commune est; quia singula corpora, id est, singula grana, quæ cujusque propria fuerunt, consensu vestro communicata sunt. Quod si casu id mistnm fuerit, vel Titius id miscuerit sine tua voluntate, non videtur commune esse; quia singula corpora in sua substantia 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.

DE HIS QUÆ SOLO CEDUNT.

because the 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.

§ XXIX. Cum in suo solo aliquis ex aliena materia ædificaverit, ipse intelligitur dominus ædificii: quia omne, quod solo inædificatur, solo cedit. Nec tamen ideo is, qui materiæ dominus fuerat, desinit dominus ejus esse: sed tantisper neque vindicare cam potest, neque ad exhibendum de ea re agere, propter legem duodecim tabularum, qua 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 ideo provisum est, ne ædificia rescindi necesse sit. Quod si aliqua ex causa dirutum sit ædificium, poterit materiæ dominus, si non fuerit duplum jam conse

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 twelve tables, was made to pre

quutus, tunc eam vindicare, et ad exibendum de ea re agere.

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.

XXX. Ex diverso, si quis in alieno solo ex sua materia domum ædificaverit, illius fit domus, cujus et solum est. Sed hoc casu, materiæ dominus proprietaten ejus amittit, quia voluntate ejus intelligitur esse alienata; utique si non ignorabat, se in alieno solo ædificare: et ideo, licet diruta sit domus, materiam tamen vindicare non potest. Certe 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; utique sibona fidei possessor fuerit, qui ædificavit. Nam scienti, solum alienum esse, potest objici culpa, quod ædificaverit temere in eo solo, qnod 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 bona fide. Otherwise it might be fairly objected, "that he had built rashly upon that ground, which he knew to be the property of another."

XXXI. Si Titius alienam

sius erit; et ex diverso, si Titius suam plantam in Mavii solo posuerit, Mævii planta erit; si modo utroque casu radices egerit: ante enim quam radices egerit, ejus permanet, cujus fuerat. Adeo 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 ideo, circa confinium arbor posita, si etiam in vicini fundum radices egerit, communis fit.

the plant will belong to Titius: on the contrary, if Titius shall have set his own plant in Mevius'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 neighbor borders so closely upon the ground of Ti tius, 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.

XXXII. Qua 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 ca, quæ diximus; ita ejusdem exceptionis auxilio, tutus esse potest is, qui alienum fundum sua impensa 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 bona fide hath sowed in another man's land, may also be benefitted by the help of this exception.

membranisve 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.

longs to that ground by accession; so letters also, although written with gold, appertain 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 bona fide.

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 a 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 palam est, quod sive is, qui pin

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