man shall have painted upon the tablet of another, some think, that the tablet should yield to the picture; others, that the picture (whatever the quality of it may be should accede to the tablet. To us it seems the better opinion, that the tablet should accede to the picture; for it is ridiculous, that the painting of an Apelles, or a Parrhasius, should yield as an accession, to a worthless tablet. But if the painter demand the tablet, from the owner and possessor, without offering the price of it, then such demandant may be defeated by an exception of fraud: but, if the painter is in possession of the picture, the owner of the tablet is intitled to an action called utilis, i. e. beneficial; in which case, if the own er of the tablet demands it, and does sive is, qui pinxit, surripuit tabulas, sive alius, competit domino tabularum furti actio. not tender the value of the picture, he may also be repelled by an exception of fraud, provided the painter obtained possession fairly. But, if he, or any other, shall have taken away the tablet feloniously, it is evident, that the owner may prosecute by any action of theft. De fructibus bonâ fide perceptis. XXXV. Si quis à non domino, quem dominum esse crediderit, boná fide fundum emerit, vel ex donatione, aliave quâlibet justâ causâ, æque bona fide acceperit, naturali ratione placuit, fructus, quos percepit, ejus esse pro cultura et curâ: et ideò, si postea dominus supervenerit, et fundum vindicet, de fructibus ab eo consumptis agere non potest: ei verò, qui alienum fundum sciens possederit, non idem concessum est; itaque cum fundo etiam fructus, licet consumpti sint, cogitur restituere. $35. If any man shall have purchased or by any other means honestly acquired lands from another, whom he believed to be the true owner, when in fact he was not, it is agreeable to natural reason, that the fruits, which he shall have gathered, shall become his own, on account of his care in the culture: and therefore, if the true owner shall afterwards appear and claim his lands, he can have no action against the bonâ fide possessor, for produce consumed. But this exemption is not granted to him, who knowingly keeps possession of another's estate; and therefore, he is. compellable to account for all the mesne profits together with the lands. De fructibus à fructuario et colono perceptis. § XXXVI. Is verò, ad quem usufructus fundi pertinet, non aliter fructuum dominus efficitur, quam si ipse eos perceperit ; et ideò, licet maturis fructibus, nondúm tamen perceptis, decesserit, ad hæredes ejus non pertinent, sed domino proprietatis acquiruntur. Eadem ferè et de colono dicuntur. § 36. The usufructuary of lands can gain no property in the fruits, until he hath actually gathered them; and therefore, if he should die, while the fruits, although ripe, are yet ungathered, they could not he claimed by his heirs, but would fall to the proprietor: and so in general, as to farmers. |