more than a delivery of the fruits on the part of the proprietor, and an apprehension of the same on the part of the acquirer." 2. But if he is in juridical derivative possession of the principal thing itself, e. g. as emphyteuta (§ 241. note a.), he acquires the ownership of the fruits by the mere separation of the same; because on the part of a juridical possessor of the principal thing a special apprehension of the fruits is not necessary.

II. He is not entitled. 1. If he is a possessor bona fidei, then by the mere separation of the fruits he acquires the ownership of the same: this ownership however is only of a provisional nature, i. e. it may terminate by the proprietor's vindicatio rei, although like every other right of property it entitles the possessor to consume the fruits." Accordingly when he is afterwards required by the proprietor to surrender the thing, he is not obliged to restore to the latter such fruits as he has already consumed or alienated, but he must surrender to the proprietor those which he has still on hand, unless he has acquired the property in them by prescription. 2. If, on the contrary, he is possessor malæ fidei, he cannot acquire any property at all in the fruits, but must restore all fructus percepti et percipiendi, and is bound to make compensation for the consumtif

(a) § 36. J. 2. 1.-fr. 12. § 5. D. 7. 1.—fr. 13. D. 7. 4. (Paulus) Si usufructuarius messem fecit, et decessit, stipulam, que demessa jacet, heredis ejus esse, Labeo ait, spicam autem, que terra teneatur, domini fundi esse, fructumque percipi spica aut fœno caso, aut uva ademta, aut excussa olea, quamvis nondum tritum frumentum, aut oleum factum, vel vindemia coacta sit. Sed ut verum est, quod de olea excussa scripsit, ita aliter observandum de ca olea, quæ per se deciderit. Julianus ait: fructuari fructus tunc fieri, quum eos perceperit, bone fidei autem possessoris, mox quam a solo separati sint.""

(b) fr. 25. § 1. in fin. D. 22. 1.

(c) fr. 48. pr. D. 41. 1. (Paulus) "Bon fidei emtor non dubie percipiendo fructus etiam ex aliena re suos interim facit non tantum eos, qui diligentia et opera ejus pervenerunt, sed omnes; quia, quod ad fructus attinet, loco domini pæne est. Denique etiam priusquam percipiat, statim ubi a solo separati sunt, bonæ fidei emtoris fiunt. Nec interest, ea res, quam bona fide emi, longo tempore capi possit nec ne, veluti si pupilli sit, aut vi possessa, aut Præsidi contra legem repetundarum donata, ab eoque abalienata sit bona fidei emtori."-fr. 49. § 6. D. 47. 2. (Ulpianus)" Ex furtivis equis nati statim ad bone fidei emtorem pertinebunt: merito, quia in fructu numerantur; at partus ancillæ non numerantur in fructu."-fr. 4. § 19. D. 41. 3. (quoted above, p. 295. note d.)-fr. 25. §1. D. 22. 1.-fr. 28. D. 22. 1. (quoted above, p. 280. note a.)-fr. 13. D. 7. 4. (quoted above, note a.)

(d) $ 35. J. 2. 1.—§ 2. J. 4. 17.—fr. 4. § 2. D. 10. 1. (Paulus) "Post litem autem contestatam etiam fructus venient in hoc judicio (scil. finium regundorum); nam et culpa et dolus exinde præstantur. Sed ante judicium percepti non omnimodo in hoc judicium venient; aut enim bona fide percepit, et lucrari eum oportet, si cos consumsit, aut mala fide, et condici oportet."-fr. 40. in fin. D. 41. 1.

(e) const. 22. C. 3. 32. "Certum est, malæ fidei possessores omnes fructus solere cum ipsa re præstare, bone fidei vero extantes, post autem litis contestationem universos." See also the passages referred to in the preceding note. Dr. Rosshirt erroneously objects to the theory adopted in the text, that the prescription of the fruits relieves the bone fidei possessor from restoring the same; saying that the laws simply distinguish between fructus extantes and consumti. It is true that fr. 28. and fr. 4. citt. (note e.) seem to intimate that the bona fidei possessor need not prescribe the fruits. Yet it is evident that these passages are intended only to say that he may acquire the property by means of mere separation, and Dr. R. has overlooked the fact that this property is revocable in its nature, and that the possessor therefore is not relieved from restoring the fruits, unless he either has consumed them, or acquired them by prescription. Comp. Höpfner's Comm. Ed. by A. D. Weber. 8th Ed. § 332.

(ƒ) § 35. J. 2. 1.—fr. 4. § 19. Ď. 41. 3. (quoted above, p. 295. note d.)-const. 22. C. 3. 32. (quoted above, note e.)

TITLE THIRD.

RIGHTS OF THE PROPRIETOR.

I. In General.

§ 285. Property is in its nature an unrestricted and exclusive right (§ 260).

A. By virtue of its unrestrictedness, the owner of a thing is entitled to dispose at will of the substance of the same, and even to destroy it. Moreover, he can transfer to another his property in it either wholly or in part, or single rights contained in the property, both inter vivos and mortis causa. He has the right to possess the thing, to enjoy it, to reap every kind of fruit from it, and to make every unforbidden use of it he chooses, even though another should suffer injury in consequence." B. By virtue of the exclusiveness of his right, he is entiled to prevent every other person from using and enjoying the thing, even though he himself should receive no injury therefrom. He has also the right of self-defence, and is entitled even to destroy the things of others, when he has reason to fear that they will cause the loss of his own, or endanger his use of the same.

(a) According to the general principle: "Qui jure suo utitur neminem lædit." fr. 151. 155. 1. D. 50. 17.-fr. 24. § 12. D. 39. 2. fr. 9. D. 8. 2. (Ulpianus) "Cum eo, qui tollendo obscurat vicini ædes, quibus non serviat, nulla competit actio."-Thibaut, System. 7th Ed. § 560.

(b) fr. 16. D. 8. 3. (Callistratus) “Divus Pius aucupibus ita rescripsit: OUR COTIV εύλογον, ἀκόντων τῶν δεσποτῶν ὑμᾶς ἐν ἀλλοτρίοις χωρίοις ἐξεύειν. (Non est consentaneum, ut per aliena prædia invitis dominis ancupium faciatis.)-fr. 13. § 7. D. 47. 10. (Ulpianus) "Si quis me prohibeat in mari piscari, vel everriculum, quod Græce sayhun dicitur, ducere, an injuriarum judicio possim eum convenire? Sunt qui putent, injuria. rum me posse agere, et ita Pomponius; et plerique, esse huic similem cum, qui in publicum lavare, vel in cavea publica sedere, vel in quo alio loco agere, sedere, conversari non patiatur, aut si quis re mea uti me non permittat; nam et hic injuriarum conveniri potest. Conductori autem veteres interdic. tum dederunt, si forte publice hoc conduxerit; am vis ei prohibenda est, quominus conductione sua fruatur. Si quein tamen ante ædes meas, vel ante prætorium meum piscari prohibeam, quid dicendum est? me injuriarum judicio teneri, an non? Et quidem mare commune omnium est, et litora, sicut aër: et est sæpissime rescriptum, non posse quem piscari prohiberi, sed nec aucupari, nisi quod ingredi quis agrum alienum

The presumption, therefore,

prohiberi potest. Usurpatum tamen et hoc est, tametsi nullo jure, ut quis prohiberi possit ante ædes meas vel prætorium meum piscari; quare si quis prohibeatur, adhuc injuriarum agi potest. In lacu tamen, qui mei dominii est, utique piscari aliquem prohibere pos sum."-const. 11. C. 3.34. "Per agrum quidem alienum, qui servitutem non debet, ire vel agere vicino minime licet. Uti autem via publica nemo recte prohibetur. const. 11.

14. C. 4. 38.

(c) fr. 1. D. 14. 2. (Paulus) "Lege Rhodia cavetur, ut, si levanda navis gratia jactus mercium factus sit, omnium contributione sarciatur, quod pro omnibus datum est.”— fr. 3. § 7. D. 47. 9. (Ulpianus) "Quod ait Prætor de damno dato, ita demum locum habet, si dolo malo damnum datum sit; nam si dolus malus absit, cessat edictum. Quemadmodum ergo procedit, quod Labco scribit: si defendendi mei causa vicini ædificium orto incendio dissipaverim, et meo nomine et familiæ, judicium in me dandum? Quum enim defendendarum mearum ædium causa fecerim, utique dolo careo; puto igitur non esse verum, quod Labeo scribit. An tamen lege Aquilia agi cum hoc possit? Et non puto agendum; nec enim injuria hoc fecit, qui se tueri voluit, quum alias non posset; et ita Celsus scribit."-fr. 7. § 4. D. 43. 24. (Idem) "Est et alia exceptio de qua Celsus dubitat, an sit objicienda, utputa si incendii arcendi causa vicini ædes intercidi, et quod vi aut clam mecum agatur, aut damni

is always in favour of this unrestrictedness and exclusiveness or freedom of property. Property, however, may be limited in either of these respects (§ 260), and the ground of such restraint may lie either in the will of the proprietor himself or in a provision of law.

II. Legal Restrictions of Property."

286. To the legal restrictions of property belong-in addition to the prohibitions of alienation, servitudes, and liens imposed by the law-especially the following: 1. The proprietor must not directly endanger his neighbour's building by digging too deep on his own land. 2. In putting up a new building, he must keep at a certain distance from his neighbour's boundary. 3. He must erect no building on his own land whereby his neighbour's threshing-floor would be

deprived of the necessary draught of air. 4. The piece of ground which is lowest must receive the rain-water that runs off the higher one, and the proprietor must not hinder the natural flowing off of the water by any obstructions. On the other hand, the proprietor of the higher piece of ground must not lead the water on to the lower one, by artificial contrivances, either in a large mass or in a new direction; otherwise the actio aquæ pluviæ arcendæ will lie against him." 5. With

Plane si propter id opus sublatum ve hementior aqua profluat vel corrivetur, aquæ pluvia arcendae actione agi posse, etiam Labeo confitetur. § 23. Denique ait: conditionibus agrorum quasdam leges esse dictas, ut, in quibus agris magna sint flumina, liceat" mihi scilicet in agro tuo aggeres vel fossas habere; si tamen lex non sit agro dicta, agri naturam esse servandam, et semper inferio

respect to trees and other plantations, the Roman law ordains that they must always be placed at some distance from a neighbour's boundary. If the roots grow into the neighbour's soil and become injurious to his building, they must be chopped off as far as necessary." If the branches of a tree stretch out over a neighbour's building and become injurious to it, the neighbour may require the proprietor of the tree to cut it down altogether: if the latter neglects, he may do it himself, in which case he keeps the wood; and should he be hindered in so doing, he has a right to the interdictum de arboribus cædendis. But if the tree merely extends over the neighbour's land, he can only require that the branches be cut off as high as fifteen feet from the ground (sublucatio arborum); and when the proprietor neglects it, he may do it himself, and keep the wood; in this case also he has the interdictum de arboribus cædendis." 6. The proprietor of land on which fruit falls from a neighbour's trees must permit him "tertio quoque die," i. e. every third day, or, which is the same thing, every other day, but not oftener, to gather up the fruit; and in case this is refused, the neighbour has the interdictum de glande legenda.

III. Rights of Joint- Owners.

§ 287. If a thing is owned by several conjointly (§ 261), then, according to rule, 1. Each of the joint-owners has a share in the fruits proportionate to his share of the property; and each one can make

ceri possit, jus aquæ ex vetere more atque observatione per certa loca profluentis utilitatem certis fundis irrigandi causa exhibere, procurator noster, ne quid contra veterem formam atque solennem morem innovetur, providebit.' -But it is not so with private brooks and rivulets. Gesterding, Nachforschungen. Vol. 3. p. 349. Concerning the law on water rights both jure dominii and jure servitutis, see: C. G. Biener, Interpret. et respons. Leipsic, 1825. cap. 24. and in his Opusc. Edited by F. A. Biener. Vol. 2. No. 102.-Günther de jure Aquarum. Spec. 1-4. Leipsic, 1829. Spec. 5. 1830.--Funcke in the Archiv Civ. Prax. Vol. 12. p. 274. 432.-H. E. Hofmann, Versuche. No 2. p. 1-70.Weiske, Quæst. jur. civ. Zwickau, 1831. p. 49.-Elvers, Neue Themis. Vol. 1. No. 3. (a) fr. 13. D. 10. 1.-fr. 6. § 2. D. 47. 7. (Pomponius) Si arbor in vicini fundum radices porrexit, recidere eas vicino non licebit; agere autem licebit, non esse ei jus sicuti tig. num aut protectum immissum habere. Si radicibus vicini arbor aletur, tamen ejus est, in cujus fundo origo ejus fuerit."-const. 1. C. 8. 1. "Quum proponas, radicibus arborum, in vicina Agathangeli area positis, crescentibus fundamentis domus tuæ periculum afferi, Preses ad exemplum interdictorum, qua in albo proposita habet prætor: Si arbor in alienas ades impendebit; item: Si arbor in alienum agrum impendebit, quibus

ostenditur, nec per arboris quidem occasionem vicino nocere oportere, rem ad suam æquitatem rediget."

(b) Dig. 43. 27.-Pauli sent. rec. V. 6. 13.— Andreæ, Diss. ad tit. Dig. de arboribus cœdendis. Jena, 1818.-Dirksen in the Z. f. gesch. R. W. Vol. 2. No. 16.—Thibaut, Civ. Abh. p. 1. Note 2. and Braun zu Thibaut,

582. Opinions respecting this interdict disagree. Many jurists hold that the owner of the tree is bound to cut off all the branches which extend over the neighbour's ground and to lop off all the rest above the height of 15 feet from the ground, so as to leave the branches remaining only on the lower part of the tree (ita ut quindecim pedes allins & terra rami arboris circumcidantur). See especially: Hugo, R. G. p. 204.-Kirsten de coërcitione arborum in fundum vicinalem propendentium. Gottingen, 1820. — J. J. Lang ad L. 1. § 7-9. D. de arboribus cædendis (43. 27.). Heidelberg, 1823.-Eichstadt, Spicilegium observationum ad tit. Dig. de arboribus cædendis. Jena, 1825.-Langenn and Kori, Erört. Vol. 2. No. 23.-Gujet in the Archiv Civ. Prax. Vol. 17. p. 31.

(c) D. 43. 28.-Schweppe, Jur. Mag. No. 1. p. 142.-Schweppe, Röm. Priv. R. Vol. 2. 259.-Thibaut, Civ. Abh. No. 1. and in the Archiv Civ. Prax. Vol. 1. p. 116.—Rosshirt in his Z. f. Civ. u. Crim. R. No. 1. P. 117.Some writers understand 'tertio quoque die' in