The second type is a settlement concluded while the defendant is denying the claim. Such a settlement is void if it is struck over the very object in dispute, and—according to the sounder opinion—it is likewise void if it is struck over only part of that object. The defendant’s words, “Settle with me concerning the house you say is yours,” do not count as an acknowledgment, on the sounder view.

The second division concerns a settlement made between the claimant and a third party. If the third party says, “The defendant has appointed me to reach a settlement and he admits your right,” the settlement is valid. Should the third party, in that same situation, settle in his own favor, the settlement is also valid and is treated as a purchase. If the defendant is denying the claim and the third party adds, “He is in the wrong in his denial,” the transaction is considered a purchase of usurped property, and the ruling differs according to whether the buyer can or cannot wrest the property from the defendant. But if the third party fails to add that the defendant is in the wrong, the settlement is void.

Section
A public thoroughfare may not be used in any way that harms passers-by. No projecting roof or covered passageway that harms them may be built over it; rather, it must be high enough for a person to pass beneath it upright. If the route is used by horsemen and caravans, the structure must be raised so that a camel bearing a howdah with its wooden frame can pass under it. It is impermissible to conclude a settlement allowing such an overhang, or to build a raised platform in the road, or to plant a tree there; some jurists, however, said that if no harm results it is permissible.

With respect to a cul-de-sac, it is forbidden for outsiders to project anything over it, and—on the sounder view—it is likewise forbidden for some of its residents to do so without the consent of the rest. Its residents are those whose house doors open onto it, not those whose walls merely adjoin it. There are two opinions about whether the right of use belongs to all of them for the entire alley, or whether each co-owner’s share is limited to the stretch between the head of the alley and his own door; the sounder opinion is the latter. No one else may open a door onto it for passage, though, according to the sounder view, he may open one provided he keeps it nailed shut. Whoever already has a door onto the alley and opens another that is farther from its head may be prevented from doing so by his partners. The same applies if the new door is nearer to the head and he has not bricked up the old one; if he blocks the old door, they may not prevent him. One who owns two houses that open onto two separate alleys, or onto two cul-de-sacs, or onto a cul-de-sac and an open street, and opens a door between the two houses, is not prevented from doing so, according to the sounder view. And wherever the opening of a door is disallowed