tanc eam vindicare, et ad exhiben- twelve tables, was made to pre dum de eâ re agere. De ædificatione ex suâ 6 XXX. Ex diverso, si quis in alieno solo ex suâ 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. $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, proprie tas 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 fit. 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 sua impensà bona 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 (according 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. Litere quoque, licet aureæ sint, perindè chartis mem 33. As whatever is built upon, 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 bonâ fide nactus est. that ground by accession; so letters also, although written with gold, ap`pertain to the paper or parchment, upon which they are written. 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 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 tabulæ 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 § 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 owner of the tablet demands it, and does M sive is, qui pinxit, surripuit tabulas, sive alius, competit domino tabularum furti actio. not tender the value of the picture, he may also be repelied 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, bona fide fundum emerit, vel ex donatione, aliave qualibet justà causa, 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 bona 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 cos perceperit; et ideò, licet mauris 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 be claimed by his heirs, but would fall to the proprietor: and so in general, as to farmers. Quæ sunt in fructu. 37. Among the produce of animals, we not only reckon milk, skins, and wool, but also their young; and therefore lambs, kids, calves, colts, and pigs, appertain by natural rignt to the usufructuary; but the offspring of a female slave cannot be thus considered, but belongs to the proprietor of such slave: for it seemed absurd, that man, should be enumerated among the articles of produce, seeing that for his use, nature hath furnished all kinds of produce. De officio fructuarii. ý XXXVIII. Sed, si gregis usumfructum quis habeat, in locum demortuorum capitum ex fœtu fructuarius submittere debet, (ut et Juliano visum est;) et in vinearum demortuarum vel arborum locum alias debet substiuere. Rectè enim colere, et quasi bonus paterfamilias uti, debet. 38. He, who has the usufruct of a flock, ought (according to Julian) to preserve the original number intire, by supplying the deficiency out of the young; in like manner he ought to supply the place of dead vines, or trees; and cultivate and use the stock in all respects like a good and fair husbandman. § 39. The emperor Adrian, in pursuance of notural equity, allowed any treasure, found in a man's own lands, to belong to the finder; he ordained the same as to things casually found, in a sacred or religious place. But, if a person, not making it his, business to search, should fortuitously find treasure in the ground of another, he granted half to the proprie etor of the soil, and half to the find De invert one thesauri. § XXXIX. Thesauros, quos quis in loco suo invenerit, divus Adrianus, naturalem æquitatem sequutus, ei concessit, qui eos invenerit ; idemque statuit, si quis in sacro aut religioso loco fortuito casu invenerit. At, si quis in alieno loco, non data ad hoc opera, sed for tuitò invenerit, dimidium domino soli concessit, et dimidium inventori: et convenientèr, si quis in Cæsaris loco invenerit, dimidium inventoris, et dimidium esse Cæsaris, statuit. Cui conveniens est, ut, si er. And so, if any thing is found within the imperial demesnes, haif* shall appertain to the finder and |