belongs to the heir, while only the bare ownership is vested in
the legatee. Similarly, he can give to one man a legacy of the
usufruct, to another one of the estate, subject to the other's
usufruct. If it is wished to create a usufruct in favour of another
person otherwise than by testament, the proper mode is
agreement followed by stipulation. However, lest ownership
should be entirely valueless through the permanent separation
from it of the usufruct, certain modes have been approved in
which usufruct may be extinguished, and thereby revert to the
owner. 2 A usufruct may be created not only in land or build-
ings, but also in slaves, cattle, and other objects generally,
except such as are actually consumed by being used, of which
a genuine usufruct is impossible by both natural and civil law.
Among them are wine, oil, grain, clothing, and perhaps we may
also say coined money; for a sum of money is in a sense
extinguished by changing hands, as it constantly does in simply
being used. For convenience sake, however, the senate en-
acted that a usufruct could be created in such things, provided
that due security be given to the heir. Thus if a usufruct of
money be given by legacy, that money, on being delivered to
the legatee, becomes his property, though he has to give
security to the heir that he will repay an equivalent sum on his
dying or undergoing a loss of status. And all things of this class,
when delivered to the legatee, become his property, though
they are first appraised, and the legatee then gives security that
if he dies or undergoes a loss of status he will ay the value
which was put upon them. Thus in point of fact the senate did
not introduce a usufruct of such things, for that was beyond its
power, but established a right analogous to usufruct by requiring
security. 3 Usufruct determines by the death of the usufructuary,