394
palace. The latter was made to officials, merchants, and even nadì-
tums (LH 40) in return for a rent, but when granted to military per-
sonnel in return for their service, special rules applied. Their tenure
was linked to their ability and willingness to perform military serv-
ice. Hence it did not amount to full ownership but still gave the
holder more security than a private tenant. If captured while on mil-
itary service, the soldier (redûm) or “fisher” (bà"irum) could be assured
of its restoration to him after his return (LH 27). In the meantime,
his son could replace him, but if too young, a part at least was
reserved for the wife so as to be able to raise him (LH 28–29). If
he abandoned his holding, another could take his place, provided
he undertook the service, but a three-year period of grace was allowed.
On the other hand, the holding was inalienable: neither a soldier,
a “fisher” nor even a “bearer” could validly sell or exchange the
land, or give it to his wife or daughter (LH 36–38, 41).6.2 Servitudes^97
6.2.1 Three rights over neighboring land are recorded: to exit from
a building to the street (mùßûm), to take water from an irrigation
canal (ma“qìtum), and to drive a nail into a wall (sikkatam retûm) or to
fix a beam in it (gu“ùram ummudum). These rights were created either
by a grant of joint ownership in the door, canal, or wall, or by a
concession of the right in the contract of sale.^98 It is not clear whether
the latter was a proprietary right or merely a personal right as
between the parties to the contract.^996.2.2 A party wall was deemed to be jointly owned, regardless of
who built it, provided that the other neighbor paid his share of the
cost. Sole ownership could be created by one party “giving” (iqì“)
the building costs to his neighbor.^1006.2.3 Similar to a servitude was the duty to maintain one’s land
so that it would not provide a burglar access to a neighbor’s prop-(^97) Lautner, “Grenzmauern...”
(^98) Ibid., 82–94; contra Landsberger, MSL I 218–19.
(^99) Lautner, “Grenzmauern.. .,” 88–90, considers it a purely personal right, but
the logic of the situation would suggest that both the benefit and the burden passed
to successors in title.
(^100) TCL 1 87/88 = UAZP 198; Lautner, “Grenzmauern.. .,” 81.
WESTBROOK_f10–360-430 8/27/03 12:26 PM Page 394