Dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

SERVITUTES. SERVITUTES. 1033
thing, but against any person who impeded the - a space of fire feet in width betwveen adjoining esexercise of the right. The plaintiff had of course tates, which it was not permitted to cultivate.
to prove his title to the Servitus. The Actio Ne- This intermediate space was sacred and it was
gatoria or Vindicatio libertatis, might be brought used by the owners of the adjoining lands for saby the owner of the property against any person crifice. To this class also belongs the rule, that if
who claimed a Servitus inl it. The object was to a man had buaried.a. dead body on the land of an-,establish the freedom of the property from the other without his.consent, he could not as a general
servitus, for damages, and for security to the owner rule be compelled to remove the bodya but he was,against future disturbance in the exercise of his bound to make recompence. (Dig. 11. tit. 7. s. 2.
ownership. The plaintiff had of,course to prove. 7, 8.) The secondclass.comprehends rules relathis ownership auld the.defendant to prove his title ing to police. According to the Twelve Tables
to the Servitus. (Gaius, iv. 3; Dig. 8. tit. a.) every owner of land in the city was required to
In the case of Personal Servitudes, the Inter- leave a space of two feet and a half vacant all
diets were just the -same as in.tlle case of proper round any edifice that he erected: this was called
Possession; the Interdict which was applied in legitimnum spatinlm, legitimus modus. Consethe case of proper Possession, was here applied as quently between two adjoining houses there must
a Utile Interdictrnm. (Frac. Vat. 90, as emended be a vacant space of file feet. This law was no
by Savigny.) doubt often neglected, for after the fire in Nero's
In the case of Praedial Servitudes, we must reign (Tacit. Aiss. xv. 43), it was forbidden to
first consider the Positive. In the first class, the build houses with a common wall (colmunio pcarieacquisition of,the Juris Quasi Possessio is effected itne); and the old legitimum spatium was again
by anil act which is done simply as san exercise of required to be observed; and it is referred to in a
the Right, independent of any other right. The rescript of Anton-inus and Verus. (Dig. 8. tit. 2.
interference with the -exercise of the right was pre- s. 14.) This class also comprehends rules as to the
vented by Interdicts applicable to the several cases. leight alnd form of buildings. Augustus (Sueton.
A person who was disturbed in exercising a Jus Octav. 89) fixed the height at seventy feet; Nero
Itineris, Actus, Viae by any person whatever, also after the great fire made some regulations
whether the owvner of the servient land -or any with the view of limiting the height of houses.
other person, had a right to the Interdict: the Trajan fixed the greatest height at sixty feet.
object of this Isterdict was protection against the These regulations were general, and had no referdisturbance, and comipensaetion.: its effect was ex- ence to the convenience of persons who possessed
actly like that of the Interdict Uti possidetis. adjoining houses: they had therefore no relation at
Another Interdict applied to the same objects as all to the Servitutes:altius tollendi and non tollendi
the preceding Interdict, but its object was to as some writers suppose. The rule of the Twelve
protect the person intitled to the servitude from Tables which forbade the removing a " tignum
being disturbed by the owner while he was putting furtivum aedibus vel vineis junctum," had for its
the -way or road in a condition fit for use. object the preventing of accidents. (Dig. 47. tit. 3.)
There were various other Interdicts as in the Another rule declared that the owners of lands
case of the Jus aquae quotidianae vel aestivae which were adjoining to public aquaeducts should
ducendae (Dig. 43. tit. 20); in the case of the re- permit materials to be taken from their lands for
pair of water passages (43. tit. 21,.de invis); in these public purposes, but should receive a proper
the case of the Jus alqae hauriendae (43. tit, 22). compensation. The Twelve Tables forbade the
The second class of Positive Servitsudes consists burning or interring of a dead body in the city
in the exercise of the servitude in connection with and this rule was enforced by a Lex Duilia. In
the possession of another piece of property. The the time of Antoninus Pius this rule prevailed
Interdicts applicable to this case are explained both in Rome and other cities.
under the third class, that of Negative Servitudes. The third class of limitations had for its object
In the ease of Negative Servitudes there are only the promotion of Agriculture. It comprised the
two modes in which the Juris quasi Possessio can rules relating to AQUA PLUVIA, and to the Tignum
be acquired: 1, when the owner of the servient Junctum in the case of a vineyard; and it gave a
property attempts to do some act, which the owner man permission to go on his neighbour's premises
of the dominant property considers inconsistent to gather the fruits which had fallen thereon fiom
with his Servitus, and is prevented; 2, by any his trees; with this limitation that he could only
legal act which is capable of transferring the Jus go every third day. (Dig. 43. tit. 28, De GlCeade
Servitutis. The possession is lost when the owner legyezdc.) The Twelve Tables enacted that if a
of the servient property does an act which is con- neighbour's tree hung over into another person's
trary to the Right, The Possession of the Servi- land, that person might trim it to the height of
tudes of the second and third class was protected fifteen feet from the ground (quzindecihe pedes aeltius
by the Interdict Uti possidetis. There was a caen sUblucator). The rule was a limitation of
special interdict about sewers (De Cloacis, Dig. ownership, but not a limitation of the ownership
43. tit. 23). of the tree-owner: it was a limitation of the ownerIt has been stated that Quasi-servituldes were ship of the land-owner; for it allowed his neighsometimes founded on positive enactments. These bour's tree to overhang his ground, provided there
-were not Servitutes properly so called, for they were no branclhes less than fifteen feet from the
were limitations of the exercise of ownership made ground.
for the public benefit. The only cases of the limi- With these exceptions, some of which were of
tation of the exercise of ownership by positive great alntiquity, ownership in Roman Law -must be
enactment, which are mentioned in the Pandect, considered as unlimited. These limitations also
are reducible to three principal classes. The filst had no reference to the convenience of individuals
class comprehends the limitation of ownership on who had adjoining houses or lands. Writh respect
religiosu grounds. To this class belongs Filis, or to neighboenrs the law allowed them to regtilate their