5 XXII. Insula, quæ in mari est (quod rarò accidit) occupantis fit: nullius enim esse creditur. At insula in flumine nata (quod frequenter accidit) si quidem mediam partem fluminis tenet, communis est eorum, qui ab utrâque parte fluminis prope ripam prædia possident, pro modo scilicet latitudinis cujusque prædii, quæ prope ripam sit: quod si alteri proximior sit parti, eorum est tantum, qui ab eâ parte prope ripam prædia possident. Quod si quâ parte divisum sit flumen, deinde infra unitum agrum alicujus in formam insulæ redegerit, ejusdem § 22. When an island rises in the sea, (which rarely happens) the property of it is in the occupant; for before occupation, it is in no one. But if an island rises in a river, (which frequently happens) and is placed exactly in the middle of it, such island shall be in common to them, who possess the lands near the banks on each side of the river, in proportion to the extent of each man's estate adjoining the banks. But, if the island is nearer to one side than the other, it belongs to them only, who possess lands next to the banks on that side, to which the island is permanet is ager, cujus et fuerat. nearest. But, if a river divides itself and afterwards unites again, having reduced a tract of land into the form of an island, the land still continues to be the property of the former owner. De alveo. § XXIII. Quod si, naturali alveo in universum derelicto, ad aliam partem fluere cœperit, prior quidem alveus eorum est, qui prope ripam ejus prædia possident; pro modò scilicet latitudinis cujusque agri, quæ prope ripam sit; novus aute alveus ejus juris esse incipit, cujus et ipsum flumen est, id est, publicus: quod si post aliquod tempus ad priorem alveum reversum fuerit flumen, rursùs novus alveus eorum esse incipit, qui prope ripam ejus prædia possident. § 23. If a river, entirely forsaking its natural channel, hath began to flow elsewhere, the first channel appertains to those, who possess the lands close to the banks of it, in proportion to the extent of each man's estate next to such banks and the new channel partakes of the nature of the river, and becomes public. And, if after some time the river returns to its former channel, the new channel again becomes the property of those who possess the lands contiguous its banks. auro, vel argento, vel ære, vas aliquod fecerit; vel ex alieno vino et melle mulsum miscuerit; vel ex medicamentis alienis emplastrum aut collyrium composuerit; vel ex alienâ lanâ vestimentum fecerit; vel ex alienis tabulis navem, vel armarium, vel subsellia, fabricaverit. Dt, post multam Sabinianorum et et Proculianorum ambiguitatem, placuit media sententia existimantium, si ea species ad priorem et rudem materiam reduci possit, eum videri dominium esse, qui materiæ dominus fuerit; si non possit reduci, eum potius intelligi dominum, qui fecerit; ut ecce, vas conflatum potest ad rudem materiam æris, vel argenti, vel auri, reduci: vinum autem, vel oleum, aut frumentum, ad uvas, vel olivas, vel spicas, reverti non potest: ac ne mulsum quidem ad vinum et mel resolvi potest. Quod si partim ex suâ materia, partim ex alienâ, speciem aliquam fecerit quis; veluti ex suo vino et alieno melle mulsum miscuerat; aut ex suis et alienis medicamentis emplastrum aut collyrium; aut ex suâ lanâ vestimentum fecerit; dubitandum non est, hoc casu, eum esse dominum, qui fecerit : cum non solúm operam suam dederit, set èt partem ejusdem materiæ præstiterit. corn of another; cast a vessel out of gold, silver, or brass, belonging to another; make mead or mulse with the wine and honey of another; compose a plaster, or eye water with another man's medicines; make a garment with another's wool; or fabricate, with the timber of another, a bench, a ship, or a chest? After much controversy, between the Sabinians and Proculians, we were best pleased with the middle opinion of those who thought that, if the species or manufactured article can be reduced to its former rude materials, then the owner of such materials is also to be reckoned the owner of the species: but, if the species can not be so reduced, then he, who made it, is understood to be the owner of it: for example; a vessel can easily be reduced to the rude mass of brass, silver, or gold, of which it was made ; but wine, oil, or flower, cannot be converted into grapes, olives, or corn; neither can mulse be separated into wine and honey. But, if a man makes any species, partly with his own, and partly with the materials of another: as, if he should make mulse with his own wine, and another's honey; or a plaster or eye-water, partly with his own, and partly with another man's medicines; or should make a garment with an intermixture of his own wool with that of another; it is not to be doubted in such cases, but that he, who made the species, is master of it; since he not only gave his labour, but furnished also a part of the materials. De accessione. § XXVI. Si tamen alienam purpuram vestimento suo quis intertexuerit, licet pretiosior sit purpura, tamen aceessionis vice cedit vestimento: et, qui dominus fuit purpuræ, adversus eum, qui surripuit, habet furti actionem et condictionem, sive ipse sit, qui vestimentum fecit, sive alius: nam extinctæ res licet vindicari non possint, condici tamen à furibus et quibusque aliis possessoribus possunt. § 26. If any man shall have interwoven the purple of another into his own vestment, then the purple, although more valuable, appertains to the vestment by accession: and the owner of the purple, may have an action of theft, and a personal action, called a condiction, against the purloiner; whether the vestment was made by him, or by another: for al though things, which become, as it were, extinct by the change of their form, can not be recovered identi cally, yet a condiction lies for the va lue of them, either against the thief, or any other possessor. De confusione. § XXVII. Si duorum materiæ voluntate dominorum confusæ sint, totum id corpus, quod ex confusione fit, utriusque commune est: veluti si qui vina sua confuderint, aut massas argenti vel auri conflaverint. Sed, etsi diversæ materiæ sint, et ob id propria species facta sit, fortè ex vino et melle mulsum, aut ex auro et argento electrum, idem juris est: nam et hoc casu, communem esse speciem, non dubitatur. Quod si fortuitò et non voluntate dominorum confusæ fuerint vel ejusdem generis materiæ, vel diversa, idem juris esse placuit. § 27. If materials belonging to two persons are mingled by mutual consent, the whole mass, is common to both proprietors: as if they shall have intermixed their wines, or melted together their gold or silver, The same rule obtains, if diverse substances are so incorporated, as to become one species: as when mulse is made with wine and honey; or electrum by fusing together gold and silver: here no doubt, the species becomes common: and so it is, when similar or even different substances, are. incorporated fortuitously, without the consent of their proprietors. · De commixtione. § XXVIII. Quod si frumentum Titii frumento tuo mistum fuerit, siquidem voluntate vestrâ, commu § 28. If the corn of Titius hath been mixed with yours by consent, the heap is in common; because the 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 tuâ 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 consertɔ 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 alienâ 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 eâ re agere, propter legem duodecim tabularum, quà 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 provided, 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 double value: (all materials for building are comprehended under the general term tignum.) The above cited provision, in the law of the |