Justinian: DIGESTA

Totiens heres in iure interrogandus est, qua ex parte heres sit, quotiens adversus eum actio instituitur et dubitat actor, qua ex parte is, cum quo agere velit, heres sit. est autem interrogatio tunc necessaria, cum in personam sit actio et ita, si certum petetur, ne, dum ignoret actor, qua ex parte adversarius defuncto heres exstiterit, interdum plus petendo aliquid damni sentiat.

So often must an heir be interrogated in court as to in what share he is heir, as often as an action is instituted against him and the plaintiff is in doubt in what share the person whom he wishes to sue is heir. The interrogation is necessary when the action is in personam, that is, if a determinate thing is being sought, lest, while the plaintiff is ignorant of the share in which the adversary has become heir to the deceased, he should sometimes, by demanding more, suffer some loss.

Dig. 11.1.1.1

Digest 11.1.1.1

Callistratus 2 ed. monit.

Callistratus book 2, On the Monitory Edict.

Interrogatoriis autem actionibus hodie non utimur, quia nemo cogitur ante iudicium de suo iure aliquid respondere, ideoque minus frequentantur et in desuetudinem abierunt. sed tantummodo ad probationes litigatoribus sufficiunt ea, quae ab adversa parte expressa fuerint apud iudices vel in hereditatibus vel in aliis rebus, quae in causis vertuntur.

But we do not use interrogatory actions today, because no one is compelled, before judgment, to answer anything concerning his own right; and therefore they are less resorted to and have passed into desuetude. But only for purposes of proof do those things suffice to litigants which shall have been elicited from the adverse party before the judges, whether in inheritances or in other matters which are in controversy in causes.

Dig. 11.1.2

Digest 11.1.2

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 22 on the Edict.

Edictum de interrogationibus ideo praetor proposuit, quia sciebat difficile esse ei, qui heredem bonorumve possessorem convenit, probare aliquem esse heredem bonorumve possessorem,

The praetor for this reason set forth the edict on interrogatories, because he knew it to be difficult for one who brings action against an heir or a bonorum possessor to prove that someone is an heir or a bonorum possessor,

Dig. 11.1.3

Digest 11.1.3

Paulus 17 ad ed.

Paul 17 on the Edict.

Quia plerumque difficilis probatio aditae hereditatis est.

Because for the most part the proof of an inheritance entered upon is difficult.

Dig. 11.1.4pr.

Digest 11.1.4pr.

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian 22 on the Edict.

Voluit praetor adstringere eum qui convenitur ex sua in iudicio responsione, ut vel confitendo vel mentiendo sese oneret, simul etiam portionis, pro qua quisque heres extitit, ex interrogatione certioretur.

The praetor wished to bind him who is convened by his response in court, so that, whether by confessing or by lying, he burdens himself, and at the same time that, from interrogation, one be made more certain of the portion for which each person has become heir.

Dig. 11.1.4.1

Digest 11.1.4.1

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian, 22 on the Edict.

Quod ait praetor: " qui in iure interrogatus responderit" sic accipiendum est apud magistratus populi romani vel praesides provinciarum vel alios iudices: ius enim eum solum locum esse, ubi iuris dicendi vel iudicandi gratia consistat, vel si domi vel itinere hoc agat.

What the praetor says: " qui in iure interrogatus responderit" is to be taken thus: before the magistrates of the Roman people or the governors of the provinces or other judges; for "ius" is that place alone where, for the sake of speaking the law or judging, one is in session, even if he does this at home or on a journey.

Dig. 11.1.5

Digest 11.1.5

Gaius 3 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 3 on the Provincial Edict.

Qui interrogatur, an heres vel quota ex parte sit vel an in potestate habeat eum, cuius nomine noxali iudicio agitur, ad deliberandum tempus impetrare debet, quia, si perperam confessus fuerit, incommodo adficitur:

He who is asked whether he is an heir, or what quota he has, or whether he has in his power the person in whose name a noxal action is being brought, ought to obtain time for deliberation, because, if he has confessed wrongly, he is subjected to a disadvantage:

Dig. 11.1.6pr.

Digest 11.1.6pr.

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian, 22 on the Edict.

Et quia hoc defunctorum interest, ut habeant successores, interest et viventium, ne praecipitentur, quamdiu iuste deliberant.

And because this is the concern of the deceased, that they have successors, it is also the concern of the living that they not be rushed headlong, so long as they deliberate justly.

Dig. 11.1.6.1

Digest 11.1.6.1

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian, 22 on the Edict.

Interdum interrogatus quis, an heres sit, non cogitur respondere, ut puta si controversiam hereditatis ab alio patiatur: et ita divus hadrianus constituit, ne aut negando se heredem praeiudicet sibi aut dicendo heredem illigetur etiam ablata sibi hereditate.

sometimes, when someone is asked whether he is heir, he is not compelled to answer, for instance if he is undergoing a controversy of the inheritance at another’s hands: and thus the deified hadrian decreed, lest either by denying himself to be heir he prejudicate himself, or by saying he is heir he be bound, even with the inheritance taken from him.

Dig. 11.1.7

Digest 11.1.7

Ulpianus 18 ad ed.

Ulpian 18 on the edict.

Si quis in iure interrogatus, an quadrupes quae pauperiem fecit eius sit, responderit, tenetur.

If someone, when questioned in court whether the quadruped that caused pauperies is his, has answered that it is, he is liable.

Dig. 11.1.8

Digest 11.1.8

Paulus 22 ad ed.

Paulus 22, book 22 On the Edict.

Si quis interrogatus de servo qui damnum dedit, respondit suum esse servum, tenebitur lege aquilia quasi dominus et, si cum eo actum sit qui respondit, dominus ea actione liberatur.

If anyone, being interrogated about a slave who has given (caused) damage, responded that the slave was his own, he will be held liable under the Lex Aquilia as if he were the owner; and, if suit has been brought against the one who responded, the owner is freed from that action.

Dig. 11.1.9pr.

Digest 11.1.9, preface.

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian 22 on the edict.

Si sine interrogatione quis responderit se heredem, pro interrogato habetur.

If someone, without interrogation, has answered that he is heir, he is regarded as having been interrogated.

Dig. 11.1.9.1

Digest 11.1.9.1

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian, 22 On the Edict.

Interrogatum non solum a praetore accipere debemus, sed et ab adversario.

We ought to receive interrogation not only from the praetor, but also from the adversary.

Dig. 11.1.9.2

Digest 11.1.9.2

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian, 22 on the Edict.

Sed si servus interrogetur, nulla erit interrogatio, non magis quam si servus interroget.

But if a slave be interrogated, there will be no interrogation, no more than if a slave should interrogate.

Dig. 11.1.9.3

Digest 11.1.9.3

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian, 22 on the Edict.

Alius pro alio non debet respondere cogi, an heres sit: de se enim debet quis in iudicio interrogari, hoc est cum ipse convenitur.

Another ought not to be compelled to answer on behalf of another, whether he be an heir; for one ought to be interrogated in court about himself—that is, when he himself is called into court.

Dig. 11.1.9.4

Digest 11.1.9.4

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian 22 on the Edict.

Celsus libro quinto digestorum scribit: si defensor in iudicio interrogatus, an is quem defendit heres vel quota ex parte sit, falso responderit, ipse quidem defensor adversario tenebitur, ipsi autem quem defendit nullum facit praeiudicium. veram itaque esse celsi sententiam dubium non est. an ergo non videatur defendere, si non responderit, videndum: quod utique consequens erit dicere, quia non plene defendit.

Celsus writes in the fifth book of the Digest: if a defender, when questioned in court whether the one whom he defends is an heir and to what share, should answer falsely, the defender himself will be held liable to the adversary, but he causes no prejudice to the very person whom he defends. Therefore that Celsus’s opinion is true is not doubtful. Whether, then, he should seem not to be defending, if he does not answer, must be considered: and it will indeed be consequent to say this, because he does not defend fully.

Dig. 11.1.9.5

Digest 11.1.9.5

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian 22 on the Edict.

Qui interrogatus heredem se responderit nec adiecerit ex qua parte, ex asse respondisse dicendum est, nisi forte ita interrogetur, an ex dimidia parte heres sit, et responderit " heres sum": hic enim magis eum puto ad interrogatum respondisse.

He who, when interrogated, has responded that he is heir and has not added from what part, is to be said to have answered for the whole share, unless perhaps he is thus asked whether he is heir from a half share, and he replied “I am heir”: for here I rather think that he answered to what was asked.

Dig. 11.1.9.6

Digest 11.1.9.6

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian 22 On the Edict.

Illud quaeritur, an quis cogatur respondere, utrum ex testamento heres sit, et utrum suo nomine ei quaesita sit hereditas an per eos quos suo iuri subiectos habet vel per eum cui heres extitit. summatim igitur praetor cognoscere debebit, cum quaeratur, an quis respondere debeat quo iure heres sit, ut, si valde interesse compererit, plenius responderi iubeat. quae optinere debent non solum in heredibus sed etiam in honorariis successoribus.

The question is raised whether someone is compelled to answer whether he is heir from a testament, and whether the inheritance has been acquired for him in his own name or through those whom he has under his own legal power, or through him whose heir he has become. Therefore the praetor ought to inquire summarily, when it is asked whether someone ought to answer by what law he is heir, so that, if he discovers that it greatly matters, he may order a fuller answer to be given. These rules ought to obtain not only in heirs but also in honorary successors.

Dig. 11.1.9.7

Digest 11.1.9.7

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian 22 on the edict.

Denique iulianus scribit eum quoque, cui est hereditas restituta, debere in iure interrogatum respondere, an ei hereditas sit restituta.

Finally, Julianus writes that he too, to whom the inheritance has been restored, ought, when questioned in iure, to answer whether the inheritance has been restored to him.

Dig. 11.1.9.8

Digest 11.1.9.8

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian 22 on the edict.

Si de peculio agatur, non oportere responderi a patre vel domino, an in potestate habeat filium vel servum, quia hoc solum quaeritur, an peculium apud eum cum quo agitur est.

If the matter concerns the peculium, the father or the master ought not to be made to answer whether he has the son or the slave under his power, because this alone is inquired: whether the peculium is with the person against whom suit is brought.

Dig. 11.1.10

Digest 11.1.10

Paulus 48 ad ed.

Paulus 48 on the Edict.

Non alienum est eum, a quo damni infecti stipulari velimus, interrogare in iure, an aedes eius vel locus sit, ex quo damnum timeatur, et pro qua parte, ut, si neget suum praedium esse nec caveat damni infecti, aut cedere aut, resistendum putaverit, quasi dolo versatus tradere compellatur.

It is not out of place to interrogate in iure the person from whom we wish to stipulate for damnum infectum, whether the edifice of his or a locus is that from which damage is feared, and for what part; so that, if he denies that it is his praedium and does not give caution for damnum infectum, whether he chooses to cede or—if he deems it should be resisted—he may be compelled to deliver, as one who has acted in dolus.

Dig. 11.1.11pr.

Digest 11.1.11 pr.

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian, 22 on the Edict.

De aetate quoque interdum interrogatus respondere debebit.

He will also sometimes have to answer when interrogated about his age.

Dig. 11.1.11.1

Digest 11.1.11.1

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian 22 on the Edict.

Si quis, cum heres non esset, interrogatus responderit ex parte heredem esse, sic convenietur, atque si ex ea parte heres esset: fides enim ei contra se habebitur.

If anyone, when he was not an heir, upon being interrogated answered that he was an heir in part, he shall be sued just as if he were heir in that part; for his admission will be held against himself.

Dig. 11.1.11.2

Digest 11.1.11.2

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian, 22 on the Edict.

Qui ex quadrante heres vel omnino cum heres non esset responderit se heredem ex asse, in assem instituta actione convenietur.

One who, being heir for a quarter, or even when he was not heir at all, has replied that he is heir for the whole, will be proceeded against by an action instituted for the whole.

Dig. 11.1.11.3

Digest 11.1.11.3

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian 22 on the Edict.

Si, cum esset quis ex semisse heres, dixerit se ex quadrante, mendacii hanc poenam feret, quod in solidum convenitur: non enim debuit mentiri, dum se minoris portionis heredem adseverat. interdum tamen iusta ratione potest opinari esse heredem ex minore parte: quid enim, si nescit sibi partem adcrevisse vel ex incerta parte fuit institutus? cur ei responsum noceat?

If, when someone was heir from a half, he says that he is from a quarter, he will bear this penalty for mendacity, that he is sued for the whole: for he ought not to have lied, while asserting himself heir of a smaller portion. Sometimes, however, with just reason he can suppose that he is heir from a smaller part: for what if he does not know that a share has accrued to him, or he was instituted from an uncertain part? Why should his answer harm him?

Dig. 11.1.11.4

Digest 11.1.11.4

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian, 22 on the Edict.

Qui tacuit quoque apud praetorem, in ea causa est, ut instituta actione in solidum conveniatur, quasi negaverit se heredem esse. nam qui omnino non respondit, contumax est: contumaciae autem poenam hanc ferre debet, ut in solidum conveniatur, quemadmodum si negasset, quia praetorem contemnere videtur.

He who likewise kept silent before the praetor is in the position that, once the action has been instituted, he is proceeded against for the whole, as if he had denied that he is heir. For he who did not respond at all is contumacious; and he ought to bear this penalty of contumacy, that he is proceeded against for the whole, just as if he had denied it, because he appears to contemn the praetor.

Dig. 11.1.11.5

Digest 11.1.11.5

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian, 22 on the Edict.

Quod autem ait praetor " omnino non respondisse", posteriores sic exceperunt, ut omnino non respondisse videatur, qui ad interrogatum non respondit, id est pros epos.

But as to the praetor’s saying “did not answer at all,” later authorities have excepted it thus: he is considered to have not answered at all who did not answer to the question put, that is, to the point (pros epos).

Dig. 11.1.11.6

Digest 11.1.11.6

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian 22 on the Edict.

Si interrogatus quis, an ex asse heres esset, responderit ex parte, si ex dimidia esset, nihil ei nocere responsum: quae sententia humana est.

If someone, when asked whether he was heir for the whole, answered “for a part,” if he were for a half, the answer would not prejudice him: which judgment is humane.

Dig. 11.1.11.7

Digest 11.1.11.7

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian, 22 on the Edict.

Nihil interest, neget quis an taceat interrogatus an obscure respondeat, ut incertum dimittat interrogatorem.

It makes no difference whether someone, when interrogated, denies or keeps silent or answers obscurely, so as to send away the questioner uncertain.

Dig. 11.1.11.8

Digest 11.1.11.8

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian 22 on the edict.

Ex causa succurri ei, qui interrogatus respondit, non dubitamus: nam et si quis interrogatus, an patri heres esset, responderit, mox prolato testamento inventus sit exheredatus, aequissimum est succurri ei: et ita celsus scribit, hic quidem et alia ratione, quod ea quae postea emergunt auxilio indigent: quid enim si occultae tabulae et remotae postea prolatae sunt? cur noceat ei, qui id responderit, quod in praesentiarum videbatur? idem dico et si qui heredem se responderit, mox falsum vel inofficiosum vel irritum testamentum fuerit pronuntiatum: non enim improbe respondit, sed scriptura ductus.

We do not doubt that, for cause, relief should be afforded to one who, when questioned, gave an answer: for even if someone, being asked whether he was heir to his father, answered that he was, and soon, when the will was produced, was found to have been disinherited, it is most equitable to give him relief; and thus Celsus writes, here indeed also for another reason, namely that things which emerge afterward stand in need of aid: for what if concealed and put-away testamentary tablets are later brought forth? why should it harm him who answered what seemed to be the case at the present time? I say the same also if someone answered that he was the heir, and soon the testament was pronounced false or undutiful or void: for he did not answer improperly, but was led by the writing.

Dig. 11.1.11.9

Digest 11.1.11.9

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian, 22 on the Edict.

Qui interrogatus responderit, sic tenetur quasi ex contractu obligatus pro quo pulsabitur, dum ab adversario interrogatur: sed et si a praetore fuerit interrogatus, nihil facit praetoris auctoritas, sed ipsius responsum sive mendacium.

He who, when interrogated, has responded, is thus held as if bound as from a contract, for which he will be sued, provided that he is interrogated by the adversary; but even if he has been interrogated by the praetor, the praetor’s authority avails nothing, but rather his own response—or his mendacity.

Dig. 11.1.11.10

Digest 11.1.11.10

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian 22 on the Edict.

Qui iusto errore ductus negaverit se heredem, venia dignus est.

He who, led by a just error, has denied that he is heir, is worthy of pardon.

Dig. 11.1.11.11

Digest 11.1.11.11

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian 22 on the edict.

Sed et si quis sine dolo malo, culpa tamen responderit, dicendum erit absolvi eum debere, nisi culpa dolo proxima sit.

But also, if someone, without fraudulent intent, has nevertheless been held to answer by reason of fault, it must be said that he ought to be absolved, unless the fault is proximate to fraud.

Dig. 11.1.11.12

Digest 11.1.11.12

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian, 22 on the Edict.

Celsus scribit licere responsi paenitere, si nulla captio ex eius paenitentia sit actoris: quod verissimum mihi videtur, maxime si quis postea plenius instructus quid faciat, instrumentis vel epistulis amicorum iuris sui edoctus.

Celsus writes that it is permitted to repent of a response, if no prejudice to the plaintiff arises from that repentance: which seems to me most true, especially if someone is afterwards more fully instructed as to what he should do, being taught of his right by instruments or by the epistles of friends.

Dig. 11.1.12pr.

Digest 11.1.12, at the beginning.

Paulus 17 ad ed.

Paulus 17 On the Edict.

Si filius, qui abstinuit se paterna hereditate, in iure interrogatus responderit se heredem esse, tenebitur: nam ita respondendo pro herede gessisse videtur. sin autem filius, qui se abstinuit, interrogatus tacuerit, succurrendum est ei: quia hunc qui abstinuit praetor non habet heredis loco.

If a son who has abstained from the paternal inheritance, when questioned in court, has answered that he is heir, he will be held: for by answering thus he appears to have acted as heir. But if the son who has abstained, when questioned, has kept silent, he must be given relief: because the praetor does not have one who has abstained in the place of an heir.

Dig. 11.1.12.1

Digest 11.1.12.1

Paulus 17 ad ed.

Paulus 17 on the edict.

Exceptionibus, quae institutis in iudicio contra reos actionibus opponuntur, etiam is uti potest, qui ex sua responsione convenitur, veluti pacti conventi, rei iudicatae et ceteris.

The exceptions which are opposed to actions instituted in court against defendants may also be used by one who is proceeded against on the basis of his own answer, such as those of pactum conventum, res judicata, and the others.

Dig. 11.1.13pr.

Digest 11.1.13pr.

Paulus 2 ad plaut.

Paulus 2 on Plautius.

Confessionibus falsis respondentes ita obligantur, si eius nomine, de quo quis interrogatus sit, cum aliquo sit actio, quia quae cum alio actio esset, si dominus esset, in nosmet confessione nostra conferimus. et si eum, qui in potestate patris esset, respondissem filium meum esse, ita me obligari, si aetas eius pateretur, ut filius meus esse possit, quia falsae confessiones naturalibus convenire deberent. propter quae fiat, ut patris familias nomine respondendo non obliger.

Those answering with false confessions are thus obligated, if in the name of the one about whom one has been questioned there is an action with someone; for whatever action there would be with another, if he were the owner, we transfer onto ourselves by our own confession. And if I had replied that one who was in the power of a father was my son, I am thus bound, if his age would permit that he could be my son, because false confessions ought to agree with natural possibilities. For which reason it comes about that, by answering in the name of a paterfamilias, I am not bound.

Dig. 11.1.13.1

Digest 11.1.13.1

Paulus 2 ad plaut.

Paulus 2 to Plautius.

Eum, qui patrem familias suum esse responderit servum, non teneri noxali actione: ac ne, si bona fide liber homo mihi serviat, mecum noxali iudicio agi potest et, si actum fuerit, manebit integra actio cum ipso qui admisit.

He who has replied that his paterfamilias is a slave is not held by a noxal action: and nor, if a free man in good faith serves me, can a noxal judgment be brought against me; and, if it has been brought, the action will remain entire against the very person who committed it.

Dig. 11.1.14pr.

Digest 11.1.14, first paragraph.

Iavolenus 9 ex cass.

Iavolenus 9 from Cassius.

Si is, cuius nomine noxae iudicium acceptum est, manente iudicio liber iudicatus est, reus absolvi debet, nec quicquam interrogatio in iure facta proderit, quia eius personae, cuius nomine quis cum alio actionem habet, obligationem transferre potest in eum, qui in iure suum esse confitetur, velut alienum servum suum esse confitendo: liberi autem hominis nomine quia cum alio actio non est, ne per interrogationem quidem aut confessionem transferri poterit. quo casu eveniet, ut non recte hominis liberi nomine actum sit cum eo qui confessus est.

If the one in whose name a noxal action has been accepted, while the suit remains pending, has been adjudged free, the defendant ought to be absolved, nor will the interrogation made in iure be of any avail, because one can transfer the obligation of that person in whose name someone has an action with another onto him who in iure confesses it to be his own, as by confessing that another’s slave is his own; but in the name of a free man, since there is no action with another, neither by interrogation nor by confession can it be transferred. In which case it will come about that it has not been rightly proceeded in the name of a free man against him who confessed.

Dig. 11.1.14.1

Digest 11.1.14.1

Iavolenus 9 ex cass.

Javolenus 9 from Cassius.

In totum autem confessiones ita ratae sunt, si id, quod in confessionem venit, et ius et naturam recipere potest.

Altogether, however, confessions are valid on this footing: if that which is brought into confession can be received both by law and by nature.

Dig. 11.1.15pr.

Digest 11.1.15 pr.

Pomponius 18 ad sab.

Pomponius 18 on Sabinus.

Si ante aditam hereditatem servum hereditarium meum esse respondeam, teneor, quia domini loco habetur hereditas.

If, before the inheritance has been entered upon, I answer that a hereditary slave is mine, I am liable, because the inheritance is held in the place of an owner.

Dig. 11.1.15.1

Digest 11.1.15.1

Pomponius 18 ad sab.

Pomponius 18 on Sabinus.

Mortuo servo, quem in iure interrogatus suum esse confessus sit, non tenetur is qui respondit, quemadmodum, si proprius eius fuisset, post mortem eius non teneretur.

With the slave dead, he who responded—who, when questioned before the court, had confessed him to be his own—is not held liable, just as, if he had been his proper (own) slave, he would not be held after his death.

Dig. 11.1.16pr.

Digest 11.1.16pr.

Ulpianus 37 ad ed.

Ulpian 37 on the edict.

Si servus ab hostibus captus sit, de quo quis in iure interrogatus responderit in sua potestate esse, quamvis iura postliminiorum possint efficere dubitare nos, adtamen non puto locum esse noxali actioni, quia non est in nostra potestate.

If a slave has been captured by enemies, about whom someone, when asked in court, has answered that he is in his own power, although the rights of postliminy could make us hesitate, nevertheless I do not think there is room for a noxal action, because he is not in our power.

Dig. 11.1.16.1

Digest 11.1.16.1

Ulpianus 37 ad ed.

Ulpian 37 on the Edict.

Quamquam autem placet etiam eum teneri, qui alienum servum suum fassus esset, adtamen rectissime placuit eum demum teneri, qui suum potuit habere, ceterum, si dominium quaerere non potuit, non teneri.

Although, moreover, it is held that even he is bound who has confessed another’s slave as his own, nevertheless it has been most rightly settled that only he is bound who could have had him as his own; but if he could not seek dominion (ownership), he is not bound.

Dig. 11.1.17

Digest 11.1.17

Ulpianus 38 ad ed.

Ulpian, 38 On the Edict.

Si servus non sit unius, sed plurium et omnes mentiti sunt eum in sua potestate non esse vel quidam ex illis, aut dolo fecerunt quo minus sit in potestate, unusquisque illorum tenebitur in solidum, quemadmodum tenerentur, si haberent in potestate: is vero, qui nihil dolo fecerit quo minus in potestate haberet, vel non negavit, non tenebitur.

If a slave belongs not to one but to several, and all of them lied that he was not in their power—or certain of them did so—or they acted by fraud so that he was not in their power, each one of them shall be held in solidum, just as they would be held if they had him in their power; but the one who did nothing by fraud to prevent having him in his power, or did not deny it, shall not be held.

Dig. 11.1.18

Digest 11.1.18

Iulianus 4 ad urs. ferocem.

Julianus 4 on Urseius Ferox.

Qui ex parte dimidia heres erat cum absentem coheredem suum defendere vellet, ut satisdationis onus evitare possit, respondit se solum heredem esse et condemnatus est: quaerebat actor, cum ipse solvendo non esset, an rescisso superiore iudicio in eum, qui re vera heres erat, actio dari deberet. proculus respondit rescisso iudicio posse agi, idque est verum.

He who was heir as to a half share, when he wished to defend his absent coheir so that he might avoid the burden of giving surety, answered that he was the sole heir and was condemned. The plaintiff was asking, since he himself was not solvent, whether, the prior judgment having been rescinded, an action ought to be granted against him who was in truth the heir. Proculus answered that, the judgment rescinded, suit can be brought, and that is true.

Dig. 11.1.19

Digest 11.1.19

Papinianus 8 quaest.

Papinianus 8 questions.

Si filius, cum pro patre suo ageret, taceat interrogatus, omnia perinde observanda erunt, ac si non esset interrogatus.

If a son, when he was acting on behalf of his father, keeps silent when interrogated, all things will have to be observed in the same way as if he had not been interrogated.

Dig. 11.1.20pr.

Digest 11.1.20pr.

Paulus 2 quaest.

Paulus 2 Questions.

Qui servum alienum responderit suum esse, si noxali iudicio conventus sit, dominum liberat: aliter atque si quis confessus sit se occidisse servum quem alius occidit, vel si quis responderit se heredem: nam his casibus non liberatur qui fecit vel qui heres est. nec haec inter se contraria sunt: nam superiore casu ex persona servi duo tenentur, sicut in servo communi dicimus, ubi altero convento alter quoque liberatur: at is qui confitetur se occidisse vel vulnerasse suo nomine tenetur, nec debet impunitum esse delictum eius qui fecit propter eum qui respondit: nisi quasi defensor eius qui admisit vel heredis litem subiit hoc genere: tunc enim in factum exceptione data summovendus est actor, quia ille negotiorum gestorum vel mandati actione recepturus est quod praestitit: idem est in eo, qui mandatu heredis heredem se esse respondit vel cum eum alias defendere vellet.

One who has answered that another’s slave is his own, if he is sued by a noxal judgment, frees the owner: otherwise than if someone has confessed that he killed a slave whom another in fact killed, or if someone has answered that he is the heir; for in these cases he who did the deed or who is the heir is not freed. Nor are these things mutually contrary: for in the former case, from the person of the slave two are held liable, just as we say in the case of a common slave, where, when one is sued, the other also is released; but he who confesses that he killed or wounded is held in his own name, and the delict of the one who did it ought not to go unpunished on account of the one who answered—unless he, as a defender of the one who committed it or of the heir, undertook the suit in this way: for then, with an exception in factum given, the plaintiff must be repelled, because by an action of negotiorum gestorum or of mandate he will recover what he has paid. The same holds for one who, at the mandate of the heir, answered that he was the heir, or when he otherwise wished to defend him.

Dig. 11.1.20.1

Digest 11.1.20.1

Paulus 2 quaest.

Paul 2 questions.

In iure interrogatus, an fundum possideat, quaero an respondere cogendus sit et quota ex parte fundum possideat. respondi: iavolenus scribit possessorem fundi cogi debere respondere, quota ex parte fundum possideat, ut si minore ex parte possidere se dicat, in aliam partem, quae non defenderetur, in possessionem actor mittatur.

questioned in court whether he possesses the estate, I ask whether he is to be compelled to answer and what share of the estate he possesses. I answered: Iavolenus writes that the possessor of the estate ought to be compelled to answer what share of the estate he possesses, so that, if he says he possesses a smaller share, into the other part, which would not be defended, the plaintiff (actor) may be sent into possession.

Dig. 11.1.20.2

Digest 11.1.20.2

Paulus 2 quaest.

Paulus 2 Questions.

Idem et si damni infecti caveamus: nam et hic respondere debet, quota ex parte eius sit praedium, ut ad eam partem stipulationem accomodemus: poena autem non repromittentis haec est, ut in possessionem eamus, et ideo eo pertinet scire an possideat.

The same likewise if we take security for damage not yet done: for here too he ought to respond what fraction of the estate is his, so that we may accommodate the stipulation to that part; but the penalty for one who does not repromise is this, that we go into possession, and therefore it pertains to know whether he is in possession.

Dig. 11.1.21

Digest 11.1.21

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian 22 on the Edict.

Ubicumque iudicem aequitas moverit, aeque oportere fieri interrogationem dubium non est.

Wherever equity may move the judge, there is no doubt that the interrogation ought likewise to be made.

Dig. 11.1.22

Digest 11.1.22

Scaevola 4 Dig.

Scaevola 4 Digest.

Procuratore caesaris ob debitum fiscale interrogante unus ex filiis, qui nec bonorum possessionem acceperat nec heres erat, respondit se heredem esse: an quasi interrogatoria creditoribus ceteris teneatur? respondit ab his, qui in iure non interrogassent, ex responso suo conveniri non posse.

When the procurator of the Caesar, on account of a fiscal debt, was questioning, one of the sons—who had neither accepted the possession of the goods nor was heir—answered that he was heir. Is he held, as if by interrogatories, to the other creditors? He responded that by those who had not questioned him in court (in iure), he could not be proceeded against on the basis of his answer.

Dig. 11.2.0. De quibus rebus ad eundem iudicem eatur.

Dig. 11.2.0. On which matters one should go to the same judge.

Dig. 11.2.1

Digest 11.2.1

Pomponius 13 ad sab.

Pomponius, 13 on Sabinus.

Si inter plures familiae erciscundae agetur et inter eosdem communi dividundo aut finium regundorum, eundem iudicem sumendum: praeterea, quo facilius coire coheredes vel socii possunt, in eundem locum omnium praesentiam fieri oportet.

If among several there is an action for partition of an inheritance, and among the same persons for division of common property or for regulating boundaries, the same judge must be appointed; moreover, in order that the coheirs or partners may more easily come together, all are to be convened in the same place.

Dig. 11.2.2

Digest 11.2.2

Papinianus 2 quaest.

Papinian book 2 of Questions.

Cum ex pluribus tutoribus unus, quod ceteri non sint idonei, convenitur, postulante eo omnes ad eundem iudicem mittuntur: et hoc rescriptis principum continetur.

When, out of several tutors, one is sued on the ground that the others are not suitable, upon his request all are sent to the same judge; and this is contained in the rescripts of the emperors.

Dig. 11.3.0. De servo corrupto.

Digest 11.3.0. On the corrupted slave.

Dig. 11.3.1pr.

Digest 11.3.1, preface.

Ulpianus 23 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 23 on the Edict.

Ait praetor: " qui servum servam alienum alienam recepisse persuasisseve quid ei dicetur dolo malo, quo eum eam deteriorem faceret, in eum quanti ea res erit in duplum iudicium dabo. "

The praetor says: " whoever shall be said to have received another’s male or female slave, or to have persuaded him/her, or to have said anything to him/her with fraudulent intent, with a view to making him/her worse, against him I will grant an action for double the amount of what that matter will be worth. "

Dig. 11.3.1.1

Digest 11.3.1.1

Ulpianus 23 ad ed.

Ulpian 23 on the Edict.

Qui bona fide servum emit, hoc edicto non tenebitur, quia nec ipse poterit servi corrupti agere, quia nihil eius interest servum non corrumpi: et sane, si quis hoc admiserit, eveniet, ut duobus actio servi corrupti competat, quod est absurdum. sed nec eum, cui bona fide homo liber servit, hanc actionem posse exercere opinamur.

He who buys a slave in good faith will not be held by this edict, because he himself will not be able to bring the action for a corrupted slave, since it is of no interest to him that the slave not be corrupted; and indeed, if someone were to allow this, it would come about that the action for a corrupted slave would belong to two persons, which is absurd. Nor do we think that he to whom a free man serves in good faith can exercise this action.

Dig. 11.3.1.2

Digest 11.3.1.2

Ulpianus 23 ad ed.

Ulpian 23 on the Edict.

Quod autem praetor ait " recepisse", ita accipimus, si susceperit servum alienum ad se: et est proprie recipere refugium abscondendi causa servo praestare vel in suo agro vel in alieno loco aedificiove.

But as for what the praetor says " has received", we accept it thus: if he has taken in to himself another’s slave; and properly to receive is to furnish a refuge for the purpose of hiding for the slave, either on his own land or in another’s place or building.

Dig. 11.3.1.3

Digest 11.3.1.3

Ulpianus 23 ad ed.

Ulpian 23 on the edict.

Persuadere autem est plus quam compelli atque cogi sibi parere. sed persuadere twn meswn estin, nam et bonum consilium quis dando potest suadere et malum: et ideo praetor adiecit " dolo malo, quo eum deteriorem faceret": neque enim delinquit, nisi qui tale aliquid servo persuadet, ex quo eum faciat deteriorem. qui igitur servum sollicitat ad aliquid vel faciendum vel cogitandum improbe, hic videtur hoc edicto notari.

To persuade, moreover, is more than to compel and to coerce someone to obey oneself. But to persuade is among the things in between, for by giving counsel one can urge both good and bad; and therefore the praetor added " by malicious fraud, whereby he might make him worse": for indeed no one commits a delict, except the one who persuades a slave to such a thing from which he makes him worse. Therefore, he who solicits a slave to something, either to do or to contrive something basely, seems by this edict to be marked.

Dig. 11.3.1.4

Digest 11.3.1.4

Ulpianus 23 ad ed.

Ulpian, 23 on the Edict.

Sed utrum ita demum tenetur, si bonae frugi servum perpulit ad delinquendum, an vero et si malum hortatus est vel malo monstravit, quemadmodum faceret? et est verius etiam si malo monstravit, in quem modum delinqueret, teneri eum. immo et si erat servus omnimodo fugiturus vel furtum facturus, hic vero laudator huius propositi extitit, tenetur: non enim oportet laudando augeri malitiam.

But is he held liable only if he drove a slave of good character to commit a delinquency, or even if he urged a bad one, or showed to a bad one how he should do it? And it is more correct that even if he showed to a bad slave in what manner he was to offend, he is held. Nay rather, even if the slave was in any case going to run away or to commit theft, and this man appeared as the praiser of this plan, he is liable: for it is not proper that malice be increased by praising.

sive ergo bonum servum fecerit malum sive malum fecerit deteriorem, corrupisse videbitur.

therefore whether he has made a good slave bad or has made a bad one worse, he will be considered to have corrupted him.

Dig. 11.3.1.5

Digest 11.3.1.5

Ulpianus 23 ad ed.

Ulpian 23 On the Edict.

Is quoque deteriorem facit, qui servo persuadet, ut iniuriam faceret vel furtum vel fugeret vel alienum servum ut sollicitaret vel ut peculium intricaret, aut amator existeret vel erro vel malis artibus esset deditus vel in spectaculis nimius vel seditiosus: vel si actori suasit verbis sive pretio, ut rationes dominicas intercideret adulteraret vel etiam ut rationem sibi commissam turbaret:

He too makes him worse who persuades a slave to commit an injury or a theft or to flee, or to solicit another’s slave, or to entangle his peculium; or to become a lover, or a vagrant, or to be given over to evil arts, or excessive in spectacles, or seditious: or if he persuaded the steward by words or by a price (a bribe), to cut off the master’s accounts, to adulterate them, or even to disturb the account entrusted to himself:

Dig. 11.3.2

Digest 11.3.2

Paulus 19 ad ed.

Paulus 19 on the Edict.

Vel luxuriosum vel contumacem fecit: quive ut stuprum pateretur persuadet.

Or he has made him profligate or contumacious; or whoever persuades him to suffer sexual defilement.

Dig. 11.3.3pr.

Digest 11.3.3, preface.

Ulpianus 23 ad ed.

Ulpian, 23 on the Edict.

Dolo malo adiecto calliditatem notat praetor eius qui persuadet: ceterum si quis sine dolo deteriorem fecerit, non notatur, et si lusus gratia fecit, non tenetur.

With “malicious fraud” added, the praetor notes the craftiness of the one who persuades; but if someone has made another worse off without fraud, he is not noted, and if he did it for the sake of play, he is not held liable.

Dig. 11.3.3.1

Digest 11.3.3.1

Ulpianus 23 ad ed.

Ulpian, 23 on the Edict.

Unde quaeritur, si quis servo alieno suaserit in tectum ascendere vel in puteum descendere et ille parens ascenderit vel descenderit et ceciderit crusque vel quid aliud fregerit vel perierit, an teneatur: et si quidem sine dolo malo fecerit, non tenetur, si dolo malo, tenebitur.

Whence the question is asked, if someone should advise another’s slave to ascend onto the roof or to descend into a well, and he, obeying, ascended or descended and fell and broke his leg or something else, or perished, whether he is to be held liable: and if indeed he did it without malicious deceit (dolus malus), he is not liable; if with malicious deceit, he will be liable.

Dig. 11.3.4

Digest 11.3.4

Paulus 19 ad ed.

Paulus 19 on the edict.

Sed commodius est utili lege aquilia eum teneri.

But it is more expedient that he be held liable under the useful Aquilian Law.

Dig. 11.3.5pr.

Digest 11.3.5, beginning.

Ulpianus 23 ad ed.

Ulpian, 23 on the edict.

Doli verbum etiam ad eum qui recepit referendum est, ut non alius teneatur, nisi qui dolo malo recepit: ceterum si quis, ut domino custodiret, recepit vel humanitate vel misericordia ductus vel alia probata atque iusta ratione, non tenebitur.

The term of deceit is also to be referred to the one who received, so that no one else is held liable, except the one who received with malicious deceit; but if someone received, in order to guard it for the owner, moved by humanity or mercy or by another approved and just reason, he will not be held liable.

Dig. 11.3.5.1

Digest 11.3.5.1

Ulpianus 23 ad ed.

Ulpian 23 on the edict.

Si quis dolo malo persuaserit quid servo quem liberum putabat, mihi videtur teneri eum oportere: maius enim delinquit, qui liberum putans corrumpit: et ideo, si servus fuerit, tenebitur.

If someone by malicious deceit should have persuaded something to a slave whom he supposed to be free, it seems to me he ought to be held liable; for he commits a greater delinquency who, thinking him free, corrupts him; and therefore, if he turns out to have been a slave, he will be held liable.

Dig. 11.3.5.2

Digest 11.3.5.2

Ulpianus 23 ad ed.

Ulpian 23 on the Edict.

Haec actio etiam adversus fatentem in duplum est, quamvis aquilia infitiantem dumtaxat coerceat.

This action is also in double against one who confesses, although the Aquilian action coerces only one who denies.

Dig. 11.3.5.3

Digest 11.3.5.3

Ulpianus 23 ad ed.

Ulpian 23 on the Edict.

Si servus servave fecisse dicetur, iudicium cum noxae deditione redditur.

If a male slave or a female slave is said to have done it, the action is granted with noxal surrender.

Dig. 11.3.5.4

Digest 11.3.5.4

Ulpianus 23 ad ed.

Ulpian, 23 on the Edict.

Haec actio refertur ad tempus servi corrupti vel recepti, non ad praesens, et ideo et si decesserit vel alienatus sit vel manumissus, nihilo minus locum habebit actio, nec extinguitur manumissione semel nata actio:

This action is referred to the time when the slave was corrupted or received, not to the present; and therefore even if he has died or has been alienated or manumitted, nonetheless the action will have place, nor is an action once arisen extinguished by manumission.

Dig. 11.3.6

Digest 11.3.6

Paulus 19 ad ed.

Paulus 19 on the edict.

Praeteritae enim utilitatis aestimatio in hoc iudicium versatur:

For the estimation of past utility is at issue in this judgment:

Dig. 11.3.7

Digest 11.3.7

Ulpianus 23 ad ed.

Ulpian 23 on the Edict.

Nam et mali servi forsitan consequuntur libertatem et posterior causa interdum tribuit manumissionis iustam rationem.

For even bad slaves perhaps attain liberty, and a subsequent cause sometimes grants a just reason for manumission.

Dig. 11.3.8

Digest 11.3.8

Paulus 19 ad ed.

Paulus 19 to the Edict.

Sed et heres eius, cuius servus corruptus est, habet hanc actionem, non solum si manserit in hereditate servus, sed et si exierit, forte legatus.

But also the heir of the one whose slave has been corrupted has this action, not only if the slave has remained in the inheritance, but also if he has gone out, say by legacy.

Dig. 11.3.9pr.

Digest 11.3.9pr.

Ulpianus 23 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 23 on the Edict.

Si quis servum communem meum et suum corruperit, apud iulianum libro nono digestorum quaeritur, an hac actione teneri possit, et ait teneri eum socio: praeterea poterit et communi dividundo et pro socio, si socii sint, teneri, ut iulianus ait. sed cur deteriorem facit iulianus condicionem socii, si cum socio agat, quam si cum extraneo agit? nam qui cum extraneo agit, sive recepit sive corruperit agere potest, qui cum socio, sine alternatione, id est si corrupit.

If someone has corrupted a slave common to me and to himself, it is inquired in Julianus, in the ninth book of the Digest, whether he can be held by this action; and he says that he is held to his partner. Moreover, he can also be held by communi dividundo and by pro socio, if they are partners, as Julianus says. But why does Julianus make the partner’s position worse if he brings suit against a partner than if he brings suit against a stranger? For he who proceeds against a stranger can sue whether he received or corrupted; he who proceeds against a partner, without the alternative—that is, only if he corrupted.

nisi forte non putavit iulianus hoc cadere in socium: nemo enim suum recipit. sed si celandi animo recepit, potest defendi teneri eum.

unless perhaps Julian thought this does not fall upon a partner: for no one recovers what is his own. But if he received it with an intent to conceal, it can be defended that he is liable.

Dig. 11.3.9.1

Digest 11.3.9.1

Ulpianus 23 ad ed.

Ulpian 23 on the Edict.

Si in servo ego habeam usum fructum, tu proprietatem, si quidem a me sit deterior factus, poteris mecum experiri, si tu id feceris, ego agere utili actione possum; ad omnes enim corruptelas haec actio pertinet et interesse fructuarii videtur bonae frugi servum esse, in quo usum fructum habet. et si forte alius eum receperit vel corruperit, utilis actio fructuario competit.

If I have a usufruct in a slave and you the ownership, then if he has been made the worse by me, you can sue me; if you have done that, I can proceed by a useful action. For this action pertains to all corruptions, and it appears to be in the interest of the usufructuary that the slave, in whom he has the usufruct, be of good thrift and character. And if perchance someone else has harbored or corrupted him, a useful action lies for the usufructuary.

Dig. 11.3.9.2

Digest 11.3.9.2

Ulpianus 23 ad ed.

Ulpian, 23 on the Edict.

Datur autem actio quanti ea res erit eius dupli.

But an action is granted for twice whatever the value of the thing will be.

Dig. 11.3.9.3

Digest 11.3.9.3

Ulpianus 23 ad ed.

Ulpian 23 on the Edict.

Sed quaestionis est, aestimatio utrum eius dumtaxat fieri debeat, quod servus in corpore vel in animo damni senserit, hoc est quanto vilior servus factus sit, an vero et ceterorum. et neratius ait tanti condemnandum corruptorem, quanti servus ob id, quod subpertus sit, minoris sit.

But it is a matter of question whether the estimation ought to be made only of that damage which the slave has sensed in body or in mind, that is, by how much the slave has been made cheaper, or indeed also of the rest. And neratius says that the corrupter is to be condemned for as much as the slave, on account of his having been tampered with, is worth less.

Dig. 11.3.10

Digest 11.3.10

Paulus 19 ad ed.

Paulus 19 on the Edict.

In hoc iudicium etiam rerum aestimatio venit, quas secum servus abstulit, quia omne damnum duplatur, neque intererit, ad eum perlatae fuerint res an ad alium sive etiam consumptae sint: etenim iustius est eum teneri, qui princeps fuerit delicti, quam eum quaeri, ad quem res perlatae sunt.

In this judgment there also comes the valuation of the things which the slave carried off with him, because all damage is doubled, nor will it matter whether the things have been conveyed to him or to another, or even have been consumed: for indeed it is more just that he be held liable who was the principal of the delict, than that search be made for him to whom the things were conveyed.

Dig. 11.3.11pr.

Digest 11.3.11 pr.

Ulpianus 23 ad ed.

Ulpian, 23 on the Edict.

Neratius ait postea furta facta in aestimationem non venire. quam sententiam veram puto: nam et verba edicti " quanti ea res erit" omne detrimentum recipiunt.

Neratius says that thefts committed afterward do not come into the estimation. I think that opinion true: for even the words of the edict, " quanti ea res erit," receive all detriment.

Dig. 11.3.11.1

Digest 11.3.11.1

Ulpianus 23 ad ed.

Ulpian, 23 on the Edict.

Servo persuasi, ut chirografa debitorum corrumpat: videlicet tenebor. sed si consuetudine peccandi postea et rationes ceteraque similia instrumenta subtraxerit vel interleverit deleverit, dicendum erit corruptorem horum nomine non teneri.

I persuaded a slave to corrupt the chirographs of debtors: obviously I will be held. But if, from a habit of offending thereafter, he also removed the accounts and other similar instruments, or interlined or erased them, it must be said that the corrupter is not held on account of these.

Dig. 11.3.11.2

Digest 11.3.11.2

Ulpianus 23 ad ed.

Ulpian, 23 on the Edict.

Quamvis autem rerum subtractarum nomine servi corrupti competat actio, tamen et furti agere possumus, ope enim consilio sollicitatoris videntur res abesse: nec sufficiet alterutra actione egisse, quia altera alteram non minuit. idem et in eo, qui servum recepit et celavit et deteriorem fecit, iulianus scribit: sunt enim diversa maleficia furis et eius qui deteriorem servum facit: hoc amplius et condictionis nomine tenebitur. quamvis enim condictione hominem, poenam autem furti actione consecutus sit, tamen et quod interest debebit consequi actione servi corrupti,

Although, moreover, under the title of things subtracted an action for a corrupted slave lies, nevertheless we can also proceed by theft; for by the aid and counsel of the solicitor/enticer the things appear to be absent: nor will it suffice to have proceeded by either action, because the one does not diminish the other. Julian writes the same also in the case of one who received a slave and concealed him and made him worse: for the malefactions of a thief and of him who makes a slave worse are different: besides this, he will also be held under the name of condiction. For although by condiction he has obtained the man, and by the action of theft the penalty, nevertheless he ought also to obtain what is of interest (the damages) by the action for a corrupted slave,

Dig. 11.3.12

Digest 11.3.12

Paulus 19 ad ed.

Paulus 19 on the Edict.

Quia manet reus obligatus etiam rebus redditis.

Because the defendant remains obligated even with the things returned.

Dig. 11.3.13pr.

Digest 11.3.13, beginning.

Ulpianus 23 ad ed.

Ulpian, 23 on the Edict.

Haec actio perpetua est, non temporaria: et heredi ceterisque successoribus competit, in heredem non dabitur, quia poenalis est.

This action is perpetual, not temporary; and it belongs to the heir and to the other successors; it will not be granted against the heir, because it is penal.

Dig. 11.3.13.1

Digest 11.3.13.1

Ulpianus 23 ad ed.

Ulpian 23 on the Edict.

Sed et si quis servum hereditarium corruperit, hac actione tenebitur: sed et petitione hereditatis quasi praedo tenebitur,

But also, if anyone has corrupted a slave of the inheritance, he will be held liable under this action; and he will also be held by the petition of the inheritance as if a brigand,

Dig. 11.3.14pr.

Digest 11.3.14 preface.

Paulus 19 ad ed.

Paul 19 on the edict.

Ut tantum veniat in hereditatis petitionem quantum in hanc actionem.

That only as much come into the petition of inheritance as into this action.

Dig. 11.3.14.1

Digest 11.3.14.1

Paulus 19 ad ed.

Paulus book 19 on the Edict.

De filio filiave familias corruptis huic edicto locus non est, quia servi corrupti constituta actio est, qui in patrimonio nostro esset, et pauperiorem se factum esse dominus probare potest dignitate et fama domus integra manente: sed utilis competit officio iudicis aestimanda, quoniam interest nostra animum liberorum nostrorum non corrumpi.

As to a son or daughter under family power having been corrupted, this edict has no place, because for a corrupted slave there is an established action, since he would be in our patrimony, and the master can prove that he has been made poorer, the dignity and fame of the house remaining intact; but a useful action lies, to be assessed according to the office of the judge, since it is our interest that the minds of our children not be corrupted.

Dig. 11.3.14.2

Digest 11.3.14.2

Paulus 19 ad ed.

Paulus 19 on the Edict.

Si servus communis meus et tuus proprium meum servum corruperit, sabinus non posse agi cum socio, perinde atque si proprius meus servus corrupisset conservum. item si servus communis extraneum corruperit, videndum est, utrum cum duobus agi debeat an et cum singulis exemplo ceterarum noxarum: et magis est, ut unusquisque in solidum teneatur, altero autem solvente alterum liberari.

If a slave held in common by me and you has corrupted my own slave, Sabinus says that it is not possible to proceed by the action against a partner, just as if my own slave had corrupted a fellow‑slave. Likewise, if the common slave has corrupted an outsider, it must be considered whether suit ought to be brought against both, or also against each individually, on the model of the other noxal liabilities; and the sounder view is that each is liable in solidum (for the whole), but when the one pays, the other is released.

Dig. 11.3.14.3

Digest 11.3.14.3

Paulus 19 ad ed.

Paulus 19 on the edict.

Si is, in quo usum fructum habeo, servum meum corruperit, erit mihi actio cum domino proprietatis.

If the person in whom I have a usufruct has corrupted my slave, I shall have an action against the owner of the property.

Dig. 11.3.14.4

Digest 11.3.14.4

Paulus 19 ad ed.

Paulus 19 on the Edict.

Pignoris dati nomine debitor habet hanc actionem.

Under the title of a pledge given, the debtor has this action.

Dig. 11.3.14.5

Digest 11.3.14.5

Paulus 19 ad ed.

Paulus 19 on the edict.

In hac actione non extra rem duplum est: id enim quod damni datum est duplatur.

In this action the double is not over and above the thing: for that which has been given as damage is doubled.

Dig. 11.3.14.6

Digest 11.3.14.6

Paulus 19 ad ed.

Paulus 19 on the Edict.

His consequenter et illud probatur, ut si servo meo persuaseris, ut titio furtum faciat, non solum in id teneris, quo deterior servus effectus est, sed et in id quod titio praestaturus sim.

From these things, consequently, this too is proved: that if you persuade my slave to commit theft against Titius, you are held not only to the amount by which the slave has been made worse, but also to that which I shall be bound to render to Titius.

Dig. 11.3.14.7

Digest 11.3.14.7

Paulus 19 ad ed.

Paulus 19 on the Edict.

Item non solum si mihi damnum dederit consilio tuo, sed etiam si extraneo, eo quoque nomine mihi teneris, quod ego lege aquilia obnoxius sim: aut si ex conducto teneor alicui, quod ei servum locavi et propter te deterior factus sit, teneberis et hoc nomine, et si qua talia sint.

Likewise, not only if he has given me damage by your counsel, but even if to an outsider, you are also bound to me on that ground, because I am liable under the Aquilian law; or if I am held ex conducto to someone, because I leased him a slave and on account of you he has been made worse, you will be held on this ground too, and if there are any such things.

Dig. 11.3.14.8

Digest 11.3.14.8

Paulus 19 ad ed.

Paulus 19 on the edict.

Aestimatio autem habetur in hac actione, quanti servus utilior factus sit, quod officio iudicis expedietur:

An estimation, however, is had in this action: at how much the slave has been made more useful, which will be determined by the office of the judge:

Dig. 11.3.14.9

Digest 11.3.14.9

Paulus 19 ad ed.

Paulus 19 on the edict.

Interdum tamen et inutilis sit, ut non expediat talem servum habere. utrum ergo et pretium cogitur dare sollicitator et servum dominus lucrifacit, an vero cogi debet dominus restituere servum et pretium servi accipere? et verius est electionem domino dari, sive servum detinere cupit et damnum, quanti deterior servus factus est, in duplum accipere, vel servo restituto, si copiam huius rei habeat, pretium consequi, quod si non habeat, pretium quidem simili modo accipere, cedere autem sollicitatori periculo eius de dominio servi actionibus.

Sometimes, however, he may also be useless, so that it is not expedient to have such a slave. whether therefore the enticer is compelled to give the price and the owner makes a profit from the slave, or indeed the owner ought to be compelled to restore the slave and receive the price of the slave? and the truer view is that the choice is given to the owner, whether he wishes to detain the slave and receive in double the damage, to the amount by which the slave has been made worse, or, the slave having been restored, if he has the means for this, to obtain the price; but if he does not have it, to receive the price indeed in like manner, but to cede to the enticer the risk of him, together with the actions arising from the ownership of the slave.

quod tamen de restitutione hominis dicitur, tunc locum habet, cum homine vivo agitur. quid autem si manumisso eo agatur? non facile apud iudicem audietur dicendo ideo se manumisisse, quoniam habere noluerat domi, ut et pretium habeat et libertum.

What is said, however, about restitution of the man applies when the case concerns a living man. But what if the action is brought after he has been manumitted? He will not easily be heard before the judge by saying that he manumitted him for this reason—that he had not wished to have him at home—so that he may have both the price and the freedman.

Dig. 11.3.15

Digest 11.3.15

Gaius 6 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 6 on the Provincial Edict.

Corrumpitur animus servi et si persuadeatur ei, ut dominum contemneret.

The mind of a slave is corrupted even if he be persuaded to contemn his master.

Dig. 11.3.16

Digest 11.3.16

Alfenus 2 Dig.

Alfenus 2 Digest

Dominus servum dispensatorem manumisit, postea rationes ab eo accepit et cum eis non constaret, comperit apud quandam mulierculam pecuniam eum consumpsisse: quaerebatur, possetne agere servi corrupti cum ea muliere, cum is servus iam liber esset. respondi posse, sed etiam furti de pecuniis quas servus ad eam detulisset.

The master manumitted a slave who was a steward; afterwards he received accounts from him, and since they did not tally, he discovered that he had spent money with a certain woman. It was asked whether he could bring the action for a corrupted slave against that woman, since that slave was now free. I replied that he could, and also an action of theft regarding the monies which the slave had carried to her.

Dig. 11.3.17

Digest 11.3.17

Marcianus 4 reg.

Marcianus 4 Rules.

Servi corrupti nomine et constante matrimonio marito in mulierem datur actio, sed favore nuptiarum in simplum.

Under the head of “corrupted slave,” and with the marriage continuing, an action is given to the husband against the wife, but, out of favor for marriage, for the simple amount.

Dig. 11.4.0. De fugitivis.

Dig. 11.4.0. On fugitives.

Dig. 11.4.1pr.

Digest 11.4.1 preface.

Ulpianus 1 ad ed.

Ulpian Book 1 on the Edict.

Is qui fugitivum celavit fur est.

He who has concealed a fugitive is a thief.

Dig. 11.4.1.1

Digest 11.4.1.1

Ulpianus 1 ad ed.

Ulpian 1 on the Edict.

Senatus censuit, ne fugitivi admittantur in saltus neque protegantur a vilicis vel procuratoribus possessorum et multam statuit: his autem, qui intra viginti dies fugitivos vel dominis reddidissent vel apud magistratus exhibuissent, veniam in ante actum dedit: sed et deinceps eodem senatus consulto impunitas datur ei, qui intra praestituta tempora, quam repperit fugitivos in agro suo, domino vel magistratibus tradiderit.

The senate decreed that fugitives are not to be admitted into forest‑pastures nor protected by the stewards or procurators of landholders, and it set a fine: moreover, it granted pardon for what had been done previously to those who within twenty days had either returned the fugitives to their owners or produced them before the magistrates; but also thereafter, by that same senatorial decree, impunity is given to one who, within the prescribed time from when he discovered the fugitives on his land, shall have handed them over to the owner or to the magistrates.

Dig. 11.4.1.2

Digest 11.4.1.2

Ulpianus 1 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 1 on the Edict.

Hoc autem senatus consultum aditum etiam dedit militi vel pagano ad investigandum fugitivum in praedia senatorum vel paganorum ( cui rei etiam lex fabia prospexerat et senatus consultum modesto consule factum), ut fugitivos inquirere volentibus litterae ad magistratus dentur, multa etiam centum solidorum in magistratus statuta, si litteris acceptis inquirentes non adiuvent. sed et in eum, qui quaeri apud se prohibuit, eadem poena statuta. est etiam generalis epistula divorum marci et commodi, qua declaratur et praesides et magistratus et milites stationarios dominum adiuvare debere inquirendis fugitivis, et ut inventos redderent, et ut hi, apud quos delitescant, puniantur, si crimine contingantur.

This senatorial decree moreover gave access even to a soldier or a civilian to investigate a fugitive on the estates of senators or civilians (a matter for which the Lex Fabia had also provided, and a senatorial decree made with Modestus as consul), to the effect that letters be given to the magistrates for those wishing to inquire after fugitives, and a fine of one hundred solidi was set upon magistrates if, after receiving the letters, they do not assist the inquirers. But the same penalty is also set upon the one who has forbidden a search to be conducted at his premises. There is also a general letter of the deified Marcus and Commodus, by which it is declared that governors, magistrates, and stationarii soldiers ought to aid the master in searching for fugitives, and to return those found, and that those with whom they lie hidden are to be punished, if they are implicated by the charge.

Dig. 11.4.1.3

Digest 11.4.1.3

Ulpianus 1 ad ed.

Ulpian Book 1 on the Edict.

Unusquisque eorum, qui fugitivum adprehendit, in publicum deducere debet.

Each of those who apprehends a fugitive must bring him into the public authority.

Dig. 11.4.1.4

Digest 11.4.1.4

Ulpianus 1 ad ed.

Ulpian 1 on the edict.

Et merito monentur magistratus eos diligenter custodire, ne evadant.

And with good reason the magistrates are admonished to keep them diligently in custody, lest they escape.

Dig. 11.4.1.5

Digest 11.4.1.5

Ulpianus 1 ad ed.

Ulpian 1 on the edict.

Fugitivum accipe et si quis erro sit. fugitivi autem appellatione ex fugitiva natum non contineri labeo libro primo ad edictum scribit.

Take “fugitive” as including even one who is a wanderer; but Labeo, in the first book on the Edict, writes that under the appellation “fugitive” one born from a fugitive woman is not included.

Dig. 11.4.1.6

Digest 11.4.1.6

Ulpianus 1 ad ed.

Ulpian 1 On the Edict.

In publicum deduci intelleguntur qui magistratibus municipalibus traditi sunt vel publicis ministeriis.

Those are understood to be brought into public custody who have been delivered to municipal magistrates or to public services.

Dig. 11.4.1.7

Digest 11.4.1.7

Ulpianus 1 ad ed.

Ulpian 1 On the Edict.

Diligens custodia etiam vincire permittit.

Diligent custody even permits shackling.

Dig. 11.4.1.8

Digest 11.4.1.8

Ulpianus 1 ad ed.

Ulpian 1 on the Edict.

Tamdiu autem custodiuntur, quamdiu ad praefectum vigilum vel ad praesidem deducantur.

However, they are kept in custody for as long as until they are brought to the Prefect of the Watch or to the governor.

Dig. 11.4.1.8a

Digest 11.4.1.8a

Ulpianus 1 ad ed.

Ulpian 1 on the edict.

Eorumque nomina et notae et cuius se quis esse dicat ad magistratus deferantur, ut facilius adgnosci et percipi fugitivi possint ( notae autem verbo etiam cicatrices continentur): idem iuris est, si haec in scriptis publice vel in aedes proponas.

And their names and marks, and to whom each declares himself to belong, shall be reported to the magistrates, so that fugitives may be more easily recognized and apprehended ( notae, moreover, by the word, also include scars): the same law applies if you post these in writings publicly or in buildings.

Dig. 11.4.2

Digest 11.4.2

Callistratus 6 cogn.

Callistratus 6 on cognitors.

Fugitivi simplices dominis reddendi sunt: sed si pro libero se gesserint, gravius coerceri solent.

Simple fugitives are to be returned to their masters: but if they have conducted themselves as free persons, they are usually coerced more severely.

Dig. 11.4.3

Digest 11.4.3

Ulpianus 7 de off. procons.

Ulpian 7 on the office of the proconsul.

Divus pius rescripsit eum, qui fugitivum vult requirere in praediis alienis, posse adire praesidem litteras ei daturum et, si ita res exegerit, apparitorem quoque, ut ei permittatur ingredi et inquirere, et poenam eundem praesidem in eum constituere, qui inquiri non permiserit. sed et divus marcus oratione, quam in senatu recitavit, facultatem dedit ingrediendi tam caesaris quam senatorum et paganorum praedia volentibus fugitivos inquirere scrutarique cubilia atque vestigia occultantium.

The deified Pius wrote back in a rescript that one who wishes to seek a fugitive on another’s estates can approach the governor, who will give him letters and, if the matter so requires, an apparitor as well, so that he may be permitted to enter and inquire; and that the same governor should set a penalty upon the one who has not permitted the inquiry. But the deified Marcus also, by a speech which he recited in the senate, granted the faculty of entering the estates of Caesar, of senators, and of private persons (pagani) to those willing to search for fugitives and to scrutinize the lairs and the tracks of those concealing them.

Dig. 11.4.4

Digest 11.4.4

Paulus 1 sent.

Paul 1 Sentences.

Limenarchae et stationarii fugitivos deprehensos recte in custodiam retinent. magistratus municipales ad officium praesidis provinciae vel proconsulis comprehensos fugitivos recte transmittunt.

limenarchs and stationaries rightly retain apprehended fugitives in custody. municipal magistrates rightly transmit the apprehended fugitives to the office of the governor of the province or the proconsul.

Dig. 11.4.5

Digest 11.4.5

Tryphonus 1 disp.

Tryphonus 1 disputations.

Si in harenam fugitivus servus se dederit, ne isto quidem periculo, discriminis vitae tantum, sibi irrogato potestatem domini evitare poterit: nam divus pius rescripsit omnimodo eos dominis suis reddere sive ante pugnam ad bestias sive post pugnam, quoniam interdum aut pecunia interversa aut commisso aliquo maiore maleficio ad fugiendam inquisitionem vel iustitiam animadversionis in harenam se dare mallent. reddi ergo eos oportet.

If a fugitive slave has given himself into the arena, not even by this danger—only a peril of life—self‑inflicted, will he be able to evade the power of the master: for the deified Pius issued a rescript that in every way they are to be returned to their masters, whether before the bout with the beasts or after the bout, since sometimes, either with money misappropriated or with some greater malefaction committed, to avoid inquisition or the justice of animadversion they would prefer to give themselves to the arena. Therefore they ought to be returned.

Dig. 11.5.0. De aleatoribus.

Digest 11.5.0. On dice-players.

Dig. 11.5.1pr.

Digest 11.5.1, preface.

Ulpianus 23 ad ed.

Ulpian, 23 on the Edict.

Praetor ait: " si quis eum, apud quem alea lusum esse dicetur, verberaverit damnumve ei dederit sive quid eo tempore dolo eius subtractum est, iudicium non dabo. in eum, qui aleae ludendae causa vim intulerit, uti quaeque res erit, animadvertam. "

The praetor says: " if anyone shall have beaten the one at whose place it will be said that dice were played, or has inflicted loss upon him, or if anything at that time was removed by his fraud, I will not grant an action. against the one who, for the sake of playing at dice, has employed force, as the matter shall be, I will take punitive notice. "

Dig. 11.5.1.1

Digest 11.5.1.1

Ulpianus 23 ad ed.

Ulpian, 23 on the Edict.

Si rapinas fecerint inter se collusores, vi bonorum raptorum non denegabitur actio: susceptorem enim dumtaxat prohibuit vindicari, non et collusores, quamvis et hi indigni videantur.

If colluders have committed depredations among themselves, the action for goods seized by force will not be denied: for he forbade only that the receiver be proceeded against, not also the colluders, although they too may seem unworthy.

Dig. 11.5.1.2

Digest 11.5.1.2

Ulpianus 23 ad ed.

Ulpian book 23 on the Edict.

Item notandum, quod susceptorem verberatum quidem et damnum passum ubicumque et quandocumque non vindicat: verum furtum factum domi et eo tempore quo alea ludebatur, licet lusor non fuerit qui quid eorum fecerit, impune fit. domum autem pro habitatione et domicilio nos accipere debere certum est.

Likewise it is to be noted, that it does not vindicate the stakeholder who has been beaten and has suffered damage, wherever and whenever; but a theft committed at home and at the time when dice were being played, although it was not a player who did any of those things, is done with impunity. And as to “home,” it is certain that we ought to take it as habitation and domicile.

Dig. 11.5.1.3

Digest 11.5.1.3

Ulpianus 23 ad ed.

Ulpian, 23 on the Edict.

Quod autem praetor negat se furti actionem daturum, videamus utrum ad poenalem actionem solam pertineat an et si ad exhibendum velit agere vel vindicare vel condicere. et est relatum apud pomponium solummodo poenalem actionem denegatam, quod non puto verum: praetor enim simpliciter ait " si quid subtractum erit, iudicium non dabo. "

But as to the praetor’s saying that he will not grant the action for theft, let us see whether this pertains only to the penal action, or also if one should wish to proceed for production (ad exhibendum) or to vindicate or to bring a condiction. And it is reported by Pomponius that only the penal action was denied, which I do not think true: for the praetor simply says, " si quid subtracted will be, i will not give an action. "

Dig. 11.5.1.4

Digest 11.5.1.4

Ulpianus 23 ad ed.

Ulpian book 23 on the Edict.

" in eum", inquit, " qui aleae ludendae causa vim intulerit, uti quaeque res erit, animadvertam. " haec clausula pertinet ad animadversionem eius qui compulit ludere, ut aut multa multetur aut in lautumias vel in vincula publica ducatur:

" against him," he says, " who has used force for the sake of playing at dice, as the case may be, I will animadvert. " this clause pertains to the animadversion of the one who compelled another to play, so that either he be mulcted with a fine or be led to the quarries or into the public prison:

Dig. 11.5.2pr.

Digest 11.5.2pr.

Paulus 19 ad ed.

Paulus 19 on the Edict.

Solent enim quidam et cogere ad lusum vel ab initio vel victi dum retinent.

For certain persons are accustomed also to coerce to the game, either from the beginning, or, when vanquished, while they retain them.

Dig. 11.5.2.1

Digest 11.5.2.1

Paulus 19 ad ed.

Paulus 19 On the Edict.

Senatus consultum vetuit in pecuniam ludere, praeterquam si quis certet hasta vel pilo iaciendo vel currendo saliendo luctando pugnando quod virtutis causa fiat:

A senatorial decree forbade playing for money, except if someone competes by casting a spear or javelin, or by running, leaping, wrestling, fighting, which is done for the sake of virtue:

Dig. 11.5.3

Digest 11.5.3

Marcianus 5 reg.

Marcianus Book 5 of the Rules.

In quibus rebus ex lege titia et publicia et cornelia etiam sponsionem facere licet: sed ex aliis, ubi pro virtute certamen non fit, non licet.

In which matters, under the titia and publicia and cornelia law, even to make a sponsion is permitted; but in other matters, where a contest for valor is not held, it is not permitted.

Dig. 11.5.4pr.

Digest 11.5.4, beginning.

Paulus 19 ad ed.

Paulus 19 on the Edict.

Quod in convivio vescendi causa ponitur, in eam rem familia ludere permittitur.

What is set out at a banquet for the purpose of eating, the household is permitted to play for.

Dig. 11.5.4.1

Digest 11.5.4.1

Paulus 19 ad ed.

Paulus 19 on the Edict.

Si servus vel filius familias victus fuerit, patri vel domino competit repetitio. item si servus acceperit pecuniam, dabitur in dominum de peculio actio, non noxalis, quia ex negotio gesto agitur: sed non amplius cogendus est praestare, quam id quod ex ea re in peculio sit.

If a slave or a son of the household has been defeated, repetition is available to the father or to the master. Likewise, if a slave has received money, an action de peculio will be given against the master, not a noxal one, because the case is proceeded with ex negotio gesto; but he is not compelled to make good more than that which, from that matter, is in the peculium.

Dig. 11.5.4.2

Digest 11.5.4.2

Paulus 19 ad ed.

Paulus 19 on the Edict.

Adversus parentes et patronos repetitio eius quod in alea lusum est utilis ex hoc edicto danda est.

Against parents and patrons, a useful action for recovery of that which was played at dice is to be granted under this edict.

Dig. 11.6.0. Si mensor falsum modum dixerit.

Digest 11.6.0. If a surveyor has declared a false measure.

Dig. 11.6.1pr.

Digest 11.6.1 proem.

Ulpianus 24 ad ed.

Ulpian 24 on the Edict.

Adversus mensorem agrorum praetor in factum actionem proposuit. a quo falli nos non oportet: nam interest nostra, ne fallamur in modi renuntiatione, si forte vel de finibus contentio sit vel emptor scire velit vel venditor, cuius modi ager veneat. ideo autem hanc actionem proposuit, quia non crediderunt veteres inter talem personam locationem et conductionem esse, sed magis operam beneficii loco praeberi et id quod datur ei, ad remunerandum dari et inde honorarium appellari: si autem ex locato conducto fuerit actum, dicendum erit nec tenere intentionem.

Against the land surveyor the praetor has proposed an action in factum. We ought not to be deceived by him: for it is in our interest not to be deceived in the reporting of the measures, if by chance there is either a dispute about boundaries or a buyer wishes to know, or a seller, at what measure a field is being sold. He has proposed this action for this reason, because the ancients did not believe that between such a person and the other party there was a locatio conductio, but rather that the service was furnished in the nature of a beneficium, and that what is given to him is given to remunerate him and is therefore called an honorarium: but if action has been brought ex locato conducto, it must be said that the intentio does not hold.

Dig. 11.6.1.1

Digest 11.6.1.1

Ulpianus 24 ad ed.

Ulpian, 24 on the Edict.

Haec actio dolum malum dumtaxat exigit: visum est enim satis abundeque coerceri mensorem, si dolus malus solus conveniatur eius hominis, qui civiliter obligatus non est. proinde si imperite versatus est, sibi imputare debet qui eum adhibuit: sed et si neglegenter, aeque mensor securus erit: lata culpa plane dolo comparabitur. sed et si mercedem accepit, non omnem culpam eum praestare propter verba edicti: utique enim scit praetor et mercede eos intervenire.

This action exacts only malicious fraud: for it seemed that the measurer was sufficiently and abundantly coerced if malicious fraud alone were the ground on which that man is proceeded against who is not civilly obligated. Accordingly, if he has conducted himself unskillfully, he who employed him ought to impute it to himself; but even if negligently, the measurer likewise will be secure: gross fault, clearly, will be equated with fraud. And even if he has received a fee, he does not answer for every fault on account of the terms of the edict: for of course the praetor knows that they intervene also for pay.

Dig. 11.6.1.2

Digest 11.6.1.2

Ulpianus 24 ad ed.

Ulpian, 24 on the Edict.

Is autem tenetur hac actione qui renuntiavit: sed renuntiasse et eum accipere debemus, qui per alium renuntiavit.

But he is bound by this action who has renounced; and we ought also to regard as having renounced him who renounced through another.

Dig. 11.6.2pr.

Digest 11.6.2, preface.

Paulus 25 ad ed.

Paulus 25 on the Edict.

Vel per litteras.

Or by letters.

Dig. 11.6.2.1

Digest 11.6.2.1

Paulus 25 ad ed.

Paulus 25 on the edict.

Sed si ego tibi, cum esses mensor, mandaverim, ut mensuram agri ageres et tu id titio delegaveris et ille dolo malo quid in ea re fecerit, tu teneberis, quia dolo malo versatus es, qui tali homini credidisti.

But if I, when you were a surveyor, have given you a mandate to carry out the measurement of a field, and you have delegated it to Titius, and he has done anything in that matter with malicious fraud, you will be held liable, because you have dealt with malicious fraud, in that you trusted such a man.

Dig. 11.6.3pr.

Digest 11.6.3, at the beginning.

Ulpianus 24 ad ed.

Ulpian, 24 on the Edict.

Si duobus mandavero et ambo dolose fecerint, adversus singulos in solidum agi poterit, sed altero convento, si satisfecerit, in alterum actionem denegari oportebit.

If I have given a mandate to two and both have acted fraudulently, it will be possible to proceed against each individually for the whole (in solidum); but once one has been sued, if he has satisfied it, the action ought to be denied against the other.

Dig. 11.6.3.1

Digest 11.6.3.1

Ulpianus 24 ad ed.

Ulpian 24 on the Edict.

Competit autem haec actio ei, cuius interfuit falsum modum renuntiatum non esse, hoc est vel emptori vel venditori, cui renuntiatio offuit.

However, this action is competent to him whose interest it was that a false measure not be announced, that is, either to the buyer or to the seller, to whom the announcement was detrimental.

Dig. 11.6.3.2

Digest 11.6.3.2

Ulpianus 24 ad ed.

Ulpian, 24 on the Edict.

Pomponius tamen scribit, si emptor plus dederit venditori propter renuntiationem, quia condicere potest quod plus dedit, agi cum mensore non posse: nihil enim emptoris interesse, cum possit condicere: nisi solvendo venditor non fuit: tunc enim mensor tenebitur.

Pomponius, however, writes that, if the buyer has given more to the seller on account of the renunciation, since he can bring a condictio for what he gave in excess, an action cannot be brought against the measurer: for nothing is of concern to the buyer, since he can bring a condictio: unless the seller was not solvent: for then the measurer will be held liable.

Dig. 11.6.3.3

Digest 11.6.3.3

Ulpianus 24 ad ed.

Ulpian 24 on the Edict.

Sed si venditor maiorem modum tradiderit fraudatus a mensore, consequenter dicit pomponius non esse actionem adversus mensorem, quia est ex vendito actio adversus emptorem, nisi et hic emptor solvendo non sit.

But if the vendor has delivered a greater measure, having been defrauded by the measurer, Pomponius consequently says there is no action against the measurer, because there is an action ex vendito against the buyer, unless this buyer too is not solvent.

Dig. 11.6.3.4

Digest 11.6.3.4

Ulpianus 24 ad ed.

Ulpian, 24 on the Edict.

Idem pomponius scribit, si propter iudicium adhibitus mensor fraudaverit me in renuntiatione, teneri eum, si ob hoc de iudicio minus tuli: plane si a iudice adhibitus contra me renuntiaverit dolo malo, dubitat, an teneri mihi debeat? quod magis admittit.

The same Pomponius writes that, if a surveyor, brought in on account of the trial, has defrauded me in the report, he is held liable, if on this account I have carried off less from the judgment; plainly, if, having been brought in by the judge, he has reported against me with malicious fraud, he hesitates whether he ought to be held liable to me—which he is more inclined to admit.

Dig. 11.6.3.5

Digest 11.6.3.5

Ulpianus 24 ad ed.

Ulpian 24 on the Edict.

Hanc actionem heredi similibusque personis dandam pomponius scribit: sed in heredem similesque personas denegandam ait.

pomponius writes that this action is to be given to the heir and similar persons: but he says it is to be denied against the heir and similar persons.

Dig. 11.6.3.6

Digest 11.6.3.6

Ulpianus 24 ad ed.

Ulpian 24 on the edict.

Servi autem nomine magis noxale quam de peculio competere ait, quamvis civilis actio de peculio competat.

Under the slave’s name, however, he says that a noxal action rather than one de peculio is competent, although the civil action de peculio is competent.

Dig. 11.6.4

Digest 11.6.4

Paulus 25 ad ed.

Paulus 25 on the Edict.

Haec actio perpetua est, quia initium rei non ad circumscriptionem, sed a suscepto negotio originem accipit.

This action is perpetual, because the beginning of the matter takes its origin not from circumscription, but from the business undertaken.

Dig. 11.6.5pr.

Digest 11.6.5 pr.

Ulpianus 24 ad ed.

Ulpian 24 on the Edict.

Si mensor non falsum modum renuntiaverit, sed traxerit renuntiationem et ob hoc evenerit ut venditor liberetur, qui adsignaturum se modum intra certum diem promisit, haec actio locum non habet: sed nec dari utilem debere pomponius ait. erit ergo ad actionem de dolo decurrendum.

If the surveyor has not reported a false measure, but has dragged out the report, and on this account it has come about that the seller—who promised that he would assign the measure within a fixed day—is released, this action has no place; nor, Pomponius says, ought a useful action to be granted. Therefore one must resort to the action for fraud.

Dig. 11.6.5.1

Digest 11.6.5.1

Ulpianus 24 ad ed.

Ulpian, 24 on the Edict.

Si, cum falsus modus renuntiatus esset, emptor cum venditore ex empto egisset, agere poterit etiam cum mensore: sed si nihil eius interest, condemnari mensorem non oportet. quod si non de toto modo qui deerat cum venditore egerit, sed de minore, consequenter scribit pomponius de residuo cum mensore agi posse.

If, when a false measure had been announced, the buyer has sued the seller by an action ex empto, he will also be able to sue the measurer; but if it is of no interest to him, the measurer ought not to be condemned. And if he has not sued the seller for the whole measure that was lacking, but for a lesser amount, consequently Pomponius writes that one can proceed against the measurer for the residue.

Dig. 11.6.5.2

Digest 11.6.5.2

Ulpianus 24 ad ed.

Ulpian, 24 on the Edict.

Hoc iudicium latius praetor porrexit: nam et si cuius alterius rei mensuram falsam renuntiavisse dicetur, haec actio competit. proinde si in aedificii mensura fefellit vel in frumenti vel in vini,

The praetor has extended this judgment more broadly: for even if it shall be said that someone has reported a false measurement of any other thing, this action lies. Accordingly, if he has deceived in the measurement of a building or of grain or of wine,

Dig. 11.6.6

Digest 11.6.6

Paulus 24 ad ed.

Paulus 24 on the Edict.

Sive de itineris latitudine sive de servitute immittendi proiciendique quaeratur, sive aream vel tignum vel lapidem metiendo mentitus fuerit.

Whether the inquiry is about the breadth of a right of way or about the servitude of letting in and of projecting, or whether he has lied by measuring an area or a beam or a stone.

Dig. 11.6.7pr.

Digest 11.6.7, introductory paragraph.

Ulpianus 24 ad ed.

Ulpian, 24 on the Edict.

Vel cuius alterius rei, tenebitur.

Or he will be held liable for any other matter whatsoever.

Dig. 11.6.7.1

Digest 11.6.7.1

Ulpianus 24 ad ed.

Ulpian 24 on the Edict.

Et si mensor machinarius fefellerit, haec actio dabitur.

And if the surveyor-engineer has deceived, this action will be granted.

Dig. 11.6.7.2

Digest 11.6.7.2

Ulpianus 24 ad ed.

Ulpian, 24 on the edict.

Nec non illud quoque pomponius dicit etiam in eum, qui mensor non fuit, fefellit tamen in modo, competere hanc actionem.

And also Pomponius says that this action lies even against one who was not the measurer, nevertheless deceived in the measure.

Dig. 11.6.7.3

Digest 11.6.7.3

Ulpianus 24 ad ed.

Ulpian 24 on the edict.

Hoc exemplo etiam adversus architectum actio dari debet qui fefellit: nam et divus severus adversus architectum et redemptorem actiones dandas decreverit.

By this example, an action ought also to be granted against an architect who has deceived; for even the deified Severus decreed that actions are to be given against the architect and the contractor.

Dig. 11.6.7.4

Digest 11.6.7.4

Ulpianus 24 ad ed.

Ulpian, 24 on the Edict.

Ego etiam adversus tabularium puto actiones dandas, qui in computatione fefellit.

I also think that actions should be granted against the tabularius who has deceived in the computation.

Dig. 11.7.0. De religiosis et sumptibus funerum et ut funus ducere liceat.

Dig. 11.7.0. On religious matters and the expenses of funerals, and that it is permitted to conduct a funeral.

Dig. 11.7.1

Digest 11.7.1

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, 10 on the Edict.

Qui propter funus aliquid impendit, cum defuncto contrahere creditur, non cum herede.

He who expends something on account of the funeral is believed to contract with the deceased, not with the heir.

Dig. 11.7.2pr.

Digest 11.7.2 preface.

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian 25 on the Edict.

Locum in quo servus sepultus est religiosum esse aristo ait.

Aristo says that the place in which a slave has been buried is religious.

Dig. 11.7.2.1

Digest 11.7.2.1

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian 25 on the edict.

Qui mortuum in locum alienum intulit vel inferre curavit, tenebitur in factum actione. " in locum alterius" accipere debemus sive in agro sive in aedificio. sed hic sermo domino dat actionem, non bonae fidei possessori: nam cum dicat " in locum alterius", apparet de domino eum sentire, id est eo cuius locus est.

He who has brought a corpse into another’s place or has taken care to have it brought in will be held by an actio in factum. " in locum alterius" we ought to understand whether in a field or in a building. But this phrasing gives the action to the owner, not to the good‑faith possessor: for since it says " in locum alterius", it appears that he has in mind the owner, that is, the one whose place it is.

sed et fructuarius inferendo tenebitur domino proprietatis. an et socius teneatur, si ignorante socio intulerit, tractari potest: est tamen verius familiae erciscundae vel communi dividundo conveniri eum posse.

but also the usufructuary will be held liable to the owner of the property for the act of bringing it in. Whether a partner too is bound, if he brought it in with his partner unaware, can be debated; however, it is more correct that he can be proceeded against by the action for partitioning an inheritance (familiae erciscundae) or for partitioning common property (communi dividundo).

Dig. 11.7.2.2

Digest 11.7.2.2

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian, 25 on the edict.

Praetor ait: " sive homo mortuus ossave hominis mortui in locum purum alterius aut in id sepulchrum, in quo ius non fuerit, illata esse dicentur. " qui hoc fecit, in factum actione tenetur et poena pecuniaria subicietur.

The praetor says: " whether a dead man or the bones of a dead man are said to have been brought into another’s pure place, or into that tomb in which there shall not have been a right. " whoever did this is held by an action on the facts and will be subjected to a pecuniary penalty.

Dig. 11.7.2.3

Digest 11.7.2.3

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian, 25 on the Edict.

De ea autem illatione praetor sensit, quae sepulturae causa fit.

But concerning that bringing-in, the praetor meant the one that is done for the sake of burial.

Dig. 11.7.2.4

Digest 11.7.2.4

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian, 25 on the Edict.

Purus autem locus dicitur, qui neque sacer neque sanctus est neque religiosus, sed ab omnibus huiusmodi nominibus vacare videtur.

A pure place, moreover, is said to be one which is neither sacred nor sanctified nor religious, but seems to be free from all names of this kind.

Dig. 11.7.2.5

Digest 11.7.2.5

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian, 25 on the Edict.

Sepulchrum est, ubi corpus ossave hominis condita sunt. celsus autem ait: non totus qui sepulturae destinatus est, locus religiosus fit, sed quatenus corpus humatum est.

A sepulchre is where the body or bones of a human have been laid. but celsus says: not the whole place that is destined for burial becomes religious, but only insofar as the body has been interred.

Dig. 11.7.2.6

Digest 11.7.2.6

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian 25 on the edict.

Monumentum est, quod memoriae servandae gratia existat.

A monument is that which exists for the sake of preserving memory.

Dig. 11.7.2.7

Digest 11.7.2.7

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian 25 on the Edict.

Si usum fructum quis habeat, religiosum locum non facit. sed et si alius proprietatem. alius usum fructum habuit, non faciet locum religiosum nec proprietarius, nisi forte ipsum qui usum fructum legaverit intulerit, cum in alium locum inferri tam oportune non posset: et ita iulianus scribit.

If someone has a usufruct, he does not make a place religious. But also, if one had the ownership and another the usufruct, neither will make the place religious, nor will the proprietor—unless perhaps he has brought in the very person who had bequeathed the usufruct, since it could not be borne into another place so suitably; and thus Julian writes.

alias autem invito fructuario locus religiosus non fiet: sed si consentiat fructuarius, magis est ut locus religiosus fiat.

otherwise, however, with the usufructuary unwilling, the place will not become religious; but if the usufructuary consents, it is rather the case that the place becomes religious.

Dig. 11.7.2.8

Digest 11.7.2.8

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 25 on the Edict.

Locum qui servit nemo religiosum facit, nisi consentiat is cui servitus debetur. sed si non minus commode per alium locum servitute uti potest, non videtur servitutis impediendae causa id fieri, et ideo religiosus fit: et sane habet hoc rationem.

A place that is servient no one makes religious, unless the one to whom the servitude is owed consents. But if he can use the servitude no less conveniently through another place, it does not seem that this is done for the sake of impeding the servitude, and therefore it becomes religious; and indeed this has its rationale.

Dig. 11.7.2.9

Digest 11.7.2.9

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian 25 on the Edict.

Is qui pignori dedit agrum si in eum suorum mortuum intulerit, religiosum eum facit: sed et si ipse inferatur, idem est: ceterum alii concedere non potest.

He who has given a field in pledge, if he has brought into it the corpse of one of his own, makes it “religious”; and if he himself is interred, the same holds: but he cannot concede this to another.

Dig. 11.7.3

Digest 11.7.3

Paulus 27 ad ed.

Paulus 27 On the Edict.

Ex consensu tamen omnium utilius est dicere religiosum posse fieri, idque pomponius scribit.

However, from the consensus of all, it is more useful to say that it can be made religious; and Pomponius writes this.

Dig. 11.7.4

Digest 11.7.4

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian 25 On the Edict.

Scriptus heres prius quam hereditatem adeat patrem familias mortuum inferendo locum facit religiosum, nec quis putet hoc ipso pro herede eum gerere: finge enim adhuc eum deliberare de adeunda hereditate. ego etiam si non heres eum intulerit, sed quivis alius herede cessante vel absente vel verente ne pro herede gerere videatur, tamen locum religiosum facere puto: plerumque enim defuncti ante sepeliuntur, quam quis heres eis existet. sed tunc locus fit religiosus, cum defuncti fuit: naturaliter enim videtur ad mortuum pertinere locus in quem infertur, praesertim si in eum locum inferatur, in quem ipse destinavit: usque adeo, ut etiamsi in legatum locum sit illatus ab herede, illatione tamen testatoris fit religiosus, si modo in alium locum tam oportune inferri non potuit.

A named heir, before he accedes to the inheritance, by carrying in the dead paterfamilias makes the place “religious”; nor should anyone think that by this very act he is conducting himself as heir—imagine, in fact, that he is still deliberating about acceding to the inheritance. I, moreover, even if it is not the heir who has carried him in, but anyone else, with the heir standing aside or absent or fearing lest he seem to act as heir, nevertheless judge that he makes the place religious: for for the most part the deceased are buried before anyone exists as heir to them. But then the place becomes religious when it belonged to the deceased: for naturally the place into which the dead man is brought in seems to pertain to the dead man, especially if he is brought into that place which he himself destined—to such a degree that even if he has been brought into a place bequeathed as a legacy by the heir, nevertheless by the interment of the testator it becomes religious, provided only that he could not have been brought so suitably into another place.

Dig. 11.7.5

Digest 11.7.5

Gaius 19 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 19 on the Provincial Edict.

Familiaria sepulchra dicuntur, quae quis sibi familiaeque suae constituit, hereditaria autem, quae quis sibi heredibusque suis constituit.

They are called familial sepulchres which someone establishes for himself and his family; hereditary, however, those which someone establishes for himself and his heirs.

Dig. 11.7.6pr.

Digest 11.7.6, at the beginning.

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian 25 on the Edict.

Vel quod pater familias iure hereditario adquisiit. sed in utroque heredibus quidem ceterisque successoribus qualescumque fuerint licet sepeliri et mortuum inferre, etiamsi ex minima parte heredes ex testamento vel ab intestato sint, licet non consentiant alii. liberis autem cuiuscumque sexus vel gradus etiam filiis familiae et emancipatis idem ius concessum est, sive extiterint heredes sive sese abstineant.

Or what the paterfamilias acquired by hereditary right. But in both cases, to the heirs and the other successors, whatever they may be, it is permitted to bury and to carry in the dead, even if they are heirs for the least share, by testament or from intestacy, even if the others do not consent. Moreover, to the children, of whatever sex or degree, even to sons under paternal power and to emancipated ones, the same right has been granted, whether they have become heirs or abstain.

exheredatis autem, nisi specialiter testator iusto odio commotus eos vetuerit, humanitatis gratia tantum sepeliri, non etiam alios praeter suam posteritatem inferre licet. liberti autem nec sepeliri nec alios inferre poterunt, nisi heredes extiterint patrono, quamvis quidam inscripserint monumentum sibi libertisque suis fecisse: et ita papinianus respondit et saepissime idem constitutum est.

As for the disinherited, however, unless the testator, moved by just hatred, has specifically forbidden them, it is permitted, for the sake of humanity, that they be buried, but it is not permitted that they inter others, except their own posterity. Freedmen, however, will be able neither to be buried nor to inter others, unless they have become heirs to their patron, although some have inscribed that they have made a monument for themselves and their freedmen: and thus Papinian responded, and the same has very often been established.

Dig. 11.7.6.1

Digest 11.7.6.1

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian Book 25 on the Edict.

Si adhuc monumentum purum est, poterit quis hoc et vendere et donare. si cenotaphium fit, posse hoc venire dicendum est: nec enim esse hoc religiosum divi fratres rescripserunt.

If the monument is still pure, one can both sell this and donate it. If it becomes a cenotaph, it must be said that this can be sold; for the deified brothers wrote in a rescript that this is not religious.

Dig. 11.7.7pr.

Digest 11.7.7 preface.

Gaius 19 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 19 on the provincial edict.

Is qui intulit mortuum in alienum locum aut tollere id quod intulit aut loci pretium praestare cogitur per in factum actionem, quae tam heredi quam in heredem competit et perpetua est.

He who has introduced a corpse into another’s place is compelled either to remove what he has introduced or to render the price of the place, by an action in factum, which lies both to the heir and against the heir, and is perpetual.

Dig. 11.7.7.1

Digest 11.7.7.1

Gaius 19 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 19 on the Provincial Edict.

Adversus eum, qui in alterius arcam lapideam, in qua adhuc mortuus non erit conditus, mortuum intulerit, utilem actionem in factum proconsul dat, quia non proprie vel in sepulchrum vel in locum alterius intulisse dici potest.

Against one who has brought a dead man into another’s stone chest (arca) in which as yet no corpse has been interred, the proconsul grants a useful action on the facts, because it cannot properly be said that he has brought it either into a sepulcher or into another’s place.

Dig. 11.7.8pr.

Digest 11.7.8, preface.

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian 25 on the Edict.

Ossa quae ab alio illata sunt vel corpus an liceat domino loci effodere vel eruere sine decreto pontificum seu iussu principis, quaestionis est: et ait labeo exspectandum vel permissum pontificale seu iussionem principis, alioquin iniuriarum fore actionem adversus eum qui eiecit.

Whether it is lawful for the owner of the place to dig up or unearth bones which have been brought in by another, or a body, without a decree of the pontiffs or an order of the prince, is a matter of question: and Labeo says one must await either a pontifical permission or an order of the prince; otherwise there will be an action for injuries against him who cast it out.

Dig. 11.7.8.1

Digest 11.7.8.1

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian 25 on the Edict.

Si locus religiosus pro puro venisse dicetur, praetor in factum actionem in eum dat ei ad quem ea res pertinet: quae actio et in heredem competit, cum quasi ex empto actionem contineat.

If a religious place is said to have been sold as “pure” (i.e., unencumbered), the praetor grants an action in factum against that person to the one to whom the matter pertains; and this action also lies against the heir, since it contains, as it were, an action ex empto (from purchase).

Dig. 11.7.8.2

Digest 11.7.8.2

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian 25 on the Edict.

Si in locum publicis usibus destinatum intulerit quis mortuum, praetor in eum iudicium dat, si dolo fecerit et erit extra ordinem plectendus, modica tamen coercitione: sed si sine dolo, absolvendus est.

If someone should bring a dead body into a place destined for public uses, the praetor gives iudicium against him; if he did it with dolus, he is to be punished extra ordinem, yet with moderate coercion; but if without dolus, he is to be acquitted.

Dig. 11.7.8.3

Digest 11.7.8.3

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian, 25 on the Edict.

In hac autem actione loci puri appellatio et ad aedificium producenda est.

In this action, moreover, the appellation of a “pure place” is to be extended also to the edifice.

Dig. 11.7.8.4

Digest 11.7.8.4

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian, 25 on the edict.

Nec solum domino haec actio competit, verum ei quoque, qui eiusdem loci habet usum fructum vel aliquam servitutem, quia ius prohibendi etiam hi habent.

Not only does this action lie for the owner, but also for him who has the usufruct or some servitude of the same place, because these too have the right of prohibiting.

Dig. 11.7.8.5

Digest 11.7.8.5

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian 25 on the Edict.

Ei, qui prohibitus est inferre in eum locum, quo ei ius inferendi esset, in factum actio competit et interdictum, etiamsi non ipse prohibitus sit, sed procurator eius, quia intellectu aliquo ipse prohibitus videtur.

To him who has been prohibited from bringing into that place into which he had the right of bringing, an action in factum and an interdict are available, even if it was not he himself who was prohibited, but his procurator, since by a certain understanding he himself is regarded as prohibited.

Dig. 11.7.9

Digest 11.7.9

Gaius 19 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 19 on the Provincial Edict.

Liberum est ei qui prohibetur mortuum ossave mortui inferre aut statim interdicto uti, quo prohibetur ei vis fieri, aut alio inferre et postea in factum agere: per quam consequetur actor, quanti eius interfuerit prohibitum non esse, in quam computationem cadit loci empti pretium aut conducti merces, item sui loci pretium, quem quis, nisi coactus est, religiosum facturus non esset. unde miror, quare constare videatur neque heredi neque in heredem dandam hanc actionem: nam ut apparet, pecuniariae quantitatis ratio in eam deducitur: certe perpetuo ea inter ipsos competit.

It is open to him who is prevented from bringing in a dead person or the bones of a dead person either immediately to use the interdict by which violence is prohibited from being done to him, or to take them elsewhere and afterwards bring an action in factum; by which the plaintiff will obtain as much as it was in his interest that he not have been prevented—into which computation fall the price of a place purchased or the rent of one hired, likewise the price of his own place, which a person would not have made religious unless compelled. Whence I wonder why it seems settled that this action is given neither to the heir nor against the heir: for, as is apparent, an account of a pecuniary amount is brought into it; certainly it lies perpetually between the parties themselves.

Dig. 11.7.10

Digest 11.7.10

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian, 25 on the Edict.

Si venditor fundi exceperit locum sepulchri ad hoc, ut ipse posterique eius illo inferrentur, si via uti prohibeatur, ut mortuum suum inferret, agere potest: videtur enim etiam hoc exceptum inter ementem et vendentem, ut ei per fundum sepulturae causa ire liceret.

If the vendor of an estate has excepted a place of sepulcher for this purpose, that he himself and his posterity be interred there, then if he is prohibited from using a way so as to carry in his dead, he can bring an action; for it seems that this too was excepted between the buyer and the seller, namely that it be permitted to him to go through the estate for the sake of burial.

Dig. 11.7.11

Digest 11.7.11

Paulus 27 ad ed.

Paulus 27 on the Edict.

Quod si locus monumenti hac lege venierit, ne in eum inferrentur, quos ius est inferri, pactum quidem ad hoc non sufficit, sed stipulatione id caveri oportet.

But if the place of a monument has been sold under this condition, that those whom it is lawful to inter not be brought into it, a pact does not suffice for this; rather, it ought to be secured by stipulation.

Dig. 11.7.12pr.

Digest 11.7.12, beginning.

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian 25 on the Edict.

Si quis sepulchrum habeat, viam autem ad sepulchrum non habeat et a vicino ire prohibeatur, imperator antoninus cum patre rescripsit iter ad sepulchrum peti precario et concedi solere, ut quotiens non debetur, impetretur ab eo, qui fundum adiunctum habeat. non tamen hoc rescriptum, quod impetrandi dat facultatem, etiam actionem civilem inducit, sed extra ordinem interpelletur praeses et iam compellere debet iusto pretio iter ei praestari, ita tamen, ut iudex etiam de opportunitate loci prospiciat, ne vicinus magnum patiatur detrimentum.

If someone has a tomb, but does not have a way to the tomb and is forbidden by a neighbor to go, the Emperor Antoninus with his father rescripted that a route to the tomb is accustomed to be requested by way of favor (precario) and to be granted, so that whenever it is not owed, it be obtained from the one who has the adjoining estate (fundus). Nevertheless, this rescript, which gives the faculty of obtaining, does not also introduce a civil action; rather, the governor (praeses) is to be appealed to extra ordinem, and he ought now to compel that a way be furnished to him for a just price—yet in such a way that the judge also look to the opportuneness of the place, lest the neighbor suffer great detriment.

Dig. 11.7.12.1

Digest 11.7.12.1

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian 25 On the Edict.

Senatus consulto cavetur, ne usus sepulchrorum permutationibus polluatur, id est ne sepulchrum aliae conversationis usum accipiat.

By a senatus consultum it is provided that the use of sepulchres not be polluted by exchanges, that is, that a sepulchre not receive the use of another sort of occupancy.

Dig. 11.7.12.2

Digest 11.7.12.2

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian, 25 on the Edict.

Praetor ait: " quod funeris causa sumptus factus erit, eius reciperandi nomine in eum, ad quem ea res pertinet, iudicium dabo. "

The praetor says: " whatever expense shall have been incurred for the sake of a funeral, for the recovery of it I will grant an action against the one to whom that matter pertains. "

Dig. 11.7.12.3

Digest 11.7.12.3

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian, 25 On the Edict.

Hoc edictum iusta ex causa propositum est, ut qui funeravit persequatur id quod impendit: sic enim fieri, ne insepulta corpora iacerent neve quis de alieno funeretur.

This edict has been put forward for a just cause, so that he who has performed the funeral may pursue that which he expended: for thus it is done, lest bodies lie unburied and lest anyone be buried at another’s expense.

Dig. 11.7.12.4

Digest 11.7.12.4

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian 25 on the edict.

Funus autem eum facere oportet, quem decedens elegit: sed si non ille fecit, nullam esse huius rei poenam, nisi aliquid pro hoc emolumentum ei relictum est: tunc enim, si non paruerit voluntati defuncti, ab hoc repellitur. sin autem de hac re defunctus non cavit, nec ulli delegatum id munus est, scriptos heredes ea res contingit: si nemo scriptus est, legitimos vel cognatos: quosque suo ordine quo succedunt.

Moreover, the funeral ought to be carried out by the one whom the deceased, at his death, selected; but if that person did not do it, there is no penalty in this matter, unless some emolument was left to him for this purpose: for then, if he has not obeyed the will of the deceased, he is repelled from it. But if the deceased did not make provision about this matter, nor was that duty delegated to anyone, the matter falls to the named heirs; if no one is named, to the legitimate heirs or the cognates, and these in the order in which they succeed.

Dig. 11.7.12.5

Digest 11.7.12.5

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian, 25 on the Edict.

Sumptus funeris arbitrantur pro facultatibus vel dignitate defuncti.

The expenses of the funeral are assessed according to the means or the dignity of the deceased.

Dig. 11.7.12.6

Digest 11.7.12.6

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian, 25 on the Edict.

Praetor vel magistratus municipalis ad funus sumptum decernere debet, si quidem est pecunia in hereditate, ex pecunia: si non est, distrahere debet ea, quae tempore peritura sunt, quorum retentio onerat hereditatem: si minus, si quid auri argentique fuerit, distrahi aut pignerari iubebit, ut pecunia expediatur:

The praetor or the municipal magistrate ought to decree the expense for the funeral, if indeed there is money in the inheritance, from the money: if there is not, he ought to sell off those things which will perish with time, the retention of which burdens the inheritance: if not enough, if there is any gold and silver, he will order it to be sold or pledged, so that money may be procured:

Dig. 11.7.13

Digest 11.7.13

Gaius 19 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 19 on the provincial edict.

Vel a debitoribus si facile exigi possit.

Or from the debtors, if it can easily be exacted.

Dig. 11.7.14pr.

Digest 11.7.14, beginning.

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian, 25 on the Edict.

Et si quis impediat eum qui emit, quo minus ei res tradantur, praetorem intervenire oportere tuerique huiusmodi factum si quid impediat quo minus ei res venditae tradantur.

And if anyone impedes him who bought, so that the things are not delivered to him, the praetor ought to intervene and to protect him against conduct of this kind, if anything impedes that the things sold be delivered to him.

Dig. 11.7.14.1

Digest 11.7.14.1

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian, 25 on the Edict.

Si colonus vel inquilinus sit is qui mortuus est nec sit unde funeretur, ex invectis illatis eum funerandum pomponius scribit et si quid superfluum remanserit, hoc pro debita pensione teneri. sed et si res legatae sint a testatore de cuius funere agitur nec sit unde funeretur, ad eas quoque manus mittere oportet: satius est enim de suo testatorem funerari, quam aliquos legata consequi. sed si adita fuerit postea hereditas, res emptori auferenda non est, quia bonae fidei possessor est et dominium habet, qui auctore iudice comparavit.

If the one who has died was a colonus or an inquilinus and there is no means from which he may be buried, Pomponius writes that he is to be funerated from the goods brought in (invecta et illata), and if any surplus shall remain, this is held for the due pension (rent). But also, if things have been bequeathed by the testator whose funeral is in question and there is no means from which he may be buried, one ought to lay hands upon those as well: for it is preferable that the testator be buried out of his own property than that some persons obtain the legacies. But if afterwards the inheritance shall have been entered upon, the property is not to be taken from the buyer, because he is a possessor in good faith and has dominion (ownership), he who acquired it by the judge’s authority.

legatarium tamen legato carere non oportet, si potest indemnis ab herede praestari: quod si non potest, melius est legatarium non lucrari, quam emptorem damno adfici.

Nevertheless, the legatee ought not to be without the legacy, if he can be kept indemnified by the heir; but if this cannot be, it is better that the legatee not profit than that the purchaser be subjected to loss.

Dig. 11.7.14.2

Digest 11.7.14.2

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian 25 on the Edict.

Si cui funeris sui curam testator mandaverit et ille accepta pecunia funus non duxerit, de dolo actionem in eum dandam mela scripsit: credo tamen et extra ordinem eum a praetore compellendum funus ducere.

If the testator has entrusted to someone the care of his own funeral and he, after receiving the money, has not conducted the funeral, Mela wrote that an action for dolus (deceit) is to be granted against him; nevertheless I believe that he should also be compelled by the praetor, out of the ordinary course (extra ordinem), to conduct the funeral.

Dig. 11.7.14.3

Digest 11.7.14.3

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian, 25 on the Edict.

Funeris causa sumptus factus videtur is demum, qui ideo fuit ut funus ducatur, sine quo funus duci non possit, ut puta si quid impensum est in elationem mortui: sed et si quid in locum fuerit erogatum, in quem mortuus inferretur, funeris causa videri impensum labeo scribit, quia necessario locus paratur, in quo corpus conditur.

An expense is deemed to have been made for the sake of the funeral only if it was incurred so that the funeral might be conducted, without which the funeral cannot be conducted—for instance, if anything is expended on the bearing-out (elatio) of the deceased: but also, if anything has been disbursed for the place into which the dead person is to be borne/interred, Labeo writes that it is to be regarded as expenditure for the sake of the funeral, because a place is necessarily prepared in which the body is entombed.

Dig. 11.7.14.4

Digest 11.7.14.4

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian 25 on the Edict.

Impensa peregre mortui quae facta est ut corpus perferretur, funeris est, licet nondum homo funeretur: idemque et si quid ad corpus custodiendum vel etiam commendandum factum sit, vel si quid in marmor vel vestem collocandam.

The expense incurred abroad for the deceased, which was made so that the body might be conveyed, is of the funeral, although the man has not yet been buried; and the same [applies] also if anything has been done for the body’s custody or even for its commendation (commitment to care), or if anything [was spent] for marble or for clothing to be set in place.

Dig. 11.7.14.5

Digest 11.7.14.5

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian 25 on the Edict.

Non autem oportet ornamenta cum corporibus condi, nec quid aliud huiusmodi, quod homines simpliciores faciunt.

However, ornaments ought not to be interred with the bodies, nor anything else of this kind, which simpler persons do.

Dig. 11.7.14.6

Digest 11.7.14.6

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian, 25 on the Edict.

Haec actio quae funeraria dicitur ex bono et aequo oritur: continet autem funeris causa tantum impensam, non etiam ceterorum sumptuum. aequum autem accipitur ex dignitate eius qui funeratus est, ex causa, ex tempore et ex bona fide, ut neque plus imputetur sumptus nomine quam factum est neque tantum quantum factum est, si immodice factum est: deberet enim haberi ratio facultatium eius, in quem factum est, et ipsius rei, quae ultra modum sine causa consumitur. quid ergo si ex voluntate testatoris impensum est?

This action, which is called funerary, arises from what is good and equitable: it contains only the expenditure for the sake of the funeral, not also the other expenses. The equitable measure is taken from the dignity of the one who has been buried, from the cause, from the time, and from good faith, so that neither more be imputed under the name of expense than was actually done, nor as much as was done, if it was done immoderately: for consideration ought to be had of the means of the person for whom it was done, and of the thing itself, which beyond measure is consumed without cause. What then if it was expended by the will of the testator?

sciendum est nec voluntatem sequendam, si res egrediatur iustam sumptus rationem, pro modo autem facultatium sumptum fieri.

It must be understood that the will is not to be followed, if the matter should exceed the just account of expenditure; rather, expense is to be made in proportion to the measure of means.

Dig. 11.7.14.7

Digest 11.7.14.7

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian 25 on the Edict.

Sed interdum is, qui sumptum in funus fecit, sumptum non recipit, si pietatis gratia fecit, non hoc animo quasi recepturus sumptum quem fecit: et ita imperator noster rescripsit. igitur aestimandum erit arbitro et perpendendum, quo animo sumptus factus sit, utrum negotium quis vel defuncti vel heredis gerit vel ipsius humanitatis, an vero misericordiae vel pietati tribuens vel affectioni. potest tamen distingui et misericordiae modus, ut in hoc fuerit misericors vel pius qui funeravit, ut eum sepeliret, ne insepultus iaceret, non etiam ut suo sumptu fecerit: quod si iudici liqueat, non debet eum qui convenitur absolvere: quis enim sine pietatis intentione alienum cadaver funerat?

But sometimes he who has made expense for a funeral does not recover the expense, if he did it for the sake of piety, not with this mind as if he were going to recover the expense which he made: and so our emperor issued a rescript. Therefore it will have to be assessed by the arbiter and weighed with what intention the expense was made—whether one is conducting the business of the deceased or of the heir or of humanity itself, or indeed attributing it to mercy or to piety or to affection. Yet even the measure of mercy can be distinguished, namely that he who provided the funeral was merciful or pious in this respect: that he should bury him, lest he lie unburied, but not also that he should do it at his own expense; and if this is clear to the judge, he ought not to absolve the one who is sued. For who buries another’s corpse without an intention of piety?

oportebit igitur testari, quem quo animo funerat, ne postea patiatur quaestionem.

Therefore it will be necessary to testify whom he buried and with what intention, lest he afterward suffer an investigation.

Dig. 11.7.14.8

Digest 11.7.14.8

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian 25 on the Edict

Plerique filii cum parentes suos funerant, vel alii qui heredes fieri possunt, licet ex hoc ipso neque pro herede gestio neque aditio praesumitur, tamen ne vel miscuisse se necessarii vel ceteri pro herede gessisse videantur. solent testari pietatis gratia facere se sepulturam. quod si supervacuo fuerit factum, ad illud se munire videntur, ne miscuisse se credantur, ad illud non, ut sumptum consequantur: quippe protestantur pietatis gratia id se facere.

Most sons, when they bury their parents, or others who can become heirs, although from this act itself neither pro herede gestio nor aditio is presumed, nevertheless, lest the necessarii seem to have mingled themselves, or the others to have acted pro herede, are wont, by grace of pietas, to attest that they are performing the burial. And if it has been done superfluously, they seem to fortify themselves for this—that they not be believed to have mingled themselves; but not for this—that they might recover the expense: for they protest that they do it for the sake of pietas.

plenius igitur eos testari oportet, ut et sumptum possint servare.

Therefore they ought to attest more fully, so that they may also be able to preserve the expense.

Dig. 11.7.14.9

Digest 11.7.14.9

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian, 25 On the Edict.

Fortassis quis possit dicere interdum partem sumptus facti posse reciperari, ut quis pro parte quasi negotium gerens, pro parte pietatis gratia id faciat: quod est verius: partem igitur sumptus consequetur, quem non donandi animo fecit.

Perhaps someone could say that sometimes a part of the expense incurred can be recovered, in that one does it partly as though managing a business (negotium gerens), partly for the sake of piety: which is truer: therefore he will obtain the part of the expense which he did not incur with a donating intention.

Dig. 11.7.14.10

Digest 11.7.14.10

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian, 25 on the Edict.

Iudicem, qui de ea aequitate cognoscit, interdum sumptum omnino non debere admittere modicum factum, si forte in contumeliam defuncti hominis locupletis modicus factus sit: nam non debet huius rationem habere, cum contumeliam defuncto fecisse videatur ita eum funerando.

A judge who has cognizance of the equity in this matter ought sometimes not at all to admit an expense, though made modest, if perchance a modest outlay has been made to the contumely of a defunct opulent man: for he ought not to have regard to this, since he appears to have inflicted contumely upon the defunct by burying him in such a way.

Dig. 11.7.14.11

Digest 11.7.14.11

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian, 25 on the Edict.

Si quis, dum se heredem putat, patrem familias funeraverit, funeraria actione uti non poterit, quia non hoc animo fecit, quasi alienum negotium gerens: et ita trebatius et proculus putat. puto tamen et ei ex causa dandam actionem funerariam.

If someone, while he supposes himself to be the heir, has buried the paterfamilias, he will not be able to use the funeral action, because he did not do this with the intention as though managing another’s business: and so Trebatius and Proculus think. I nevertheless think that even to him, on this ground, the funeral action ought to be granted.

Dig. 11.7.14.12

Digest 11.7.14.12

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian 25 on the Edict.

Labeo ait, quotiens quis aliam actionem habet de funeris impensa consequenda, funeraria eum agere non posse: et ideo si familiae erciscundae agere possit, funeraria non acturum: plane si iam familiae erciscundae iudicio actum sit, posse agi.

Labeo says that, whenever someone has another action for obtaining recovery of funeral expense, he cannot bring the funerary action; and therefore, if he is able to sue by the action for partition of the family estate (familiae erciscundae), he will not bring the funerary action: plainly, if the matter has already been dealt with in a familiae erciscundae judgment, it can be brought.

Dig. 11.7.14.13

Digest 11.7.14.13

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian 25 on the Edict.

Idem labeo ait, si prohibente herede funeraveris testatorem, ex causa competere tibi funerariam: quid enim si filium testatoris heres eius prohibuit? huic contradici potest: " ergo pietatis gratia funerasti". sed pone me testatum: habiturum me funerariam actionem: de suo enim expedit mortuos funerari. et quid si testator quidem funus mihi mandavit, heres prohibet, ego tamen nihilo minus funeravi?

The same Labeo says that, if you have buried the testator while the heir forbids, the funerary action lies to you on that ground: for what if the heir forbade the testator’s son? To this it can be objected: " ergo you buried for the sake of piety." But suppose me to have made a will: I will have the funerary action; for it is expedient that the dead be buried at his (the heir’s) own expense. And what if indeed the testator entrusted the funeral to me, the heir forbids, yet I nonetheless buried none the less?

nonne aequum est mihi funerariam competere? et generaliter puto iudicem iustum non meram negotiorum gestorum actionem imitari, sed solutius aequitatem sequi, cum hoc ei et actionis natura indulget.

is it not equitable that the funerary action should lie for me? And generally I think that a just judge ought not to imitate the mere action of negotiorum gestorum, but more freely to follow equity, since both this and the nature of the action allow him to do so.

Dig. 11.7.14.14

Digest 11.7.14.14

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian 25 on the Edict.

Divus autem marcus rescripsit eum heredem, qui prohibet funerari ab eo quem testator elegit, non recte facere: poenam tamen in eum statutam non esse.

The deified Marcus, however, wrote in a rescript that the heir who prohibits burial by the one whom the testator chose does not act rightly; however, that no penalty has been set upon him.

Dig. 11.7.14.15

Digest 11.7.14.15

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian 25 on the edict.

Qui mandatu alterius funeravit, non habet funerariam actionem, sed is scilicet, qui mandavit funerandum sive solvit ei cui mandavit sive debet. quod si pupillus mandavit sine tutore auctore, utilem funerariam dandam adversus heredem ei qui impendit: lucrari enim heredem iniquum est. si autem pupillus funus ad se pertinens sine tutoris auctoritate mandavit, dandam in eum actionem arbitror, si et heres extitit ei qui funeratus est solvendoque hereditas est.

He who, by another’s mandate, has buried, does not have the funerary action, but rather the one, namely, who mandated the funeral—whether he has paid the person to whom he gave the mandate, or still owes. But if a ward (pupillus) mandated it without his tutor’s authorization, a useful funerary action should be granted against the heir to the one who expended the outlay; for it is inequitable that the heir should profit. If, however, a ward mandated a funeral pertaining to himself without the tutor’s authority, I judge that an action should be given against him, provided he also became the heir of the one who was buried and the inheritance is solvent.

contra si quis mandatu heredis funeravit, non posse eum funeraria agere labeo scribit, quia habet mandati actionem.

On the contrary, if anyone, by the mandate of the heir, conducted the funeral, Labeo writes that he cannot bring the funerary action, because he has the action of mandate.

Dig. 11.7.14.16

Digest 11.7.14.16

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 25 on the Edict.

Si tamen quasi negotium heredis gerens funeravit, licet ratum non habeat, tamen funeraria eum agere posse labeo scribit.

If, however, as though managing the heir’s business, he performed the funeral, although he does not have it ratified, nevertheless Labeo writes that he can bring the funerary action.

Dig. 11.7.14.17

Digest 11.7.14.17

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian 25 on the Edict.

Datur autem haec actio adversus eos ad quos funus pertinet, ut puta adversus heredem bonorumve possessorem ceterosque successores.

Moreover, this action is given against those to whom the funeral pertains, as for instance against the heir or the possessor of the goods, and the other successors.

Dig. 11.7.15

Digest 11.7.15

Pomponius 5 ad sab.

Pomponius book 5 on Sabinus.

Funeris impensam et patronus, qui bonorum possessionem petit contra tabulas, praestat.

The expense of the funeral is likewise borne by the patron who seeks possession of the goods against the tablets (that is, against the will).

Dig. 11.7.16

Digest 11.7.16

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian, 25 on the Edict.

In eum, ad quem dotis nomine quid pervenerit, dat praetor funerariam actionem: aequissimum enim visum est veteribus mulieres quasi de patrimoniis suis ita de dotibus funerari et eum, qui morte mulieris dotem lucratur, in funus conferre debere, sive pater mulieris est sive maritus.

Against him to whom anything has come in the name of dowry, the praetor gives a funerary action: for it seemed most equitable to the ancients that women be buried, as from their own patrimonies, so also from dowries, and that he who by the woman’s death profits from the dowry ought to contribute to the funeral, whether it be the woman’s father or her husband.

Dig. 11.7.17

Digest 11.7.17

Papinianus 3 resp.

Papinian, 3 responses.

Sed si nondum pater dotem reciperaverit, vir solus convenietur reputaturus patri, quod eo nomine praestiterit:

But if the father has not yet recovered the dowry, the husband alone will be sued, to reckon with the father for what he has furnished under that head:

Dig. 11.7.18

Digest 11.7.18

Iulianus 10 Dig.

Julian 10 Digest

Impensa enim funeris aes alienum dotis est:

For the expense of the funeral is a debt of the dowry:

Dig. 11.7.19

Digest 11.7.19

Ulpianus 15 ad sab.

Ulpian, 15 on Sabinus.

Ideoque etiam dos sentire hoc aes alienum debet.

And therefore even the dowry ought to be subject to this debt.

Dig. 11.7.20pr.

Digest 11.7.20 pr.

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian 25 on the Edict.

Neratius quaerit, si is, qui dotem dederat pro muliere, stipulatus est duas partes dotis reddi, tertiam apud maritum remanere, pactus sit, ne quid maritus in funus conferret, an funeraria maritus teneatur. et ait, si quidem ipse stipulator mulierem funeravit, locum esse pacto et inutilem ei funerariam fore: si vero alius funeravit, posse eum maritum convenire, quia pacto hoc publicum ius infringi non possit. quid tamen si quis dotem hac lege dederit pro muliere, ut ad ipsum rediret, si in matrimonio mortua esset, aut quoquo modo soluto matrimonio?

Neratius inquires: if the one who had given the dowry on behalf of the woman stipulated that two parts of the dowry be returned, a third remain with the husband, and made a pact that the husband should contribute nothing to the funeral, whether the husband is liable on the funerary claim. And he says that, if indeed the stipulator himself buried the woman, the pact has effect and the funerary claim would be useless to him; but if someone else buried her, he can proceed against the husband, because by this pact public law cannot be infringed. What, however, if someone gave the dowry under this proviso on behalf of the woman, that it should return to him if she died in marriage, or in whatever way the marriage were dissolved?

numquid hic in funus non conferat? sed cum dos morte mulieris ad eum pervenerit, potest dici conferre eum.

Would he in this case not contribute to the funeral? But since the dowry has come to him by the woman's death, he can be said to contribute.

Dig. 11.7.20.1

Digest 11.7.20.1

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian, 25 on the Edict.

Si maritus lucratur dotem, convenietur funeraria, pater autem non. sed in hunc casum puto, si dos, quia permodica fuit, in funus non sufficit, in superfluum in patrem debere actionem dari.

If the husband makes a gain from the dowry, he will be sued by the funerary action, but the father will not. But in this case I think that, if the dowry, because it was very small, does not suffice for the funeral, an action ought to be given against the father for the excess.

Dig. 11.7.20.2

Digest 11.7.20.2

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian 25 on the edict.

Cum mater familias decedit nec est eius solvendo hereditas, funerari eam ex dote tantum oportet. et ita celsus scribit.

When a materfamilias dies and her estate is not solvent, she ought to be buried only out of the dowry. and thus Celsus writes.

Dig. 11.7.21

Digest 11.7.21

Paulus 27 ad ed.

Paulus 27 on the Edict.

In patrem, cuius in potestate fuerit is cuius funus factum erit, competit funeraria actio pro dignitate et facultatibus.

A funerary action lies against the father, in whose power was the person whose funeral shall have been performed, in proportion to his dignity and faculties.

Dig. 11.7.22

Digest 11.7.22

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian 25 on the Edict.

Celsus scribit: quotiens mulier decedit, ex dote, quae penes virum remanet, et ceteris mulieris bonis pro portione funeranda est.

Celsus writes: whenever a woman dies, she must be furnished a funeral, in proportion, from the dowry which remains with the husband and from the woman’s other goods.

Dig. 11.7.23

Digest 11.7.23

Paulus 27 ad ed.

Paulus 27 on the Edict.

Veluti si in dotem centum sint, in hereditate ducenta, duas partes heres, unam vir conferet.

As, for instance, if there are one hundred in the dowry, and two hundred in the inheritance, the heir will contribute two parts, the husband one.

Dig. 11.7.24

Digest 11.7.24

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian, 25 on the Edict.

Iulianus scribit: non deductis legatis.

Julian writes: with legacies not deducted.

Dig. 11.7.25

Digest 11.7.25

Paulus 27 ad ed.

Paulus 27 on the Edict.

Nec pretiis manumissorum.

Nor by the prices of the manumitted.

Dig. 11.7.26

Digest 11.7.26

Pomponius 15 ad sab.

Pomponius 15 on Sabinus.

Nec aere alieno deducto.

Nor with debt deducted.

Dig. 11.7.27pr.

Digest 11.7.27 (beginning).

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian 25 on the edict.

Sic pro rata et maritum et heredem conferre in funus oportet.

Thus, pro rata, both the husband and the heir ought to contribute toward the funeral.

Dig. 11.7.27.1

Digest 11.7.27.1

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian 25 On the Edict.

Maritus funeraria non convenietur, si mulieri in matrimonio dotem solverit, ut Marcellus scribit: quae sententia vera est: in his tamen casibus, in quibus hoc ei facere legibus permissum est.

The husband shall not be convened for funerary expenses, if he has paid the dowry to the woman during the marriage, as Marcellus writes: which opinion is true—yet only in those cases in which it is permitted to him by the laws to do this.

Dig. 11.7.27.2

Digest 11.7.27.2

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian 25 on the Edict.

Praeterea maritum puto funeraria in id demum teneri quod facere potest: id enim lucrari videtur quod praestaret mulieri si conveniretur.

Moreover, I think the husband is held for the funerary expenses only to that extent which he can do; for he is considered to profit by that which he would have furnished to the woman if he were convened in court.

Dig. 11.7.28

Digest 11.7.28

Pomponius 15 ad sab.

Pomponius 15 on Sabinus.

Quod si nulla dos esset, tunc omnem impensam patrem praestare debere atilicinus ait aut heredes eius mulieris, puta emancipatae. quod si neque heredes habeat neque pater solvendo sit, maritum in quantum facere potest pro hoc conveniri, ne iniuria eius videretur quondam uxorem eius insepultam relinqui.

But if there were no dowry, then Atilicinus says the father ought to provide the whole expense, or the heirs of that woman, for instance if she had been emancipated. But if she has neither heirs nor is her father solvent, the husband is to be convened for this to the extent that he is able, lest it should seem an affront to him that his former wife be left unburied.

Dig. 11.7.29pr.

Digest 11.7.29, preface.

Gaius 19 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 19 on the Provincial Edict.

Si mulier post divortium alii nupta decesserit, non putat fulcinius priorem maritum, licet lucri dotem faciat, funeris impensam praestare.

If a woman, after divorce, married to another, has died, Fulcinius does not think the former husband, although he makes lucre of the dowry, must provide the expense of the funeral.

Dig. 11.7.29.1

Digest 11.7.29.1

Gaius 19 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 19 on the Provincial Edict.

Is qui filiam familias funeravit antequam dos patri reddatur, cum marito recte agit: reddita dote patrem obligatum habet. utique autem, si cum marito actum fuerit, is eo minus patri mulieris restituturus est.

He who has performed the funeral of a filia familias before the dowry is returned to the father rightly brings an action against the husband; once the dowry has been returned, he has the father bound. In any case, however, if action has been brought against the husband, he will be bound to restore so much the less to the woman’s father.

Dig. 11.7.30pr.

Digest 11.7.30, preface.

Pomponius 15 ad sab.

Pomponius 15 on Sabinus.

Contra quoque quod pater in funus filiae impendit aut alio agente secum funeraticia praestitit, ipse actione de dote a marito recipit.

Conversely, likewise, whatever the father expended on the funeral of his daughter, or, another acting with him, furnished as funeral expenses, he himself recovers from the husband by the action for dowry.

Dig. 11.7.30.1

Digest 11.7.30.1

Pomponius 15 ad sab.

Pomponius Book 15 on Sabinus.

Sed si emancipata in matrimonio decedat, collaturos heredes bonorumve possessores et patrem pro portione dotis quam recipit et virum pro portione dotis quam lucratus est.

But if, being emancipated, she dies in marriage, the heirs or possessors of the estate will contribute, and the father in proportion to the share of the dowry which he receives, and the husband in proportion to the share of the dowry which he has gained.

Dig. 11.7.31pr.

Digest 11.7.31pr.

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian 25 on the Edict.

Si filius familias miles sit et habeat castrense peculium, puto successores eius ante teneri, sic deinde ad patrem venire.

If a son in the family be a soldier and have camp-peculium, I think his successors are held first, and thus thereafter it comes to the father.

Dig. 11.7.31.1

Digest 11.7.31.1

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian, 25 On the Edict.

Qui servum alienum vel ancillam sepelivit, habet adversus dominum funerariam actionem.

Whoever has buried another’s male slave or maidservant has a funerary action against the master.

Dig. 11.7.31.2

Digest 11.7.31.2

Ulpianus 25 ad ed.

Ulpian, 25 on the Edict.

Haec actio non est annua, sed perpetua, et heredi ceterisque successoribus et in successores datur.

This action is not annual, but perpetual, and is granted to the heir and the other successors and against successors.

Dig. 11.7.32pr.

Digest 11.7.32, preface.

Paulus 27 ad ed.

Paulus book 27 on the edict.

Si possessor hereditatis funus fecerit, deinde victus in restitutione non deduxerit quod impenderit, utilem esse ei funerariam.

If the possessor of the inheritance has conducted the funeral, then, having been defeated in the restitution, he did not deduct what he expended; a useful funerary action is available to him.

Dig. 11.7.32.1

Digest 11.7.32.1

Paulus 27 ad ed.

Paulus 27 on the Edict.

Si eodem momento temporis vir et uxor decesserit, labeo ait in heredem viri pro portione dotis dandam hanc actionem, quoniam id ipsum dotis nomine ad eum pervenit.

If at the same moment of time the husband and the wife have died, Labeo says that this action is to be granted against the husband’s heir for the proportion of the dowry, since that very thing has come to him under the name of dowry.

Dig. 11.7.33

Digest 11.7.33

Ulpianus 68 ad ed.

Ulpian, 68 on the Edict.

Si quis fuit heres, deinde hereditas ablata sit ei quasi indigno, magis est, ut penes eum iura sepulchrorum remaneant.

If someone was heir, and then the inheritance was taken from him as though unworthy, the stronger view is that the rights of the sepulchres remain with him.

Dig. 11.7.34

Digest 11.7.34

Paulus 64 ad ed.

Paulus 64 on the Edict.

Si locus sub condicione legatus sit, interim heres inferendo mortuum non facit locum religiosum.

If a place has been bequeathed under a condition, in the meantime the heir, by bringing in the dead, does not make the place religious.

Dig. 11.7.35

Digest 11.7.35

Marcellus 5 Dig.

Marcellus 5 Digest.

Minime maiores lugendum putaverunt eum, qui ad patriam delendam et parentes et liberos interficiendos venerit: quem si filius patrem aut pater filium occidisset, sine scelere, etiam praemio adficiendum omnes constituerunt.

By no means did the ancestors think him to be mourned who had come to destroy the fatherland and to put to death parents and children; such a one—if a son had slain his father or a father his son—all decreed was, without crime, even to be awarded a reward.

Dig. 11.7.36

Digest 11.7.36

Pomponius 26 ad q. muc.

Pomponius 26 on q. muc.

Cum loca capta sunt ab hostibus, omnia desinunt religiosa vel sacra esse, sicut homines liberi in servitutem perveniunt: quod si ab hac calamitate fuerint liberata, quasi quodam postliminio reversa pristino statui restituuntur.

When places are captured by enemies, everything ceases to be religious or sacred, just as free men come into servitude: but if they have been freed from this calamity, as if by a kind of postliminium, having returned, they are restituted to their pristine status.

Dig. 11.7.37pr.

Digest 11.7.37pr.

Macer 1 ad l. vices. hered.

Macer 1 on the law of the twentieth on inheritances.

Funeris sumptus accipitur, quidquid corporis causa veluti unguentorum erogatum est, et pretium loci in quo defunctus humatus est, et si qua vectigalia sunt, vel sarcophagi et vectura: et quidquid corporis causa antequam sepeliatur consumptum est, funeris impensam esse existimo.

Funeral expenses are understood to include whatever has been disbursed for the sake of the body, as, for example, ointments, and the price of the place in which the deceased has been inhumed, and, if there are any dues, or the sarcophagus and the conveyance: and whatever for the sake of the body has been consumed before it is buried, I consider to be funeral expenditure.

Dig. 11.7.37.1

Digest 11.7.37.1

Macer 1 ad l. vices. hered.

Macer 1 on the Law of the Twentieth on Inheritances.

Monumentum autem sepulchri id esse divus hadrianus rescripsit, quod monumenti, id est causa muniendi eius loci factum sit, in quo corpus impositum sit. itaque si amplum quid aedificari testator iusserit, veluti incircum porticationes, eos sumptus funeris causa non esse.

moreover, the deified hadrian by rescript declared that a monument of a sepulcher is that which has been made as a monument, that is, for the purpose of securing that place in which the body has been laid. and so, if the testator has ordered something ample to be built, for example encircling porticoes, those expenses are not for the sake of the funeral.

Dig. 11.7.38

Digest 11.7.38

Ulpianus 9 de omn. trib.

Ulpian, 9 On All Tribunals

Ne corpora aut ossa mortuorum detinerentur aut vexarentur neve prohiberentur quo minus via publica transferrentur aut quominus sepelirentur, praesidis provinciae officium est.

That the bodies or the bones of the dead not be detained or vexed, and not be prohibited from being carried along the public road or from being buried, is the duty of the governor of the province.

Dig. 11.7.39

Digest 11.7.39

Marcianus 3 inst.

Marcianus 3 Institutes.

Divi fratres edicto admonuerunt, ne iustae sepulturae traditum, id est terra conditum corpus inquietetur: videtur autem terra conditum et si in arcula conditum hoc animo sit, ut non alibi transferatur. sed arculam ipsam, si res exigat, in locum commodiorem licere transferre non est denegandum.

The deified brothers, by an edict, admonished that a body consigned to lawful sepulture, that is, interred in the earth, not be disturbed: moreover, it is regarded as interred in earth even if it is placed in a small coffin, with this intention, that it not be transferred elsewhere. But permission to transfer the coffin itself, if the matter requires, into a more convenient place is not to be denied.

Dig. 11.7.40

Digest 11.7.40

Paulus 3 quaest.

Paulus 3, Questions.

Si quis enim eo animo corpus intulerit, quod cogitaret inde alio postea transferre magisque temporis gratia deponere, quam quod ibi sepeliret mortuum et quasi aeterna sede dare destinaverit, manebit locus profanus.

For if anyone has brought a body in with this intention, that he was thinking thereafter to transfer it elsewhere and rather to deposit it for the sake of time than to bury the dead there and, as it were, to assign it to an eternal seat, the place will remain profane.

Dig. 11.7.41

Digest 11.7.41

Callistratus 2 inst.

Callistratus 2 Institutes.

Si plures sint domini eius loci, ubi mortuus infertur, omnes consentire debent, cum extranei inferantur: nam ex ipsis dominis quemlibet recte ibi sepeliri constat etiam sine ceterorum consensu, maxime cum alius non sit locus in quo sepeliretur.

If there are several owners of the place where a dead person is brought in, all must consent when outsiders are interred: for as to the owners themselves, it is established that any one of them may rightly be buried there even without the consent of the others, especially when there is no other place in which he might be buried.

Dig. 11.7.42

Digest 11.7.42

Florus 7 inst.

Florus 7 Institutes.

Monumentum generaliter res est memoriae causa in posterum prodita: in qua si corpus vel reliquiae inferantur, fiet sepulchrum, si vero nihil eorum inferatur, erit monumentum memoriae causa factum, quod graeci kenotafion appellant.

A monument, generally, is a thing set forth for the sake of memory for posterity: in which, if a body or remains are interred, it becomes a sepulchre; but if none of these are interred, it will be a monument made for the sake of memory, which the Greeks call a cenotaph.

Dig. 11.7.43

Digest 11.7.43

Papinianus 8 quaest.

Papinian 8 Questions.

Sunt personae, quae, quamquam religiosum locum facere non possunt, interdicto tamen de mortuo inferendo utiliter agunt, ut puta dominus proprietatis, si in fundum, cuius fructus alienus est, mortuum inferat aut inferre velit: nam si intulerit, non faciet iustum sepulchrum, sed si prohibeatur, utiliter interdicto, qui de iure dominii quaeritur, aget. eademque sunt in socio, qui in fundum communem invito socio mortuum inferre vult. nam propter publicam utilitatem, ne insepulta cadavera iacerent, strictam rationem insuper habemus, quae nonnumquam in ambiguis religionum quaestionibus omitti solent: nam summam esse rationem, quae pro religione facit.

There are persons who, although they cannot make a place religious, nevertheless act to good effect by the interdict de mortuo inferendo, as, for instance, the owner of the property, if he brings, or wishes to bring, a dead person into a farm whose fruits are another’s: for if he does bring him in, he will not make a lawful tomb; but if he is prohibited, he will with effect proceed by the interdict in which inquiry is made concerning the right of ownership. And the same is true of a partner who wishes to bring a dead person into a common farm against his partner’s will. For on account of public utility, lest unburied corpses lie about, we moreover have regard to a strict rationale, which is sometimes accustomed to be omitted in ambiguous questions of religions; for the highest rationale is that which makes on behalf of religion.

Dig. 11.7.44

Digest 11.7.44

Paulus 3 quaest.

Paulus 3 questions.

Cum in diverisis locis sepultum est, uterque quidem locus religiosus non fit, quia una sepultura plura sepulchra efficere non potest: mihi autem videtur illum religiosum esse, ubi quod est principale conditum est, id est caput, cuius imago fit, inde cognoscimur. cum autem impetratur, ut reliquiae transferantur, desinit locus religiosus esse.

When it has been buried in diverse places, indeed neither place becomes religious, because a single sepulture cannot effect several sepulchres: however, it seems to me that that place is religious where that which is principal has been interred, that is, the head, of which an image is made, whence we are recognized. But when it is obtained that the relics be transferred, the place ceases to be religious.

Dig. 11.7.45

Digest 11.7.45

Maecenatus 8 fideic.

Maecenatus 8 on trusts.

Impensa funeris semper ex hereditate deducitur, quae etiam omne creditum solet praecedere, cum bona solvendo non sint.

The expense of the funeral is always deducted from the inheritance, which is also accustomed to take precedence over every credit (debt), when the goods are not sufficient to pay.

Dig. 11.7.46pr.

Digest 11.7.46, beginning.

Scaevola 2 quaest.

Scaevola 2 questions.

Si plura praedia quis habuit et omnium usum fructum separatim legaverit, poterit in unum inferri et electio erit heredis et gratificationi locus: sed fructuario utilem actionem in heredem dandam ad id recipiendum, quod propter eam electionem minutus est usus fructus.

If someone had several estates and has bequeathed the usufruct of all separately, it can be brought together into one, and the election will be the heir’s, and there is room for gratification; but a useful action is to be given to the usufructuary against the heir to recover to the extent that the usufruct has been diminished on account of that election.

Dig. 11.7.46.1

Digest 11.7.46.1

Scaevola 2 quaest.

Scaevola 2 questions.

Si heres mulieris inferat mortuam in hereditarium fundum, a marito qui debet in funus conferre pro aestimatione loci consequatur.

If the heir of a woman brings in (buries) the deceased on the hereditary estate, let him recover from the husband, who ought to contribute to the funeral, according to the estimation of the place.

Dig. 11.7.46.2

Digest 11.7.46.2

Scaevola 2 quaest.

Scaevola Questions Book 2.

Ei, cui vestimenta legantur, si in funus erogata sint, utilem actionem in heredem dandam placuit et privilegium funerarium.

For the one to whom garments are bequeathed, if they have been expended on the funeral, it has been decided that a useful action is to be given against the heir, and a funerary privilege.

Dig. 11.8.0. De mortuo inferendo et sepulchro aedificando.

Dig. 11.8.0. On bringing in the dead and on building a sepulcher.

Dig. 11.8.1pr.

Digest 11.8.1 pr.

Ulpianus 68 ad ed.

Ulpian 68 on the edict.

Praetor ait: " quo quave illi mortuum inferre invito te ius est, quo minus illi eo eave mortuum inferre et ibi sepelire liceat, vim fieri veto. "

Praetor says: " to whatever place or by whatever way he has the right, even with you unwilling, to carry in a dead person, I forbid force to be used, whereby it would be any the less permitted to him to carry the dead person there or by that way and to bury there. "

Dig. 11.8.1.1

Digest 11.8.1.1

Ulpianus 68 ad ed.

Ulpian, 68 on the Edict.

Qui inferendi mortuum ius habet, non prohibetur inferre: prohiberi autem inferre videtur, sive in locum inferre prohibeatur sive itinere arceatur.

He who has the right of interring a dead person is not prohibited from interring: however, he is considered to be prohibited from interring whether he is forbidden to bring it into the place or is barred from the route.

Dig. 11.8.1.2

Digest 11.8.1.2

Ulpianus 68 ad ed.

Ulpian, 68 On the Edict.

Hoc interdicto de mortuo inferendo dominus proprietatis uti potest, quod etiam de loco puro competit.

With this interdict de mortuo inferendo the owner of the property can make use, which likewise obtains with respect to a pure place.

Dig. 11.8.1.3

Digest 11.8.1.3

Ulpianus 68 ad ed.

Ulpian 68 on the Edict.

Item si mihi in fundum via debeatur, in quem fundum inferre volo, et via prohibear, hoc interdicto posse me experiri placuit, quia inferre prohibeor qui via uti prohibeor: idque erit probandum et si alia servitus debeatur.

Likewise, if a way to an estate is owed to me, into which estate I wish to carry in, and I am prohibited the way, it has been decided that I can proceed by this interdict, because I am prohibited from bringing in, I who am prohibited from using the way: and this must be proved even if another servitude is owed.

Dig. 11.8.1.4

Digest 11.8.1.4

Ulpianus 68 ad ed.

Ulpian, 68 On the Edict.

Hoc interdictum prohibitorium esse palam est.

It is manifest that this interdict is prohibitory.

Dig. 11.8.1.5

Digest 11.8.1.5

Ulpianus 68 ad ed.

Ulpian, 68 on the Edict.

Praetor ait: " quo illi ius est invito te mortuum inferre, quominus illi in eo loco sepulchrum sine dolo malo aedificare liceat, vim fieri veto. "

The praetor says: " where he has the right to bring in a corpse against your will, I forbid force to be used to prevent his being permitted to build a sepulchre in that place without malicious fraud. "

Dig. 11.8.1.6

Digest 11.8.1.6

Ulpianus 68 ad ed.

Ulpian, 68 on the Edict.

Interdictum hoc propterea propositum est, quia religionis interest monumenta exstrui et exornari.

This interdict has been proposed for this reason, because it is of concern to religion that monuments be erected and adorned.

Dig. 11.8.1.7

Digest 11.8.1.7

Ulpianus 68 ad ed.

Ulpian 68 on the edict.

Facere sepulchrum sive monumentum in loco, in quo ei ius est, nemo prohibetur.

No one is forbidden to make a sepulcher or monument in a place in which he has a right.

Dig. 11.8.1.8

Digest 11.8.1.8

Ulpianus 68 ad ed.

Ulpian 68 on the edict.

Aedificare videtur prohibere et qui prohibet eam materiam convehi, quae aedificio necessaria sit. proinde et si operi necessarios prohibuit quis venire, interdictum locum habet, et si machinam alligare quis prohibeat, si tamen eo loci prohibeat, qui servitutem debeat: ceterum si in meo solo velis machinam ponere, non tenebor interdicto, si iure te non patiar.

One is deemed to prohibit building also who prohibits the conveying of that material which is necessary for the building. Accordingly, if someone has prohibited those necessary to the work from coming, the interdict has a place; and likewise if someone forbids a machine to be fastened—provided, however, that he forbids it in a place which owes a servitude. But if you wish to place a machine on my own soil, I shall not be bound by the interdict, if by right I do not allow you.

Dig. 11.8.1.9

Digest 11.8.1.9

Ulpianus 68 ad ed.

Ulpian 68 on the Edict.

Aedificare autem non solum qui novum opus molitur intellegendus est, verum is quoque, qui vult reficere.

Moreover, one is to understand “to build” not only of him who undertakes a new work, but also of him who wishes to repair.

Dig. 11.8.1.10

Digest 11.8.1.10

Ulpianus 68 ad ed.

Ulpian 68 on the Edict.

Is qui id agit, ut labatur sepulchrum, hoc interdicto tenetur.

He who acts to bring it about that a sepulcher collapse is held by this interdict.

Dig. 11.8.2

Digest 11.8.2

Marcellus 28 Dig.

Marcellus 28 Digest.

Negat lex regia mulierem, quae praegnas mortua sit, humari, antequam partus ei excidatur: qui contra fecerit, spem animantis cum gravida peremisse videtur.

The royal law forbids that a woman who has died pregnant be interred before the offspring be excised from her: whoever has done contrary seems to have destroyed the hope of an animate being together with the pregnant woman.

Dig. 11.8.3pr.

Digest 11.8.3pr.

Pomponius 9 ad sab.

Pomponius 9 on sab.

Si propius aedes tuas quis aedificet sepulchrum, opus novum tu nuntiare poteris, sed facto opere nullam habebis actionem nisi quod vi aut clam.

If someone builds a sepulcher nearer to your house, you will be able to announce a new work; but once the work has been done, you will have no action except that for what was done by force or clandestinely (the “quod vi aut clam”).

Dig. 11.8.3.1

Digest 11.8.3.1

Pomponius 9 ad sab.

Pomponius 9 on Sabinus.

Si propius aedificium alienum intra legitimum modum mortuus illatus sit, postea eum prohibere non poterit aedificii dominus, quominus alium mortuum eo inferat vel monumentum aedificet, si ab initio domino sciente hoc fecerit.

If, nearer to another’s building and within the lawful measure, a dead person has been brought in, thereafter the owner of the building will not be able to forbid him from bringing in another dead person there or from building a monument, if from the beginning he did this with the owner knowing.

Dig. 11.8.4

Digest 11.8.4

Ulpianus 2 resp.

Ulpian 2 responses.

Longa possessione ius sepulchri non tribui ei, cui iure non competit.

By long possession the right of the sepulcher is not conferred upon him to whom it does not belong by law.

Dig. 11.8.5pr.

Digest 11.8.5, initial paragraph.

Ulpianus 1 opin.

Ulpian 1 Opinions.

Si in eo monumento, quod imperfectum esse dicitur, reliquiae hominis conditae sunt, nihil impedit quominus id perficiatur.

If in that monument, which is said to be imperfect, the relics of a human being have been interred, nothing hinders that it be completed.

Dig. 11.8.5.1

Digest 11.8.5.1

Ulpianus 1 opin.

Ulpian 1 opinions.

Sed si religiosus locus iam factus sit, pontifices explorare debent, quatenus salva religione desiderio reficiendi operis medendum sit.

But if a place has already been made religious, the pontiffs ought to explore to what extent, with the religion preserved, the desire of repairing the work should be remedied.