Scanned text contains errors.
julia, proposed by the dictator C. Julius Caesar, enforced the former sumptuary laws respecting entertainments, which had fallen into disuse. (Dion Cass. xliii. 25.) Julius Caesar adopted strong measures to carry this law into execution, but it was violated when he was absent from Rome. (Cic. ad Alt, xiii. 7.) He stationed officers in the provision market to seize upon all eatables forbidden by the law, and sometimes sent lictors and soldiers to banquets to take away every thing which was not allowed by the law. (Suet. Jul. 43.) Cicero seems to refer to this law in two of his epistles (ad Fam. vii. 26, ix. 15).
julia, a lex of Augustus, allowed 200 sesterces to be expended upon festivals on dies profesti, 300 upon those on the Calends, Ides, Nones, and some other festive days, and 1000 upon marriage feasts. There was also an edict of Augustus or Tiberius by which as much as from 300 to 2000 sesterces were allowed to be expended upon entertainments, the increase being made with the hope of securing thereby the observance of the law. (Gell. I. c. ; Sue ton. Octav. 34.)
Tiberius attempted to check extravagance in banquets (Suet. Tib. 34) ; and a senatusconsultum was passed in his reign for the purpose of restraining luxury, which forbade gold vases to be employed, except for sacred purposes, and which also prohibited the use of silk garments to men. (Tacit. Ann. ii. 33; Dion Cass. Ivii. 15.) This sumptuary law, however, was but little observed. (Tacit. Ann. iii. 52, 53.) Some regulations on the subject were also made by Nero (Suet. Ner. 16), and by succeeding emperors, but they appear to have been of little or no avail in cheeking the increasing love of luxury in dress and food. (Platner, Exercit. II. de Legibus Sumtuariis Rom. Lips. 1752 ; Box-inann, Dissert, antiquario-juridica de Leg. Rom. Sumtua-riis, Lugd. Batav. 1816.)
Sumptuary laws were not peculiar to antiquity. " Our own legislation, which in its absurd as well as its best parts has generally some parallel in that of the Romans, contains many instances of Sumptuary Laws, which prescribed what kind of dress, and of what quality, should be worn by particular classes, and so forth. The English Sumptuary Statutes relating to apparel commenced with the 37th of Edward III. This statute, after declaring that the outrageous and excessive apparel of divers people against their estate and degree is the destruction and impoverishment of the land, prescribes the apparel of the various classes into which it distributes the people ; but it goes no higher than knights. The clothing of the women and children is also regulated. The next statute, 3rd of Edward IV., is very minute. This kind of statute-making went on at intervals to the 1st of Philip and Mary, when an act was passed for the Reformation of Excessive Apparel. These Apparel statutes were repealed by the 1st of James I." (Long's Translation of Plutarch's Life of Sulla, c. 2.)
SUOVETAURFLIA. [sacrificium ; Lus-
SUPERFICIES, SUPERFICIA'RIUS. — Superficies is anything which is placed upon the ground, so as to become attached to it. The most common case of superficies is that of buildings erected on another man's land. " Those are aedes superficiariae which are built on hired ground, and the property of which both by the Jus Civile and Naturale belongs to him to whom
the ground (solum) also belongs." (Gains, Dig. 43. tit. 18. s. 2.) Cicero (ad Ait. iv. 2) uses the expression " superficies aedium." Every building then was considered a part of the ground on which it stood ; and the ownership and possession of the building were inseparable from the ownership and possession of the ground. The Superficies resembles a Servitus and is classed among the Jura in re. According to the definition, the Superficiarius had not the thing even In bonis ; and as the animus Domini could not exist in the case of Superficies, he consequently could not be Possessor. He had however a Juris Quasi Possessio. The Superficiarius had the right to the enjoyment of the Superficies : he could alienate the Superficies and pledge it for the term of his enjoyment; he could dispose 'of it by testament; and it could be the object of succession ab intestato ; he could also make it subject to a Servitus ; and he could prosecute his right by a utilis in rem actio. As he had a Juris Quasi Possessio, he was protected against threatened disturbance by a special Interdict, which is given in the Digest (43. tit. 18), and in its effect resembles the Interdictum U.ti possidetis. The explanation of the passage relating to this Interdict (Dig. 43. tit. 18. s. 3) is given by Savigny (Das Reclit dcs Besiizes, p. 289, 5th ed.). If he was ejected, he could have the Interdictum de vi, as in the case of proper Possession ; and if he had granted the use of the Superficies to another Precario, who refused to restore it, he had the Interdictum de pre-cario.
A man could obtain the use of a Superficies by agreement with the owner of the land for permission to erect a building on it: he thus obtained a Jus Superficiarium ; and he might also by agreement have the use of an existing Superficies. He was bound to discharge all the duties which he owed in respect of the Superficies, and to make the proper payment in respect of it (solarium}., if any payment had been agreed on. The solarium was a ground-rent. (Dig. 43. tit. 8. s. 2. § 17.)
The rule of law that the Superficies belonged to the owner of the soil was expressed thus : Superficies solo cedit. (Gaius, ii. 73.) If then a man built on another man's land, the house became the property of the owner of the land. But if the owner of the land claimed the house, and would not pay the expense incurred by building it, the builder of the house could meet the claimant with a plea of dolus mains (exeeptio doli mali\ that is to say, if he was a Bonae fidei possessor. In any other case, he had of course no answer to the owner's claim.
According to Coke (Co. Litt. 48, b), " a man may have an inheritance in an upper chamber, though the lower buildings and the soil be in another, and seeing it is an inheritance corporeal, it shall pass by livery." But this doctrine is open to serious objections, and contradicts a fundamental principle of law.
At Rome if a man received permission to build on a locus publicus, he thereby obtained a Jus Superficiarium. The Lex Icilia de Aventino, b. c. 456, probably gave the ground in ownership to the Plebs. Dionysius, who speaks particularly of this lex, says that several persons united to build a house on the same plot of ground, and distributed the stories among them ; this, however, would not be a case of superficies, but a communio pro in-diviso. In later times, it was common at Rome