Justinian: DIGESTA

Quoniam igitur multa ad contractus varios pertinentia iura sub hoc titulo praetor inseruit, ideo rerum creditarum titulum praemisit: omnes enim contractus, quos alienam fidem secuti instituimus, complectitur: nam, ut libro primo quaestionum celsus ait, credendi generalis appellatio est: ideo sub hoc titulo praetor et de commodato et de pignore edixit. nam cuicumque rei adsentiamur alienam fidem secuti mox recepturi quid, ex hoc contractu credere dicimur. rei quoque verbum ut generale praetor elegit.

Since, therefore, the praetor has inserted under this title many legal rules pertaining to various contracts, for that reason he prefixed the title “of things credited”: for it embraces all contracts which we establish having followed another’s faith (credit); for, as Celsus says in the first book of the Questions, “crediting” is a general appellation: therefore under this title the praetor also issued edicts concerning commodatum and pledge. For to whatever matter we assent, having followed another’s credit, being about soon to receive something back, in respect of this contract we are said to “credit.” The praetor also chose the word “thing” as a general one.

Dig. 12.1.2pr.

Digest 12.1.2, preface.

Paulus 28 ad ed.

Paulus 28 on the Edict.

Mutuum damus recepturi non eandem speciem quam dedimus ( alioquin commodatum erit aut depositum), sed idem genus: nam si aliud genus, veluti ut pro tritico vinum recipiamus, non erit mutuum.

We give a mutuum, to receive back not the same specific thing (species) that we gave ( otherwise it will be a commodatum or a deposit), but the same kind (genus): for if it is another kind, for example that we receive wine in place of wheat, it will not be a mutuum.

Dig. 12.1.2.1

Digest 12.1.2.1

Paulus 28 ad ed.

Paul 28 on the Edict.

Mutui datio consistit in his rebus, quae pondere numero mensura consistunt, quoniam eorum datione possumus in creditum ire, quia in genere suo functionem recipiunt per solutionem quam specie: nam in ceteris rebus ideo in creditum ire non possumus, quia aliud pro alio invito creditori solvi non potest.

The giving of a mutuum consists in those things which are constituted by weight, number, or measure, since by the giving of these we can go into credit, because they receive performance in their kind by payment rather than in the specific thing: for in other things, for that reason, we cannot go into credit, because one thing cannot be paid for another against an unwilling creditor.

Dig. 12.1.2.2

Digest 12.1.2.2

Paulus 28 ad ed.

Paulus 28 on the Edict.

Appellata est autem mutui datio ab eo, quod de meo tuum fit: et ideo, si non faciat tuum, non nascitur obligatio.

Moreover, the giving of a mutuum is so called from this, that out of what is mine something becomes yours; and therefore, if it does not make it yours, no obligation arises.

Dig. 12.1.2.3

Digest 12.1.2.3

Paulus 28 ad ed.

Paulus, 28 on the Edict.

Creditum ergo a mutuo differt qua genus a specie: nam creditum consistit extra eas res, quae pondere numero mensura continentur sic, ut, si eandem rem recepturi sumus, creditum est. item mutuum non potest esse, nisi proficiscatur pecunia, creditum autem interdum etiam si nihil proficiscatur, veluti si post nuptias dos promittatur.

A creditum therefore differs from a mutuum as genus from species: for a creditum lies beyond those things which are contained by weight, number, or measure, such that, if we are to receive the same thing back, it is a creditum. Likewise, a mutuum cannot exist unless money is disbursed; a creditum, however, sometimes [arises] even if nothing is disbursed, as for example if a dowry is promised after the nuptials.

Dig. 12.1.2.4

Digest 12.1.2.4

Paulus 28 ad ed.

Paulus 28 on the Edict.

In mutui datione oportet dominum esse dantem, nec obest, quod filius familias et servus dantes peculiares nummos obligant: id enim tale est, quale si voluntate mea tu des pecuniam: nam mihi actio adquiritur, licet mei nummi non fuerint.

In the giving of a mutuum it is proper that the giver be the owner; nor does it hinder that a filius familias and a slave, in giving, bind with coins from their peculium: for this is just as if, by my will, you were to give the money; for a right of action is acquired to me, although the coins were not mine.

Dig. 12.1.2.5

Digest 12.1.2.5

Paulus 28 ad ed.

Paulus 28 on the Edict.

Verbis quoque credimus quodam actu ad obligationem comparandam interposito, veluti stipulatione.

We also believe that by words, when a certain act is interposed for an obligation to be procured—such as a stipulation.

Dig. 12.1.3

Digest 12.1.3

Pomponius 27 ad sab.

Pomponius 27 to Sabinus.

Cum quid mutuum dederimus, etsi non cavimus, ut aeque bonum nobis redderetur, non licet debitori deteriorem rem, quae ex eodem genere sit, reddere, veluti vinum novum pro vetere: nam in contrahendo quod agitur pro cauto habendum est, id autem agi intellegitur, ut eiusdem generis et eadem bonitate solvatur, qua datum sit.

When we have given something as a mutuum-loan, even if we did not stipulate that an equally good thing be returned to us, it is not permitted to the debtor to return a worse thing of the same kind, for example new wine in place of old: for in contracting, what is transacted is to be held as though by a cautious person; and it is understood that what is being transacted is that the discharge be of the same kind and the same goodness with which it was given.

Dig. 12.1.4pr.

Digest 12.1.4, pr.

Ulpianus 34 ad sab.

Ulpian 34 on Sabinus.

Si quis nec causam nec propositum faenerandi habuerit et tu empturus praedia desideraveris mutuam pecuniam nec volueris creditae nomine antequam emisses suscipere atque ita creditor, quia necessitatem forte proficiscendi habebat, deposuerit apud te hanc eandem pecuniam, ut, si emisses, crediti nomine obligatus esses, hoc depositum periculo est eius qui suscepit. nam et qui rem vendendam acceperit, ut pretio uteretur, periculo suo rem habebit.

If someone has had neither cause nor purpose of lending at interest, and you, being about to buy estates, have desired borrowed money, and you did not wish to receive it under the name of a loan before you had bought, and so the creditor, because he perhaps had the necessity of departing, has deposited with you this same money, so that, if you had bought, you would be bound under the name of a loan, this deposit is at the peril of the one who received it. For even he who has accepted a thing to be sold, that he might use the price, will hold the thing at his own peril.

Dig. 12.1.4.1

Digest 12.1.4.1

Ulpianus 34 ad sab.

Ulpian 34 on Sabinus.

Res pignori data pecunia soluta condici potest. et fructus ex iniusta causa percepti condicendi sunt: nam et si colonus post lustrum completum fructus perceperit, condici eos constat ita demum, si non ex voluntate domini percepti sunt: nam si ex voluntate, procul dubio cessat condictio.

A thing given in pledge, once the money has been paid, can be reclaimed by a condictio. And fruits taken from an unjust cause are to be demanded by condictio: for even if a tenant farmer, after a completed lustrum (five-year period), has taken the fruits, it is agreed that they are to be reclaimed only if they were not taken with the owner’s consent; for if with consent, beyond doubt the condictio ceases.

Dig. 12.1.4.2

Digest 12.1.4.2

Ulpianus 34 ad sab.

Ulpian, 34 on Sabinus.

Ea, quae vi fluminum importata sunt, condici possunt.

Those things which have been brought in by the force of rivers can be recovered by condictio.

Dig. 12.1.5

Digest 12.1.5

Pomponius 22 ad sab.

Pomponius 22 on Sabinus.

Quod te mihi dare oporteat si id postea perierit, quam per te factum erit quominus id mihi dares, tuum fore id detrimentum constat. sed cum quaeratur, an per te factum sit, animadverti debebit, non solum in potestate tua fuerit id nec ne aut dolo malo feceris quominus esset vel fuerit nec ne, sed etiam si aliqua iusta causa sit, propter quam intellegere deberes te dare oportere.

That which you ought to give to me—if it later has perished, insofar as it was through your doing that you did not give it to me, it is established that the detriment will be yours. But when it is asked whether it was brought about through you, it must be observed not only whether that was or was not in your power, or whether by dolus malus you did or did not prevent it from being or having been, but also whether there is any just cause on account of which you ought to understand that you ought to give.

Dig. 12.1.6

Digest 12.1.6

Paulus 28 ad ed.

Paulus, 28 on the Edict.

Certum est, cuius species vel quantitas, quae in obligatione versatur, aut nomine suo aut ea demonstratione quae nominis vice fungitur qualis quantaque sit ostenditur. nam et pedius libro primo de stipulationibus nihil referre ait, proprio nomine res appelletur an digito ostendatur an vocabulis quibusdam demonstretur: quatenus mutua vice fungantur, quae tantundem praestent.

A certum is that whose species or quantity, which is engaged in the obligation, is shown either by its own name or by that demonstration which functions in the place of a name, showing of what sort and how great it is. For even Pedius, in the first book On Stipulations, says it makes no difference whether the thing is called by its proper name, or is pointed out with a finger, or is demonstrated by certain vocables: insofar as they discharge one another’s office in mutual vice, provided that they render just as much.

Dig. 12.1.7

Digest 12.1.7

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian, 26 On the Edict.

Omnia, quae inseri stipulationibus possunt, eadem possunt etiam numerationi pecuniae, et ideo et condiciones.

Everything that can be inserted into stipulations can likewise be applied to the numeration of money; and therefore conditions as well.

Dig. 12.1.8

Digest 12.1.8

Pomponius 6 ex plaut.

Pomponius 6 from Plautius.

Proinde mutui datio interdum pendet, ut ex post facto confirmetur: veluti si dem tibi mutuos nummos, ut, si condicio aliqua exstiterit, tui fiant sisque mihi obligatus: item si legatam pecuniam heres crediderit, deinde legatarius eam noluit ad se pertinere, quia heredis ex die aditae hereditatis videntur nummi fuisse, ut credita pecunia peti possit. nam iulianus ait et traditiones ab herede factas ad id tempus redigi, quo hereditas adita fuerit, cum repudiatum sit legatum aut adpositum.

Accordingly, the giving of a mutuum sometimes hangs, so that it is confirmed ex post facto: as, for instance, if I give you coins by way of a mutuum, on the terms that, if some condition shall arise, they become yours and you are obligated to me; likewise, if the heir has lent money that was bequeathed, and thereafter the legatee did not wish it to pertain to himself, since the coins are deemed to have been the heir’s from the day the inheritance was entered upon, so that the money lent can be claimed. For Julian says that transfers made by the heir are also referred back to the time at which the inheritance was entered upon, when the legacy has been repudiated or accepted.

Dig. 12.1.9pr.

Digest 12.1.9, preface.

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the edict.

Certi condictio competit ex omni causa, ex omni obligatione, ex qua certum petitur, sive ex certo contractu petatur sive ex incerto: licet enim nobis ex omni contractu certum condicere, dummodo praesens sit obligatio: ceterum si in diem sit vel sub condicione obligatio, ante diem vel condicionem non potero agere.

The condictio for a certain thing is competent from every cause, from every obligation from which a definite (certain) thing is sought, whether it be demanded from a certain contract or from an uncertain one: for it is permitted to us from any contract to bring a condiction for a certum, provided that the obligation is present; however, if the obligation is to a day or under a condition, before the day or the condition I shall not be able to sue.

Dig. 12.1.9.1

Digest 12.1.9.1

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the Edict.

Competit haec actio etiam ex legati causa et ex lege aquilia. sed et ex causa furtiva per hanc actionem condicitur. sed et si ex senatus consulto agetur, competit haec actio, veluti si is cui fiduciaria hereditas restituta est agere volet.

This action is competent also on the ground of a legacy and under the Aquilian Law. And also on a furtive cause one proceeds by this action. And likewise, if suit is brought under a senatorial decree, this action is available, for example if the person to whom a fiduciary inheritance has been restored should wish to sue.

Dig. 12.1.9.2

Digest 12.1.9.2

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the Edict.

Sive autem suo nomine quis obligatus sit sive alieno, per hanc actionem recte convenitur.

Whether, moreover, someone is obligated in his own name or in another’s, he is rightly proceeded against by this action.

Dig. 12.1.9.3

Digest 12.1.9.3

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian, 26 on the Edict.

Quoniam igitur ex omnibus contractibus haec certi condictio competit, sive re fuerit contractus factus sive verbis sive coniunctim, referendae sunt nobis quaedam species, quae dignum habent tractatum, an haec actio ad petitionem eorum sufficiat.

Since, therefore, in respect of all contracts this condictio for a determinate thing is available, whether the contract has been made by thing (re) or by words or conjointly, certain species must be set out by us which deserve treatment, namely whether this action suffices for their claim.

Dig. 12.1.9.4

Digest 12.1.9.4

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian, 26 on the Edict.

Numeravi tibi decem et haec alii stipulatus sum: nulla est stipulatio: an condicere decem per hanc actionem possim, quasi duobus contractibus intervenientibus, uno qui re factus est, id est numeratione, alio qui verbis, id est inutiliter, quoniam alii stipulari non potui? et puto posse.

I counted out to you ten, and I stipulated these to another: there is no stipulation: can I bring a condictio for ten by this action, as if two contracts had intervened, one which was made by the thing (re), that is, by numeration (payment), the other which was by words, that is, ineffectually, since I could not stipulate to another? And I think I can.

Dig. 12.1.9.5

Digest 12.1.9.5

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the Edict.

Idem erit, si a pupillo fuero sine tutoris auctoritate stipulatus, cui tutore auctore credidi: nam et tunc manebit mihi condictio ex numeratione.

The same will hold, if I have stipulated from a ward without the tutor’s authority, to whom, with the tutor as authorizer, I gave credit; for even then the condiction from the numeration (counting out/payment) will remain to me.

Dig. 12.1.9.6

Digest 12.1.9.6

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the Edict.

Item quaeri potest et si, quod tibi numeravi, sub impossibili condicione stipuler: cum enim nulla sit stipulatio, manebit condictio.

Likewise, the question can be raised even if, as to what I have paid over to you, I stipulate under an impossible condition: for since there is no stipulation, the condictio will remain.

Dig. 12.1.9.7

Digest 12.1.9.7

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian, 26 on the Edict.

Sed et si ei numeravero, cui postea bonis interdictum est, mox ab eo stipuler, puto pupillo eum comparandum, quoniam et stipulando sibi adquirit.

But also, if I have paid to one who afterwards has been interdicted from his goods, and soon I stipulate from him, I think he is to be compared to a ward, since by stipulating he also acquires for himself.

Dig. 12.1.9.8

Digest 12.1.9.8

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the Edict.

Si nummos meos tuo nomine dedero velut tuos absente te et ignorante, aristo scribit adquiri tibi condictionem: iulianus quoque de hoc interrogatus libro decimo scribit veram esse aristonis sententiam nec dubitari, quin, si meam pecuniam tuo nomine voluntate tua dedero, tibi adquiritur obligatio, cum cottidie credituri pecuniam mutuam ab alio poscamus, ut nostro nomine creditor numeret futuro debitori nostro.

If I give my coins in your name, as if they were yours, you being absent and unaware, Aristo writes that a condiction is acquired for you; Julianus likewise, asked about this in his tenth book, writes that Aristo’s opinion is true, and that there is no doubt that, if I have given my money in your name with your consent, an obligation is acquired for you, since every day, when we are about to lend money (mutuum), we request it from another, so that the creditor may pay out in our name to our future debtor.

Dig. 12.1.9.9

Digest 12.1.9.9

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian, 26 on the edict.

Deposui apud te decem, postea permisi tibi uti: nerva proculus etiam antequam moveantur, condicere quasi mutua tibi haec posse aiunt, et est verum, ut et Marcello videtur: animo enim coepit possidere. ergo transit periculum ad eum, qui mutuam rogavit et poterit ei condici.

I deposited ten with you; afterwards I permitted you to use it: Nerva and Proculus say that even before they are moved, these can be sued for by condictio against you as if by a mutuum, and it is true, as it also seems to Marcellus: for he has begun to possess in intention. Therefore the risk passes to him who asked for the mutuum, and a condictio can be brought against him.

Dig. 12.1.10

Digest 12.1.10

Ulpianus 2 ad ed.

Ulpian 2 on the Edict.

Quod si ab initio, cum deponerem, uti tibi si voles permisero, creditam non esse antequam mota sit, quoniam debitu iri non est certum.

But if from the outset, when I was depositing, I allowed you to use it if you wished, it is not loaned before it has been set in motion, since it is not certain that it will be owed.

Dig. 12.1.11pr.

Digest 12.1.11pr.

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian, 26 on the Edict.

Rogasti me, ut tibi pecuniam crederem: ego cum non haberem, lancem tibi dedi vel massam auri, ut eam venderes et nummis utereris. si vendideris, puto mutuam pecuniam factam. quod si lancem vel massam sine tua culpa perdideris prius quam venderes, utrum mihi an tibi perierit, quaestionis est.

You asked me that I should lend you money: since I did not have it, I gave you a plate or a mass of gold, that you might sell it and use the coins. If you sell it, I think a money-loan (mutuum) has been made. But if you lose the plate or the mass without your fault before you sell, whether it has perished to me or to you is a matter of question.

mihi videtur nervae distinctio verissima existimantis multum interesse, venalem habui hanc lancem vel massam nec ne, ut, si venalem habui, mihi perierit, quemadmodum si alii dedissem vendendam: quod si non fui proposito hoc ut venderem, sed haec causa fuit vendendi, ut tu utereris, tibi eam perisse, et maxime si sine usuris credidi.

It seems to me that Nerva’s distinction is most true, judging that it makes much difference whether I had this dish or ingot as vendible or not, namely that, if I had it as vendible, the loss is mine, just as if I had given it to another to be sold; but if I was not with this purpose, to sell it, but this was the cause of selling, that you might use it (the money), the loss is yours—and especially if I lent without usury.

Dig. 12.1.11.1

Digest 12.1.11.1

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the Edict.

Si tibi dedero decem sic, ut novem debeas, proculus ait, et recte, non amplius te ipso iure debere quam novem. sed si dedero, ut undecim debeas, putat proculus amplius quam decem condici non posse.

If I give you ten on condition that you owe nine, proculus says—and rightly—that by the law itself you do not owe more than nine. But if I give (it) so that you owe eleven, proculus thinks that more than ten cannot be recoverable by condictio.

Dig. 12.1.11.2

Digest 12.1.11.2

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian, 26 on the Edict.

Si fugitivus servus nummos tibi crediderit, an condicere tibi dominus possit, quaeritur. et quidem si servus meus, cui concessa est peculii administratio, crediderit tibi, erit mutua: fugitivus autem vel alius servus contra voluntatem domini credendo non facit accipientis. quid ergo?

If a fugitive slave has entrusted you with coins (money), the question is whether the master can bring a condictio against you. And indeed, if my slave, to whom the administration of his peculium has been granted, has lent to you, it will be a mutuum; but a fugitive or another slave, by lending contrary to the will of the master, does not make the recipient bound. What then?

vindicari nummi possunt, si extant ^ exstant^, aut, si dolo malo desinant possideri, ad exhibendum agi: quod si sine dolo malo consumpsisti, condicere tibi potero.

The coins can be vindicated if they are extant ^ exstant^; or, if through dolus malus they cease to be possessed, one may sue ad exhibendum: but if you have consumed them without dolus malus, I shall be able to bring a condictio against you.

Dig. 12.1.12

Digest 12.1.12

Pomponius 6 ex plaut.

Pomponius 6 from Plautius.

Si a furioso, cum eum compotem mentis esse putares, pecuniam quasi mutuam acceperis eaque in rem tuam versa fuerit, condictionem furioso adquiri iulianus ait: nam ex quibus causis ignorantibus nobis actiones adquiruntur, ex isdem etiam furioso adquiri. item si is qui servo crediderat furere coeperit, deinde servus in rem domini id verterit, condici furiosi nomine posse. et si alienam pecuniam credendi causa quis dederit, deinde furere coeperit et consumpta sit ea pecunia, condictionem furioso adquiri.

If from a madman, when you supposed him to be of sound mind, you have received money as if by a mutuum-loan, and it has been turned to your own estate, Julian says that a condiction is acquired to the madman: for from those causes by which, while we are unaware, actions are acquired to us, from the same they are acquired also to the madman. Likewise, if he who had entrusted credit to a slave has begun to be mad, and then the slave has converted it to the master’s estate, a condiction can be brought in the name of the madman. And if someone has given another’s money for the sake of lending, then has begun to be mad and that money has been consumed, a condiction is acquired to the madman.

Dig. 12.1.13pr.

Digest 12.1.13, beginning.

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the Edict.

Nam et si fur nummos tibi credendi animo dedit, accipientis non facit, sed consumptis eis nascitur condictio.

For even if a thief gave you coins with the intent of lending, he does not constitute you a recipient; but once they have been consumed, a condictio arises.

Dig. 12.1.13.1

Digest 12.1.13.1

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian, 26 on the Edict.

Unde papinianus libro octavo quaestionum ait: si alienos nummos tibi mutuos dedi, non ante mihi teneris, quam eos consumpseris. quod si per partes eos consumpseris, an per partes tibi condicam, quaerit: et ait condicturum, si admonitus alienos nummos fuisse ideo per partem condico, quia nondum totos consumptos compereram.

Whence Papinian, in the eighth book of his Quaestiones, says: if I have given you, by way of mutuum, coins belonging to another, you are not liable to me until you have consumed them. But if you have consumed them in parts, he asks whether I should bring a condictio against you in parts; and he says that I will bring a condictio, if, having been apprised that the coins were another’s, I therefore sue for a part, because I had not yet discovered that the whole had been consumed.

Dig. 12.1.13.2

Digest 12.1.13.2

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the Edict.

Si servus communis decem crediderit, puto, sive administratio servo concessa est, sive non et consumantur nummi, quinum competere actionem: nam et si communes tibi nummos credidero centum, posse me quinquaginta condicere libro octavo quaestionum papinianus scribit, etiamsi singula corpora communia fuerint.

If a common slave has lent ten, I think that—whether administration has been granted to the slave or not, and the coins are consumed—an action for five lies: for even if I have lent you 100 coins that are common, Papinian writes in Book 8 of the Quaestiones that I can bring a condictio for fifty, even if the individual items were common property.

Dig. 12.1.14

Digest 12.1.14

Ulpianus 29 ad ed.

Ulpian 29 on the Edict.

Si filius familias contra senatus consultum mutuatus pecuniam solverit, patri nummos vindicanti nulla exceptio obicietur: sed si fuerint consumpti a creditore nummi, Marcellus ait cessare condictionem, quoniam totiens condictio datur, quotiens ex ea causa numerati sunt, ex qua actio esse potuisset, si dominium ad accipientem transisset: in proposito autem non esset. denique per errorem soluti contra senatus consultum crediti magis est cessare repetitionem.

If a filius familias, having borrowed money contrary to a senatorial decree (senatus consultum), pays it, no exception will be objected to the father vindicating the coins; but if the coins have been consumed by the creditor, Marcellus says the condictio ceases, since a condictio is granted only so often as the moneys were paid out from that cause out of which an action could have existed, if ownership (dominium) had passed to the recipient; but in the present case it would not have. Finally, where a loan contracted contrary to a senatorial decree has been paid through error, it is rather held that repetition ceases.

Dig. 12.1.15

Digest 12.1.15

Ulpianus 31 ad ed.

Ulpian, 31 on the Edict.

Singularia quaedam recepta sunt circa pecuniam creditam. nam si tibi debitorem meum iussero dare pecuniam, obligaris mihi, quamvis meos nummos non acceperis. quod igitur in duabus personis recipitur, hoc et in eadem persona recipiendum est, ut, cum ex causa mandati pecuniam mihi debeas et convenerit, ut crediti nomine eam retineas, videatur mihi data pecunia et a me ad te profecta.

Certain singular rules have been accepted concerning money lent. For if I have ordered my debtor to give you money, you are obligated to me, although you have not received my coins. Therefore what is accepted in two persons must also be accepted in the same person: so that, when by reason of a mandate you owe me money and it has been agreed that you retain it under the title of a loan (credit), the money is deemed to have been given to me and to have proceeded from me to you.

Dig. 12.1.16

Digest 12.1.16

Paulus 32 ad ed.

Paulus 32 on the Edict.

Si socius propriam pecuniam mutuam dedit, omnimodo creditam pecuniam facit, licet ceteri dissenserint: quod si communem numeravit, non alias creditam efficit, nisi ceteri quoque consentiant, quia suae partis tantum alienationem habuit.

If a partner has given his own money as a loan (mutuum), he in every respect makes the money a credit (loan), although the others dissented; but if he has paid out common money, he does not otherwise make it credited unless the others also consent, because he had the power of alienation only of his own share.

Dig. d.12.1.17

Digest 12.1.17

Ulpianus 1 disp.

Ulpian 1 Disputations.

Cum filius familias viaticum suum mutuum dederit, cum studiorum causa romae ageret, responsum est a scaevola extraordinario iudicio esse illi subveniendum.

When a filius familias had given his travel-money (viaticum) as a loan (mutuum), while he was staying at Rome for the sake of studies, a responsum was given by Scaevola that relief should be afforded to him by an extraordinary judgment.

Dig. 12.1.18pr.

Digest 12.1.18, beginning.

Ulpianus 7 disp.

Ulpian, Disputations, Book 7.

Si ego pecuniam tibi quasi donaturus dedero, tu quasi mutuam accipias, iulianus scribit donationem non esse: sed an mutua sit, videndum. et puto nec mutuam esse magisque nummos accipientis non fieri, cum alia opinione acceperit. quare si eos consumpserit, licet condictione teneatur, tamen doli exceptione uti poterit, quia secundum voluntatem dantis nummi sunt consumpti.

If I should give money to you as if intending to make a donation, and you receive it as if a loan, Julian writes that it is not a donation; but whether it is a mutuum must be considered. And I think it is not even a mutuum, and rather that the coins do not become the recipient’s, since he received them under a different understanding. Wherefore, if he has spent them, although he is liable under a condictio, nevertheless he will be able to use the exceptio doli, because the coins were consumed according to the will of the giver.

Dig. 12.1.18.1

Digest 12.1.18.1

Ulpianus 7 disp.

Ulpian 7 Disputations.

Si ego quasi deponens tibi dedero, tu quasi mutuam accipias, nec depositum nec mutuum est: idem est et si tu quasi mutuam pecuniam dederis, ego quasi commodatam ostendendi gratia accepi: sed in utroque casu consumptis nummis condictioni sine doli exceptione locus erit.

If I, as though a depositor, should give to you, and you accept as though by way of a loan (mutuum), it is neither a deposit nor a loan: the same holds if you have given money as though a loan (mutuum), and I received it as though a commodatum for the sake of showing: but in either case, when the coins have been consumed, there will be room for a condictio without the defense of fraud (doli exceptio).

Dig. 12.1.19pr.

Digest 12.1.19, preface.

Iulianus 10 Dig.

Julian 10 Digest.

Non omnis numeratio eum qui accepit obligat, sed quotiens id ipsum agitur, ut confestim obligaretur. nam et is, qui mortis causa pecuniam donat, numerat pecuniam, sed non aliter obligabit accipientem, quam si exstitisset casus, in quem obligatio collata fuisset, veluti si donator convaluisset aut is qui accipiebat prior decessisset. et cum pecunia daretur, ut aliquid fieret, quamdiu in pendenti esset, an id futurum esset, cessabit obligatio: cum vero certum esse coepisset futurum id non esse, obligabitur qui accepisset: veluti si titio decem dedero, ut stichum intra calendas manumitteret, ante kalendas nullam actionem habebo, post kalendas ita demum agere potero, si manumissus non fuerit.

Not every counting out obligates him who has received, but only whenever that very thing is transacted, namely that he be bound forthwith. For even he who gives money mortis causa counts out the money, but he will not otherwise obligate the recipient than if the event had arisen into which the obligation had been cast, for example, if the donor had recovered or he who was receiving had died first. And when money is given in order that something be done, so long as it is pending whether that will occur, the obligation will cease; but when it has begun to be certain that that will not occur, he who received will be obligated: for example, if I shall have given ten to titio, in order that he manumit stichus before the kalends, before the kalends I shall have no action; after the kalends only then shall I be able to sue, if he has not been manumitted.

Dig. 12.1.19.1

Digest 12.1.19.1

Iulianus 10 Dig.

Julianus 10 Digest

Si pupillus sine tutoris auctoritate crediderit aut solvendi causa dederit, consumpta pecunia condictionem habet vel liberatur non alia ratione, quam quod facto eius intellegitur ad eum qui acceperit pervenisse: quapropter si eandem pecuniam is, qui in creditum vel in solutum acceperat, alii porro in creditum vel in solutum dederit, consumpta ea et ipse pupillo obligatur vel eum a se liberabit et eum cui dederit obligatum habebit vel se ab eo liberabit. nam omnino qui alienam pecuniam credendi causa dat, consumpta ea habet obligatum eum qui acceperit: item qui in solutum dederit, liberabitur ab eo qui acceperit.

If a ward, without the authority of his guardian, has lent, or has given for the purpose of payment, then, once the money has been consumed, he has a condictio, or he is released, on no other rationale than that by his act it is understood to have come to the one who received it. Wherefore, if the same money the person who had received on credit or in payment has further given to another on credit or in payment, once it is consumed, he himself too is obligated to the ward, or he will release the ward from himself; and he will have the person to whom he gave it obligated, or he will release himself from him. For, in general, he who gives another’s money for lending’s sake, once it is consumed, has the recipient obligated; likewise, he who has given in payment will be released by the one who received it.

Dig. 12.1.20

Digest 12.1.20

Iulianus 18 Dig.

Julianus 18 Digest.

Si tibi pecuniam donassem, ut tu mihi eandem crederes, an credita fieret? dixi in huiusmodi propositionibus non propriis verbis nos uti, nam talem contractum neque donationem esse neque pecuniam creditam: donationem non esse, quia non ea mente pecunia daretur, ut omnimodo penes accipientem maneret: creditam non esse, quia exsolvendi causa magis daretur, quam alterius obligandi. igitur si is, qui pecuniam hac condicione accepit, ut mihi in creditum daret, acceptam dederit, non fore creditam: magis enim meum accepisse intellegi debeo.

If I had donated money to you, so that you might credit the same to me, would it become a loan? I said that in propositions of this kind we are not using proper words, for such a contract is neither a donation nor money on credit: not a donation, because the money would not be given with the intention that it should in every way remain with the recipient; not on credit, because it would be given rather for the sake of discharging than of obligating another. Therefore, if the person who received the money on this condition, that he give it to me on credit, has given what he received, it will not be on credit: rather, I ought to be understood to have received what is mine.

sed haec intellegenda sunt propter suptilitatem verborum: benignius tamen est utrumque valere.

but these things are to be understood on account of the subtlety of the words; more generously, however, it is that both should prevail.

Dig. 12.1.21

Digest 12.1.21

Iulianus 48 Dig.

Julianus 48 Dig.

Quidam existimaverunt neque eum, qui decem peteret, cogendum quinque accipere et reliqua persequi, neque eum, qui fundum suum diceret, partem dumtaxat iudicio persequi: sed in utraque causa humanius facturus videtur praetor, si actorem compulerit ad accipiendum id quod offeratur, cum ad officium eius pertineat lites deminuere.

Some have judged that neither he who demands ten should be compelled to accept five and pursue the remainder, nor he who says an estate is his to pursue by suit only a part; but in both cases the praetor would seem to act more humanely if he compelled the plaintiff to accept what is offered, since it pertains to his office to diminish litigations.

Dig. 12.1.22

Digest 12.1.22

Iulianus 4 ex minic.

Julian 4 from Minicius.

Vinum, quod mutuum datum erat, per iudicem petitum est: quaesitum est, cuius temporis aestimatio fieret, utrum cum datum esset an cum litem contestatus fuisset an cum res iudicaretur. sabinus respondit, si dictum esset quo tempore redderetur, quanti tunc fuisset, si dictum non esset, quanti tunc fuisset, cum petitum esset. interrogavi, cuius loci pretium sequi oporteat.

The wine, which had been given as a mutuum loan, was claimed before a judge: the question was asked at what time the valuation should be made—whether when it had been given, or when he had joined issue, or when the matter was adjudicated. sabinus answered: if it had been stated at what time it should be returned, then for how much it was worth at that time; if it had not been stated, then for how much it was worth when it was demanded. I asked whose locality’s price ought to be followed.

respondit, si convenisset, ut certo loco redderetur, quanti eo loco esset, si dictum non esset, quanti ubi esset petitum.

he responded, if it had been agreed that it be returned in a fixed place, for as much as it was worth in that place; if it had not been specified, for as much as where it was demanded.

Dig. 12.1.23

Digest 12.1.23

Africanus 2 quaest.

Africanus 2 Questions.

Si eum servum, qui tibi legatus sit, quasi mihi legatum possederim et vendiderim, mortuo eo posse te mihi pretium condicere iulianus ait, quasi ex re tua locupletior factus sim.

If I have possessed and sold, as though it had been bequeathed to me, that slave who has been bequeathed to you, Julian says that, when he has died, you can bring a condictio against me for the price, as if I had been made wealthier from your property.

Dig. 12.1.24

Digest 12.1.24

Ulpianus l.S. pand.

Ulpian, single book of the Pandects.

Si quis certum stipulatus fuerit, ex stipulatu actionem non habet, sed illa condicticia actione id persequi debet, per quam certum petitur.

If someone has stipulated for a certum (a determinate thing/sum), he does not have an action ex stipulatu, but must pursue it by that condiction action by which a certum is claimed.

Dig. 12.1.25

Digest 12.1.25

Ulpianus l.S. de off. consularium

Ulpian, in the single book On the Office of the Consulars

Creditor, qui ob restitutionem aedificiorum crediderit in pecuniam quam crediderit privilegium exigendi habebit.

A creditor who has lent on account of the restitution of buildings will have the privilege of collection over the sum of money that he has lent.

Dig. 12.1.26

Digest 12.1.26

Ulpianus 5 opin.

Ulpian 5 Opinions.

Si pecuniam militis procurator eius mutuam dedit fideiussoremque accepit, exemplo eo quo si tutor pupilli aut curator iuvenis pecuniam alterutrius eorum creditam stipulatus fuerit, actionem dari militi cuius pecunia fuerit placuit.

If the procurator of a soldier gave his money as a loan and accepted a surety, by the same example whereby, if the tutor of a ward or the curator of a youth has stipulated for money credited to either of them, it has been settled that an action be granted to the soldier to whom the money belonged.

Dig. 12.1.27

Digest 12.1.27

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, 10 on the Edict.

Civitas mutui datione obligari potest, si ad utilitatem eius pecuniae versae sunt: alioquin ipsi soli qui contraxerunt, non civitas tenebuntur.

A municipality can be bound by the giving of a loan (mutuum), if the monies have been turned to its utility; otherwise, only those themselves who contracted will be liable, not the municipality.

Dig. 12.1.28

Digest 12.1.28

Gaius 21 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 21 On the Provincial Edict.

Creditor, qui non idoneum pignus accepit, non amittit exactionem eius debiti quantitatis, in quam pignus non sufficit.

A creditor who has accepted an unsuitable pledge does not lose the exaction of that portion of the debt for which the pledge does not suffice.

Dig. 12.1.29

Digest 12.1.29

Paulus 4 ad plaut.

Paulus 4 on Plautius.

Si institorem servum dominus habuerit, posse dici iulianus ait etiam condici ei posse, quasi iussu eius contrahatur, a quo praepositus sit.

If a master has a slave as institor, Julian says it can be said that a condictio can also lie against the one by whom he has been put in charge, as though it were contracted by his order.

Dig. 12.1.30

Digest 12.1.30

Paulus 5 ad plaut.

Paulus 5 to plaut.

Qui pecuniam creditam accepturus spopondit creditori futuro, in potestate habet, ne accipiendo se ei obstringat.

He who, being about to receive money lent, has stipulated to the future creditor, has it in his power not to bind himself to him by accepting.

Dig. 12.1.31pr.

Digest 12.1.31pr.

Paulus 17 ad plaut.

Paulus 17 to plaut.

Cum fundus vel homo per condictionem petitus esset, puto hoc nos iure uti, ut post iudicium acceptum causa omnis restituenda sit, id est omne, quod habiturus esset actor, si litis contestandae tempore solutus fuisset.

When a farm (fundus) or a slave was claimed by condiction, I think we employ this rule of law: that after the judgment has been accepted, the whole cause is to be restored—that is, everything which the plaintiff would have had if, at the time of the joinder of issue (litis contestatio), it had been free (solutus).

Dig. 12.1.31.1

Digest 12.1.31.1

Paulus 17 ad plaut.

Paulus, 17, on Plautius.

Servum tuum imprudens a fure bona fide emi: is ex peculio, quod ad te pertinebat, hominem paravit, qui mihi traditus est. sabinus cassius posse te mihi hominem condicere: sed si quid mihi abesset ex negotio quod is gessisset, invicem me tecum acturum. et hoc verum est: nam et iulianus ait videndum, ne dominus integram ex empto actionem habeat, venditor autem condicere possit bonae fidei emptori.

I, unwitting, bought in good faith your slave from a thief; he, from the peculium which pertained to you, procured a man, who was handed over to me. sabinus and cassius say that you can claim the man from me by condictio; but that, if anything were lacking to me from the business which he had transacted, I in turn would bring an action against you. And this is true: for iulianus also says it must be considered, lest the master have an undiminished action ex empto, while the seller can bring a condictio against the good‑faith buyer.

quod ad peculiares nummos attinet, si exstant, vindicare eos dominus potest, sed actione de peculio tenetur venditori, ut pretium solvat: si consumpti sint, actio de peculio evanescit. sed adicere debuit iulianus non aliter domino servi venditorem ex empto teneri, quam si ei pretium solidum et quaecumque, si cum libero contraxisset, deberentur, dominus servi praestaret. idem dici debet, si bonae fidei possessori solvissem, si tamen actiones, quas adversus eum habeam, praestare domino paratus sim.

As regards the monies of the peculium, if they exist, the master can recover them by vindication; but he is liable to the seller by the action on the peculium, to pay the price. If they have been consumed, the action on the peculium vanishes. But Julian ought to have added that the seller of the slave is not otherwise held to the master by the action ex empto than if the master of the slave should provide him the full price and whatever would be owed if he had contracted with a free person. The same must be said if I had paid a good‑faith possessor, provided, however, that I am prepared to make over to the master the actions which I have against him.

Dig. 12.1.32

Digest 12.1.32

Celsus 5 Dig.

Celsus 5 Digest.

Si et me et titium mutuam pecuniam rogaveris et ego meum debitorem tibi promittere iusserim, tu stipulatus sis, cum putares eum titii debitorem esse, an mihi obligaris? subsisto, si quidem nullum negotium mecum contraxisti: sed propius est ut obligari te existimem, non quia pecuniam tibi credidi ( hoc enim nisi inter consentientes fieri non potest): sed quia pecunia mea ad te pervenit, eam mihi a te reddi bonum et aequum est.

If you have asked both me and Titius for a loan of money, and I have ordered my debtor to promise to you, and you have stipulated, when you supposed him to be the debtor of Titius, are you bound to me? I hesitate, since indeed you contracted no business with me: but it is nearer that I should think you are bound, not because I lent money to you ( for this cannot be done except between consenting parties): but because my money has reached you, it is good and equitable that it be returned to me by you.

Dig. 12.1.33

Digest 12.1.33

Modestinus 10 pand.

Modestinus Book 10 of the Pandects.

Principalibus constitutionibus cavetur, ne hi qui provinciam regunt quive circa eos sunt negotientur mutuamve pecuniam dent faenusve exerceant.

By imperial constitutions it is provided that those who rule a province, and those who are around them, are not to engage in business, nor to give money on loan, nor to exercise usury.

Dig. 12.1.34pr.

Digest 12.1.34pr.

Paulus 2 sent.

Paul 2 Sentences.

Praesidis provinciae officiales, quia perpetui sunt, mutuam pecuniam dare et faenebrem exercere possunt.

The officials of the governor of the province, because they are permanent in office, can give money as a loan (mutuum) and engage in moneylending at interest.

Dig. 12.1.34.1

Digest 12.1.34.1

Paulus 2 sent.

Paulus Book 2 of the Sentences.

Praeses provinciae mutuam pecuniam faenebrem sumere non prohibetur.

The governor of a province is not prohibited from taking an interest-bearing loan of money.

Dig. 12.1.35

Digest 12.1.35

Modestinus 3 resp.

Modestinus Responses, Book 3

Periculum nominum ad eum, cuius culpa deterius factum probari potest, pertinet.

The risk of the claims (nomina) pertains to him by whose fault it can be proved that the matter was made worse.

Dig. 12.1.36

Digest 12.1.36

Iavolenus 1 epist.

Javolenus 1 epistles.

Pecuniam, quam mihi sine condicione debebas, iussu meo promisisti attio sub condicione: cum pendente condicione in eo statu sit obligatio tua adversus me, tamquam sub contrariam condicionem eam mihi spopondisti, si pendente condicione petam, an nihil acturus sum? respondit: non dubito, quin mea pecunia, quam ipse sine condicione stipulatus sum, etiam si condicio in persona atii, qui ex mea voluntate eandem pecuniam sub condicione stipulatus est, non extiterit, credita esse permaneat ( perinde est enim, ac si nulla stipulatio intervenisset): pendente autem causa condicionis idem petere non possum, quoniam, cum incertum sit, an ex ea stipulatione deberi possit, ante tempus petere videor.

The money which you owed me without condition, at my order you promised to attio under a condition: since, with the condition pending, your obligation toward me is in such a status as if you had promised it to me under the contrary condition, if I demand while the condition is pending, am I going to accomplish nothing? He answered: I do not doubt that my money, which I myself stipulated without condition, even if the condition in the person of atii, who by my will stipulated the same money under a condition, has not come to pass, remains as a credit ( perinde est enim, ac si nulla stipulatio intervenisset): however, while the cause of the condition is pending I cannot seek the same, since, as it is uncertain whether it can be owed under that stipulation, I seem to be suing before the time.

Dig. 12.1.37

Digest 12.1.37

Papinianus 1 def.

Papinian 1 Definitions.

Cum ad praesens tempus condicio confertur, stipulatio non suspenditur et, si condicio vera sit, stipulatio tenet, quamvis tenere contrahentes condicionem ignorent, veluti " si rex parthorum vivit, centum mihi dari spondes?" eadem sunt et cum in praeteritum condicio confertur.

When the condition is referred to the present time, the stipulation is not suspended, and, if the condition is true, the stipulation holds, although the contracting parties are unaware that the condition holds, for example, " if the king of the parthians is alive, do you promise that a hundred will be given to me?" the same applies also when the condition is referred to the past.

Dig. 12.1.38

Digest 12.1.38

Scaevola 1 quaest.

Scaevola 1 Questions.

Respiciendum enim esse, an, quantum in natura hominum sit, possit scire eam debitu iri.

For one must have regard to whether, insofar as lies within human nature, he can know that it will be owed.

Dig. 12.1.39

Digest 12.1.39

Papinianus 1 def.

Papinian, 1 Definitions.

Itaque tunc potestatem condicionis optinet, cum in futurum confertur.

Accordingly, it then has the force of a condition, when it is referred to the future.

Dig. 12.1.40

Digest 12.1.40

Paulus 3 quaest.

Paulus 3 Questions.

Lecta est in auditorio aemilii papiniani praefecti praetorio iuris consulti cautio huiusmodi: " lucius titius scripsi me accepisse a publio maevio quindecim mutua numerata mihi de domo et haec quindecim proba recte dari kalendis futuris stipulatus est publius maevius, spopondi ego lucius titius. si die supra scripta summa publio maevio eive ad quem ea res pertinebit data soluta satisve eo nomine factum non erit, tunc eo amplius, quo post solvam, poenae nomine in dies triginta inque denarios centos denarios singulos dari stipulatus est publius maevius, spopondi ego lucius titius. convenitque inter nos, uti pro maevio ex summa supra scripta menstruos refundere debeam denarios trecenos ex omni summa ei heredive eius.

There was read in the auditorium of Aemilius Papinianus, praetorian prefect and jurist, a bond (cautio) of this kind: " lucius titius I have written that I have received from publius maevius fifteen as a loan, counted out to me at the house, and that these fifteen are to be duly and rightly given on the coming Calends; publius maevius stipulated, I, lucius titius, promised. if on the above-written day the sum shall not have been given, paid, or enough done on that account to publius maevius or to him to whom that matter shall pertain, then so much the more, the later I pay, by way of penalty, for days thirty and for each hundred denarii single denarii to be given; publius maevius stipulated, I, lucius titius, promised. and it is agreed between us, that, on behalf of maevius, out of the above-written sum I ought to refund monthly three hundred denarii out of the whole sum to him or to his heir."

" quaesitum est de obligatione usurarum, quoniam numerus mensium, qui solutioni competebat, transierat. dicebam, quia pacta in continenti facta stipulationi inesse creduntur, perinde esse, ac si per singulos menses certam pecuniam stipulatus, quoad tardius soluta esset, usuras adiecisset: igitur finito primo mense primae pensionis usuras currere et similiter post secundum et tertium tractum usuras non solutae pecuniae pensionis crescere nec ante sortis non solutae usuras peti posse quam ipsa sors peti potuerat. pactum autem quod subiectum est quidam dicebant ad sortis solutionem tantum pertinere, non etiam ad usurarum, quae priore parte simpliciter in stipulationem venissent, pactumque id tantum ad exceptionem prodesse et ideo non soluta pecunia statutis pensionibus ex die stipulationis usuras deberi, atque si id nominatim esset expressum.

" a question was asked about the obligation of interest, since the number of months that was appointed for payment had passed. I said that, because pacts made on the spot are believed to inhere in the stipulation, it is the same as if he had, for each month, stipulated a certain sum and, so long as it was paid late, had added interest: therefore, when the first month is finished, the interest on the first installment begins to run, and similarly after the second and third term the interest on the installment of money not paid accrues; nor can interest on unpaid principal be claimed before the principal itself could have been claimed. But as to the pact that is subjoined, some said that it pertains only to the payment of the principal, not also to that of the interest, which in the earlier part had simply entered into the stipulation; and that that pact avails only by way of exception (defense), and therefore, if the money is not paid in the fixed installments, interest is owed from the day of the stipulation, just as if this had been expressly stated by name."

sed cum sortis petitio dilata sit, consequens est, ut etiam usurae ex eo tempore, quo moram fecit, accedant, et si, ut ille putabat, ad exceptionem tantum prodesset pactum ( quamvis sententia diversa optinuerit), tamen usurarum obligatio ipso iure non committetur: non enim in mora est is, a quo pecunia propter exceptionem peti non potest. sed quantitatem, quae medio tempore colligitur, stipulamur, cum condicio exstiterit, sicut est in fructibus: idem et in usuris potest exprimi, ut ad diem non soluta pecunia quo competit usurarum nomine ex die interpositae stipulationis praestetur.

but since the claim of the principal has been deferred, it follows that interest also accrues from the time at which he made delay, and even if, as he supposed, the pact would profit only for an exception ( although a different opinion has prevailed), nevertheless the obligation for interest will not be incurred ipso iure: for he is not in default from whom money cannot be demanded on account of the exception. but the amount which is gathered in the meantime we stipulate for, when the condition has arisen, just as it is in the case of fruits: the same can be expressed also in respect of interest, namely, that, if by the day the money is not paid, whatever is owed under the name of interest be rendered from the day of the interposed stipulation.

Dig. 12.1.41

Digest 12.1.41

Africanus 8 quaest.

Africanus, Questions, book 8.

Eius, qui in provincia stichum servum kalendario praeposuerat, romae testamentum recitatum erat, quo idem stichus liber et ex parte heres erat scriptus: qui status sui ignarus pecunias defuncti aut exegit aut credidit, ut interdum stipularetur et pignora acciperet. consulebatur quid de his iuris esset. placebat debitores quidem ei qui solvissent liberatos esse, si modo ipsi quoque ignorassent dominum decessisse.

Of a man who, in the province, had set the slave Stichus over the kalendarium (loan-ledger), his testament had been recited at Rome, in which the same Stichus had been written as free and as heir in part: he, ignorant of his own status, either collected or lent the deceased’s monies, so that at times he would stipulate and take pledges. It was consulted what the ius was concerning these matters. It was held that the debtors who had paid to him were indeed discharged, provided only that they too had been ignorant that the master had deceased.

earum autem summarum nomine, quae ad stichum pervenissent, familiae herciscundae quidem actionem non competere coheredibus, sed negotiorum gestorum dari debere. quas vero pecunias ipse credidisset, eas non ex maiore parte, quam ex qua ipse heres sit, alienatas esse: nam et si tibi in hoc dederim nummos, ut eos sticho credas, deinde mortuo me ignorans dederis, accipientis non facies: neque enim sicut illud receptum est, ut debitores solventes ei liberentur, ita hoc quoque receptum, ut credendo nummos alienaret. quare si nulla stipulatio intervenisset, neque ut creditam pecuniam pro parte coheredis peti posse neque pignora teneri.

But as to the sums which had come to Stichus, the coheirs do not have the action for dividing the family inheritance (actio familiae herciscundae), but ought to be given the action of business transacted (actio negotiorum gestorum). As for the moneys which he himself had lent, they are not alienated in a greater share than that in which he himself is heir: for even if I gave you coins for this purpose, that you lend them to Stichus, then, I having died and you being ignorant, you gave them, you will not make him the recipient; for just as that rule is received, that debtors paying to him are freed, so this too is not received, that by lending he alienates the coins. Wherefore, if no stipulation had intervened, neither could the money lent be demanded for the coheir’s share, nor could the pledges be held.

quod si stipulatus quoque esset, referret, quemadmodum stipulatus esset: nam si nominatim forte titio domino suo mortuo iam dari stipulatus sit, procul dubio inutiliter esset stipulatus. quod si sibi dari stipulatus esset, dicendum hereditati eum adquisisse: sicut enim nobismet ipsis ex re nostra per eos, qui liberi vel alieni servi bona fide serviant, adquiratur, ita hereditati quoque ex re hereditaria adquiri. post aditam vero a coheredibus hereditatem non aeque idem dici potest, utique si scierint eum sibi coheredem datum, quoniam tunc non possunt videri bonae fidei possessores esse, qui nec possidendi animum haberent.

But if he also had stipulated, he should report in what manner he had stipulated: for if perchance he had stipulated expressly that it be given to Titius, his master, now deceased, without doubt he had stipulated ineffectually. But if he had stipulated that it be given to himself, it must be said that he acquired it for the inheritance: for just as acquisition is made to ourselves from our own property through those who, whether free persons or another’s slaves, serve in good faith, so too acquisition is made to the inheritance from hereditary property. After the inheritance, however, has been entered upon by the coheirs, the same cannot equally be said, especially if they knew that he had been assigned to them as coheir, since then they cannot be deemed possessors in good faith, who would not even have the intention of possessing.

quod si proponatur coheredes eius id ignorasse, quod forte ipsi quoque ex necessariis fuerint, potest adhuc idem responderi: quo quidem casu illud eventurum, ut, si suae condicionis coheredes iste servus habeat, invicem bona fide servire videantur.

But if it be proposed that his coheirs were ignorant of this, because perhaps they too were among necessary heirs, the same answer can still be given: in which case indeed this will result, that, if this slave has coheirs of his own condition, they appear mutually to serve one another in good faith.

Dig. 12.1.42pr.

Digest 12.1.42, preface.

Celsus 6 Dig.

Celsus 6 Digest.

Si ego decem stipulatus a titio deinceps stipuler a seio, quanto minus a titio consequi possim: si decem petiero a titio, non liberatur seius, alioquin nequicquam mihi cavetur: at si iudicatum fecerit titius, nihil ultra seius tenebitur. sed si cum seio egero, quantumcumque est quo minus a titio exigere potuero eo tempore, quo iudicium inter me et seium acceptum est, tanto minus a titio postea petere possum.

If I, having stipulated for ten from Titius, thereafter stipulate from Seius, by how much less I might be able to recover from Titius: if I shall have sought ten from Titius, Seius is not discharged; otherwise security is given me to no purpose: but if Titius shall have satisfied the judgment, Seius will be held for nothing further. But if I proceed against Seius, whatever amount it is by which I was less able to exact from Titius at the time when the action between me and Seius was accepted, by so much less can I afterwards demand from Titius.

Dig. 12.1.42.1

Digest 12.1.42.1

Celsus 6 Dig.

Celsus book 6 of the Digest.

Labeo ait, cum decem dari curari stipulatus sis, ideo non posse te decem dare oportere intendere, quia etiam reum locupletiorem dando promissor liberari possit: quo scilicet significat non esse cogendum eum accipere iudicium, si reum locupletem offerat.

Labeo says that, when you have stipulated that ten be taken care to be given, therefore you cannot bring the claim that “you ought to give ten,” because the promisor can be released by providing a more wealthy defendant; whereby, namely, he signifies that he is not to be compelled to accept a trial, if he offers a solvent defendant.

Dig. 12.2.0. De iureiurando sive voluntario sive necessario sive iudiciali.

Dig. 12.2.0. On the oath, whether voluntary, necessary, or judicial.

Dig. 12.2.1

Digest 12.2.1

Gaius 5 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 5 on the provincial edict.

Maximum remedium expediendarum litium in usum venit iurisiurandi religio, qua vel ex pactione ipsorum litigatorum vel ex auctoritate iudicis deciduntur controversiae.

The maximum remedy for expediting lawsuits has come into use: the sanctity of oath‑taking, whereby either from the pact of the litigants themselves or from the authority of the judge controversies are decided.

Dig. 12.2.2

Digest 12.2.2

Paulus 18 ad ed.

Paulus 18 on the Edict.

Iusiurandum speciem transactionis continet maioremque habet auctoritatem quam res iudicata.

An oath contains the form of a transaction and has greater authority than a res judicata.

Dig. 12.2.3pr.

Digest 12.2.3, preface.

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian, 22 on the Edict.

Ait praetor: " si is cum quo agetur condicione delata iuraverit". eum cum quo agetur accipere debemus ipsum reum. nec frustra adicitur " condicione delata": nam si reus iuraverit nemine ei iusiurandum deferente, praetor id iusiurandum non tuebitur: sibi enim iuravit: alioquin facillimus quisque ad iusiurandum decurrens nemine sibi deferente iusiurandum oneribus actionum se liberabit.

The praetor says: " if the one against whom action will be brought, with the condition tendered, shall have sworn." We ought to understand the one against whom action will be brought to be the defendant himself. Nor is " condicione delata" added in vain: for if the defendant should swear with no one tendering an oath to him, the praetor will not uphold that oath; for he has sworn to himself: otherwise anyone of the readiest sort, resorting to an oath with no one tendering an oath to him, would free himself from the burdens of actions.

Dig. 12.2.3.1

Digest 12.2.3.1

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian 22 on the edict.

Quacumque autem actione quis conveniatur, si iuraverit, proficiet ei iusiurandum, sive in personam sive in rem sive in factum sive poenali actione vel quavis alia agatur sive de interdicto.

But by whatever action someone is proceeded against, if he shall have sworn, the oath will avail him—whether it be in personam, in rem, in factum, or a penal action, or any other whatsoever, or concerning an interdict.

Dig. 12.2.3.2

Digest 12.2.3.2

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian 22 on the Edict.

Sed et si de condicione personae fuerit iuratum, praetor iusiurandum tuebitur: ut puta detuli iusiurandum et iurasti in potestate mea te non esse: tuendum erit iusiurandum.

But also, if an oath has been sworn about the condition of the person, the praetor will protect the oath: for example, I have tendered the oath and you have sworn that you are not in my power: the oath will have to be upheld.

Dig. 12.2.3.3

Digest 12.2.3.3

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian 22 on the Edict.

Unde Marcellus scribit etiam de eo iurari posse, an praegnas sit mulier vel non sit, et iuriiurando standum: denique ait, si de possessione erat quaestio, servari oportere, si forte quasi praegnas ire in possessionem volebat et, cum ei contradiceretur, vel ipsa iuravit se praegnatem vel contra eam iuratum est: nam si ipsa, ibit in possessionem sine metu, si contra eam, non ibit, quamvis vere praegnas fuerit: proderitque, inquit Marcellus, mulieri iuranti iusiurandum, ne conveniatur quasi calumniae causa ventris nomine fuerit in possessionem neve vim patiatur in possessione. sed an iusiurandum eo usque prosit, ut post editum partum non quaeratur, ex eo editus sit an non sit cuius esse dicitur, Marcellus tractat: et ait veritatem esse quaerendam, quia iusiurandum alteri neque prodest neque nocet: matris igitur iusiurandum partui non proficiet: nec nocebit, si mater detulerit et iuretur ex eo praegnas non esse.

Whence Marcellus writes that an oath, too, can be sworn on this: whether a woman is pregnant or is not, and that the oath is to stand. Finally he says that, if the question was about possession, the following ought to be observed: if perchance, as being pregnant, she wished to enter into possession and, when this was opposed to her, either she herself swore that she was pregnant or it was sworn against her. For if she herself swore, she will go into possession without fear; if it was sworn against her, she will not go, although she was truly pregnant. And, says Marcellus, the oath will benefit the woman swearing, so that she is not proceeded against as if on a charge of calumny for having entered into possession under the title of the womb, and that she may not suffer violence in possession. But whether the oath avails so far that, after the birth has been brought forth, it is not inquired whether the one born is or is not from him of whom he is said to be, Marcellus discusses; and he says that the truth is to be sought, because an oath neither benefits nor harms another. Therefore the mother’s oath will not profit the offspring; nor will it harm, if the mother has tendered and it is sworn that she is not pregnant by him.

Dig. 12.2.3.4

Digest 12.2.3.4

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian, 22 on the Edict.

Iurari autem oportet, ut delatum est iusiurandum: ceterum si ego detuli ut per deum iurares, tu per caput tuum iurasti.

However, it ought to be sworn as the oath has been tendered: but if I tendered it that you should swear by God, you swore by your own head.

Dig. 12.2.4

Digest 12.2.4

Paulus 18 ad ed.

Paulus 18 on the edict.

Vel filiorum tuorum,

Or of your sons,

Dig. 12.2.5pr.

Digest 12.2.5pr.

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian, 22 on the Edict.

Non erit ratum habendum iusiurandum: quod si exegi, ut per salutem tuam iurares, et iurasti, stabitur. omne enim omnino licitum iusiurandum, per quod voluit quis sibi iurari, idoneum est et si ex eo fuerit iuratum, praetor id tuebitur.

An oath is not to be held valid: but if I have exacted that you swear by your health, and you have sworn, it shall stand. for every oath whatsoever that is licit, by whatever someone wished that it be sworn to him, is sufficient; and if it has been sworn by that, the praetor will uphold it.

Dig. 12.2.5.1

Digest 12.2.5.1

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian 22 on the edict.

Divus pius iureiurando, quod propria superstitione iuratum est, standum rescripsit.

The deified Pius wrote by rescript that one must abide by an oath which has been sworn by one’s own superstition.

Dig. 12.2.5.2

Digest 12.2.5.2

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian 22 on the edict.

Dato iureiurando non aliud quaeritur, quam an iuratum sit, remissa quaestione an debeatur, quasi satis probatum sit iureiurando.

Once the sworn oath has been given, nothing else is inquired than whether it was sworn, the question whether it is owed being remitted, as though it were sufficiently proved by the oath.

Dig. 12.2.5.3

Digest 12.2.5.3

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian, 22 on the Edict.

Sed si quis illicitum iusiurandum detulerit, scilicet improbatae publice religionis, videamus an pro eo habeatur atque si iuratum non esset: quod magis existimo dicendum.

But if someone has tendered an illicit oath, namely of a publicly disapproved religion, let us see whether it is to be held as if it had not been sworn; which I rather think must be said.

Dig. 12.2.5.4

Digest 12.2.5.4

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian 22 on the Edict.

Si neque iuratum est neque remissum iusiurandum, pro eo debet haberi, atque si res in iusiurandum admissa non esset. proinde si postea iurare paratus sit, nihil ei hoc iusiurandum proficiet, quia ex eo quod delatum est iuratum non est.

If neither an oath has been sworn nor the oath remitted, it ought to be regarded as if the matter had not been admitted to oath. Accordingly, if afterward he is prepared to swear, this oath will profit him nothing, because no oath has been sworn upon that which was tendered.

Dig. 12.2.6

Digest 12.2.6

Paulus 19 ad ed.

Paulus 19 On the Edict.

Remittit iusiurandum, qui deferente se cum paratus esset adversarius iurare gratiam ei facit contentus voluntate suscepti iurisiurandi. quod si non suscepit iusiurandum, licet postea parato iurare actor nolit deferre, non videbitur remissum: nam quod susceptum est remitti debet.

He remits the oath who, while he himself is tendering it and the adversary is prepared to swear, grants him favor, being content with the willingness for the oath to be undertaken. But if the oath has not been undertaken, although later, when he is ready to swear, the plaintiff is unwilling to tender it, it will not be seen as remitted: for it is that which has been undertaken that ought to be remitted.

Dig. 12.2.7

Digest 12.2.7

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian 22 On the Edict.

Ait praetor: " eius rei, de qua iusiurandum delatum fuerit, neque in ipsum neque in eum ad quem ea res pertinet actionem dabo. " eius rei sic erit accipiendum, sive de tota re sive de parte sit iuratum: nam de eo quod iuratum est pollicetur se actionem non daturum neque in eum qui iuravit neque in eos qui in locum eius cui iusiurandum delatum est succedunt,

The praetor says: " of that matter, concerning which an oath shall have been tendered, I will grant an action neither against him himself nor against him to whom that matter pertains. " This phrase "of that matter" is to be understood thus, whether an oath has been sworn about the whole matter or about a part: for with respect to that which has been sworn he promises that he will not grant an action either against him who swore or against those who succeed into the place of him to whom the oath has been tendered,

Dig. 12.2.8

Digest 12.2.8

Paulus 18 ad ed.

Paulus 18 on the Edict.

Etiamsi in rem successerint.

Even if they have succeeded to the property.

Dig. 12.2.9pr.

Digest 12.2.9pr.

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian 22 on the edict.

Nam posteaquam iuratum est, denegatur actio: aut, si controversia erit, id est si ambigitur. an iusiurandum datum sit, exceptioni locus est.

For after an oath has been sworn, the action is denied; or, if there will be controversy—that is, if it is in doubt whether the oath was given—there is room for an exception.

Dig. 12.2.9.1

Digest 12.2.9.1

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian 22 on the Edict.

Iureiurando dato vel remisso reus quidem adquirit exceptionem sibi aliisque, actor vero actionem adquirit, in qua hoc solum quaeritur, an iuraverit dari sibi oportere vel, cum iurare paratus esset, iusiurandum ei remissum sit.

By an oath given or remitted, the defendant indeed acquires an exception for himself and for others, while the plaintiff acquires an action, in which this alone is inquired: whether he has sworn that it ought to be given to him, or, when he was ready to swear, the oath was remitted to him.

Dig. 12.2.9.2

Digest 12.2.9.2

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian, 22 on the Edict.

Si damnetur quis post iusiurandum ex famoso iudicio, famosum esse magis est.

If someone is condemned after an oath, by an infamous judgment, it is the more the case that he is infamous.

Dig. 12.2.9.3

Digest 12.2.9.3

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian 22 on the Edict.

Si is, qui temporaria actione mihi obligatus erat, detulerit iusiurandum, ut iurem eum dare oportere, egoque iuravero, tempore non liberatur, quia post litem contestatam cum eo perpetuatur adversus eum obligatio.

If the one who was bound to me by a temporary action should tender an oath, to the effect that I swear he ought to give, and I have sworn, he is not released by lapse of time, because after joinder of issue with him the obligation is perpetuated against him.

Dig. 12.2.9.4

Digest 12.2.9.4

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian 22 On the Edict.

Si minor viginti quinque annis detulerit et hoc ipso captum se dicat, adversus exceptionem iurisiurandi replicari debebit, ut pomponius ait. ego autem puto hanc replicationem non semper esse dandam, sed plerumque ipsum praetorem debere cognoscere, an captus sit, et sic in integrum restituere: nec enim utique qui minor est statim et circumscriptum se docuit. praeterea exceptio ista sive cognitio statutum tempus post annum vicensimum quintum non debet egredi.

If a minor under twenty-five has tendered the oath and says that by that very act he was entrapped, a replication ought to be allowed against the exception of the oath, as Pomponius says. But I think this replication is not always to be granted; rather, for the most part the praetor himself ought to inquire whether he was taken in, and so restore to the status quo ante: for indeed it is not the case that whoever is a minor has thereby at once shown himself to have been overreached. Moreover, that exception or the inquiry ought not to exceed the fixed time beyond the twenty-fifth year.

Dig. 12.2.9.5

Digest 12.2.9.5

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian 22 on the Edict.

Sed et si quis in fraudem creditorum iusiurandum detulerit debitori, adversus exceptionem iurisiurandi replicatio fraudis creditoribus debet dari. praeterea si fraudator detulerit iusiurandum creditori, ut iuret sibi decem dari oportere, mox bonis eius venditis experiri volet, aut denegari debet actio aut exceptio opponitur fraudatorum creditorum.

But also, if someone, in fraud of the creditors, has tendered an oath to the debtor, then against the exception of the oath a replication of fraud ought to be given to the creditors. Furthermore, if the defrauder has tendered an oath to the creditor, that he swear that ten ought to be given to him, and soon, his goods having been sold, he wishes to proceed, either the action ought to be denied, or an exception is opposed by the creditors of the defrauder.

Dig. 12.2.9.6

Digest 12.2.9.6

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian 22 on the Edict.

Iusiurandum defensoris vel procuratoris ei ab adversario delatum prodesse exceptionemque domino parere iulianus scribit. idem ergo dicendum erit et si datus ad petendum procurator reo deferente iuraverit dari mihi oportere: nam actionem mihi parit. quae sententia habet rationem.

Julian writes that the oath of a defender or procurator, when tendered to him by the adversary, profits him and produces an exception for the principal. Therefore the same must be said also if a procurator appointed for suing, the defendant tendering (it), has sworn that it ought to be given to me: for it begets for me an action. Which opinion has reason.

Dig. 12.2.9.7

Digest 12.2.9.7

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian, 22 on the Edict.

Si petitor iuravit possessore deferente rem suam esse, actori dabitur actio, sed hoc dumtaxat adversus eum qui iusiurandum detulit eosque qui in eius locum successerunt: ceterum adversus alium si velit praerogativa iurisiurandi uti, nihil ei proderit,

If the claimant, with the possessor tendering the oath, has sworn that the thing is his own, an action will be given to the plaintiff, but only against him who tendered the oath and those who have succeeded into his place: moreover, against another, if he should wish to use the prerogative of the oath, it will profit him nothing,

Dig. 12.2.10

Digest 12.2.10

Paulus 18 ad ed.

Paulus, 18 on the Edict.

Quia non deberet alii nocere, quod inter alios actum esset.

Because what had been transacted among others ought not to injure another.

Dig. 12.2.11pr.

Digest 12.2.11, beginning.

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian, 22 on the Edict.

Sed si possessori fuerit iusiurandum delatum iuraverit rem petitoris non esse, quamdiu quidem possidet, adversus eum qui detulit iusiurandum, si petat, exceptione iurisiurandi utetur: si vero amiserit possessionem, actionem non habebit, ne quidem si is possideat qui ei iusiurandum detulit: non enim rem suam esse iuravit, sed eius non esse.

But if an oath has been tendered to the possessor and he has sworn that the thing is not the plaintiff’s, then, so long as he does possess, against the one who tendered the oath, if he sues, he will use the exception of the oath; but if he has lost possession, he will have no action, not even if the one who tendered the oath to him is the possessor: for he did not swear that the thing was his own, but that it was not the other’s.

Dig. 12.2.11.1

Digest 12.2.11.1

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian, 22 on the Edict.

Proinde si, cum possideret, deferente petitore rem suam iuravit, consequenter dicemus amissa quoque possessione, si is qui detulit iusiurandum nanctus sit possessionem, actionem in factum ei dandam. et fructus perceptos ex re, quam meam esse iuravi, restitui mihi placuit: sed et partum editum fetusque pecorum restituendos constat post iusiurandum delatum.

Accordingly, if, while he was in possession, upon the plaintiff tendering the oath he swore the thing to be his own, we shall consistently say that, even with possession lost, if the one who tendered the oath has obtained possession, an action in factum is to be granted to him. And it has been decided that the fruits gathered from a thing which I swore to be mine are to be restored to me; and it is likewise established that issue brought forth and the young of the herds are to be restored after the oath has been tendered.

Dig. 12.2.11.2

Digest 12.2.11.2

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian 22 on the Edict.

Item si iuravero usum fructum alicuius rei vel meum esse vel dari mihi oportere, eatenus mihi competit actio, quatenus, si vere usum fructum haberem, duraret: quibus vero casibus amitteretur, non competit mihi actio. sed si rerum, in quibus usus fructus propter abusum constitui non potest, iuraverit usum fructum se habere vel sibi deberi, effectum iurisiurandi sequendum arbitror ideoque tunc quoque videri eum recte iurasse puto et ex eo iureiurando posse petere usum fructum cautione oblata.

Likewise, if I shall have sworn that the usufruct of some thing either is mine or ought to be given to me, the action belongs to me to this extent: in so far as, if I truly had the usufruct, it would endure; but in the cases in which it would be lost, the action does not belong to me. But if, as to things in which a usufruct cannot be constituted on account of consumption, he has sworn that he has a usufruct or that it is owed to him, I judge that the effect of the oath is to be followed, and therefore I think that then too he is seen to have sworn rightly, and from that oath he can seek the usufruct, with security offered.

Dig. 12.2.11.3

Digest 12.2.11.3

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian 22 on the edict.

Si, cum de hereditate inter me et te controversia esset, iuravero hereditatem meam esse, id consequi debeo, quod haberem, si secundum me de hereditate pronuntiatum esset. et non solum eas res restituere debes, quas tunc possidebas, sed et si quas postea coepisses possidere, perindeque haberi quod iuratum est atque si probatum esset: idcirco utilis actio mihi competit, quod si ego ex eadem hereditate possiderem tuque coepisses petere eam a me, cum adversus te iurassem, exceptione me uti debere iurisiurandi. plane si alius a me hereditatem petere coeperit, dubium non erit, ut et iulianus scribit, nihil mihi iusiurandum prodesse.

If, when there was a controversy between you and me about the inheritance, I shall have sworn that the inheritance is mine, I ought to obtain what I would have had if judgment about the inheritance had been pronounced in my favor. And you must restore not only those things which you then possessed, but also whatever you afterwards began to possess; and what has been sworn is to be regarded as if it had been proved. Therefore a utilis action is available to me; for if I were possessing from the same inheritance and you had begun to claim it from me, since I had sworn against you, I ought to use the exception of the oath. Clearly, if another begins to claim the inheritance from me, there will be no doubt, as Julian also writes, that the oath benefits me nothing.

Dig. 12.2.12

Digest 12.2.12

Iulianus 9 Dig.

Julianus 9 Digest.

Idem est et si ego a quolibet alio possidente res hereditarias petere velim, quia et si petissem a te hereditatem et probassem meam, nihilo minus ab altero petendo id ipsum probare necesse haberem.

The same holds also if I should wish to seek the hereditary property from any other possessor, because even if I had claimed the inheritance from you and had proved it mine, nonetheless, in suing another I would have to prove that very thing.

Dig. 12.2.13pr.

Digest 12.2.13, beginning.

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian 22 on the edict.

Si duo patroni essent et libertus altero deferente iurasset se libertum eius non esse, utrum alteri totius debitae patronis portionis an vero dimidiae debitae eis partis bonorum possessio competeret? et ait, si is cui iuratum est patronus fuisset, alteri suae partis bonorum possessionem competere nec ei prodesse, quod adversus alterum libertus iurasset: multum tamen fidei et auctoritatis apud iudicem patronum habiturum, quo magis solum se patronum probaret, quod libertus iurasset alterum patronum non esse.

If there were two patrons, and the freedman, with the other denouncing, had sworn that he was not his freedman, would possession of the goods of the whole portion owed to patrons, or indeed of the half part owed to them, belong to the other? And he says that, if the one to whom the oath was made were the patron, possession of the goods of his own share would belong to the other, nor would it profit him that the freedman had sworn against the other: nevertheless the patron would have much credit and authority with the judge, so that he might the more prove that he alone is the patron, because the freedman had sworn that the other was not the patron.

Dig. 12.2.13.1

Digest 12.2.13.1

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian, 22 on the Edict.

Iulianus ait eum, qui iuravit fundum suum esse, post longi temporis praescriptionem etiam utilem actionem habere debere.

Julian says that he who swore that the estate was his, after the long prescription of time, ought also to have a useful action.

Dig. 12.2.13.2

Digest 12.2.13.2

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian 22 on the Edict.

Idem iulianus scribit eum, qui iuravit furtum se non fecisse, videri de toto iurasse, atque ideo neque furti neque condicticia tenetur, quia condicticia, inquit, solus fur tenetur. numquid ergo qui iuravit se furtum ne fecisse hoc solo nomine, condictione si conveniatur, exceptione utatur? ceterum si contendat qui condicit quasi cum herede se furis agere, non debet repelli et quasi monomerys condictio ei dari debet adversus furis heredem nec pati eum iudex debet, si coeperit temptare probare furem.

The same Julian writes that one who has sworn he did not commit theft is considered to have sworn as to the whole; and therefore he is held neither by the theft action nor by the condictitious action, because, he says, only the thief is held by the condictitious action. Therefore, if someone who has sworn under this single head that he did not commit theft is proceeded against by a condiction, should he use an exception? But if the one bringing the condiction contends that he is proceeding as it were against the heir of the thief, he ought not to be repelled, and a so‑called monomerys condiction ought to be granted to him against the thief’s heir; nor ought the judge to allow him, if he begins to try to prove that he is the thief.

Dig. 12.2.13.3

Digest 12.2.13.3

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian book 22 on the Edict.

Si quis iuraverit vendidisse me ei rem centum, ex empto agere poterit, ut ei cetera praestentur, id est res tradatur et de evictione caveatur: an tamen ad pretium consequendum ex venditio conveniri possit, videndum. et si quidem et de hoc ipso iuratum est, quod pretium solutum est, nulla pro pretio actio superest: si vero hoc non fuerit iuratum, tunc consequens est de pretio eum teneri.

If someone shall have sworn that I sold him a thing for one hundred, he will be able to sue ex empto, so that the rest be furnished to him—that is, that the thing be delivered and that caution be given against eviction: but whether nevertheless he can be convened ex vendito for obtaining the price is to be seen. And if indeed there has also been an oath on this very point, that the price has been paid, no action for the price remains: but if this has not been sworn, then it follows that he is held liable for the price.

Dig. 12.2.13.4

Digest 12.2.13.4

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian, 22 on the Edict.

Idem dicemus et si quis societatem fecisse iuraverit: nam et is pro socio poterit conveniri.

We will say the same also if someone has sworn that he has formed a partnership: for he too can be sued by the action pro socio.

Dig. 12.2.13.5

Digest 12.2.13.5

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian, 22 on the Edict.

Marcellus etiam scribit, si quis iuraverit ob decem pignori dedisse fundum, non alias eum pigneraticia agere posse, quam si decem solverit: sed et illud adici fortassis eum etiam in decem ex iureiurando suo posse conveniri, quod magis probat. cui quintus saturninus consentit argumentoque utitur eius, qui iuravit eam, quae uxor sua fuerit, rem sibi in dotem dedisse: nam et hic uxori ait utilem de dote actionem dandam. quae non esse extra aequitatem posita non negaverim.

Marcellus also writes that if someone has sworn that he has given an estate in pledge for ten, he cannot otherwise bring the pledge action unless he pays the ten; but perhaps this, too, should be added: that he can also be convened for the ten on the basis of his oath, which he approves more. Quintus Saturninus agrees with this and uses as an argument the case of a man who swore that she who had been his wife had given him a thing as a dowry; for he says that here too a useful action concerning the dowry is to be given to the wife. I would not deny that these are placed within equity.

Dig. 12.2.13.6

Digest 12.2.13.6

Ulpianus 22 ad ed.

Ulpian, 22 on the edict.

Si quis iuraverit in re pecuniaria per genium principis dare se non oportere et peieraverit vel dari sibi oportere, vel intra certum tempus iuraverit se soluturum nec solvit: imperator noster cum patre rescripsit fustibus eum castigandum dimittere et ita ei superdici: propetws my omnue.

If anyone has sworn in a pecuniary matter by the genius of the princeps that he ought not to give and has forsworn himself, or that it ought to be given to him; or has sworn that he will pay within a fixed time and does not pay: our emperor, together with his father, rescripted to dismiss him after castigating him with cudgels, and thus to be said to him: “Do not swear rashly.”

Dig. 12.2.14

Digest 12.2.14

Paulus 3 ad ed.

Paulus 3 on the Edict.

Quotiens propter rem iuratur, nec parenti nec patrono remittitur iusiurandum: propter rem autem iusiurandum exigitur veluti de pecunia credita, cum iurat actor sibi dari oportere vel reus se dare non oportere. idem est, cum de pecunia constituta iusiurandum exigitur.

Whenever an oath is sworn on account of the matter, the oath is not remitted either to a parent or to a patron: moreover, an oath on account of the matter is exacted, for example, concerning money loaned, when the plaintiff swears that it ought to be given to him, or the defendant that he ought not to give. The same holds when an oath is exacted concerning constituted money.

Dig. 12.2.15

Digest 12.2.15

Paulus 6 ad ed.

Paulus 6 on the edict.

Ad personas egregias eosque qui valetudine impediuntur domum mitti oportet ad iurandum.

Persons of distinction and those who are impeded by ill health ought to be sent home to take an oath.

Dig. 12.2.16

Digest 12.2.16

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, 10 on the Edict.

Si patronus libertam suam uxorem duxerit, non compelletur iurare de rerum amotarum iudicio. sed et si ipse deferat iusiurandum libertae suae, de calumnia non debet iurare.

If a patron has taken his freedwoman as his wife, he is not compelled to swear in the action for removed things. But even if he himself tenders an oath to his freedwoman, he ought not to swear concerning calumny.

Dig. 12.2.17pr.

Digest 12.2.17, beginning.

Paulus 18 ad ed.

Paulus 18 on the Edict.

Iusiurandum, quod ex conventione extra iudicium defertur, referri non potest.

An oath which, by convention, is proffered out of court cannot be referred back.

Dig. 12.2.17.1

Digest 12.2.17.1

Paulus 18 ad ed.

Paulus book 18 on the Edict.

Pupillus tutore auctore iusiurandum deferre debet: quod si sine tutore auctore detulerit, exceptio quidem obstabit, sed replicabitur, quia rerum administrandarum ius ei non competit.

A ward must tender an oath with his tutor’s authorization: but if he has tendered it without the tutor’s authorization, an exception will indeed obstruct, but a replication will be made, because the right of administering affairs does not pertain to him.

Dig. 12.2.17.2

Digest 12.2.17.2

Paulus 18 ad ed.

Paulus 18 on the Edict.

Si tutor qui tutelam gerit aut curator furiosi prodigive iusiurandum detulerit, ratum id haberi debet: nam et alienare res et solvi eis potest et agendo rem in iudicium deducunt.

If a guardian who administers the tutelage, or a curator of an insane person or a prodigal, has tendered an oath, this ought to be held ratified: for they both can alienate property, and payment can be made to them, and by suing they bring the matter into judgment.

Dig. 12.2.17.3

Digest 12.2.17.3

Paulus 18 ad ed.

Paul 18 on the edict.

Procurator quoque quod detulit ratum habendum est, scilicet si aut universorum bonorum administrationem sustinet aut si id ipsum nominatim mandatum sit aut si in rem suam procurator sit:

A procurator also—what he has brought forward must be held ratified, namely if either he sustains the administration of all the goods, or if that very thing has been expressly mandated, or if he is a procurator in his own interest:

Dig. 12.2.18

Digest 12.2.18

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian, 26 on the edict.

Alias autem procuratorem deferentem iusiurandum non esse audiendum iulianus libro decimo digestorum scribit, ne postea reus, qui semel iuravit, a domino conveniatur: nec multum ei proficere, si fuerit ei de rato cautum: sive enim dominus petat, cogetur docere reus liquido se iurasse posita scilicet exceptione, sive ex stipulatione de rato agat, necesse habebit ipse de periurio suo docere.

Moreover Julian writes in the tenth book of the Digesta that otherwise a procurator tendering an oath is not to be heard, lest afterwards the defendant, who has once sworn, be convened by the principal: nor does it profit him much, if a cautio de rato has been given for him; for whether the principal makes a claim, the defendant will be compelled to show clearly that he has sworn, the exception, of course, having been set up; or whether he proceeds from the stipulation de rato, he will necessarily have to demonstrate his own perjury.

Dig. 12.2.19

Digest 12.2.19

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian, 26 on the Edict.

Si itaque mandatum fuit procuratori, ut petat, ille iusiurandum detulit, aliud fecit quam quod mandatum est.

If, therefore, a mandate was given to the procurator to sue, and he tendered the oath, he did something other than what was mandated.

Dig. 12.2.20

Digest 12.2.20

Paulus 18 ad ed.

Paulus 18 On the Edict.

Servus quod detulit vel iuravit, servetur, si peculii administrationem habuit:

Let what the slave has reported or sworn be observed, if he had the administration of a peculium:

Dig. 12.2.21

Digest 12.2.21

Gaius 5 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 5 on the Provincial Edict.

Huic enim solvi quoque recte potest et novandae obligationis ius habuit.

For payment can also properly be made to this person, and he had the right to novate the obligation.

Dig. 12.2.22

Digest 12.2.22

Paulus 18 ad ed.

Paulus 18 On the Edict.

Quidam et de peculio actionem dandam in dominum, si actori detulerit servus iusiurandum. eadem de filio familias dicenda sunt.

Some also hold that an action de peculio is to be granted against the master, if the slave has tendered the oath to the plaintiff. The same is to be said of a son under paternal power.

Dig. 12.2.23

Digest 12.2.23

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian, 26 On the Edict.

Si servus iuraverit dominum dare non oportere, exceptio domino indulgenda est sibique adversarius imputabit, qui servo detulit iusiurandum.

If a slave has sworn that the master ought not to give, an exception is to be granted to the master, and the adversary—who tendered the oath to the slave—will impute it to himself.

Dig. 12.2.24

Digest 12.2.24

Paulus 28 ad ed.

Paul 28 on the Edict.

Multo magis proderit patri religio filii, cum quo etiam iudicium consistere potest. ipsi autem referentes condicionem eorum, quibus subiecti sunt, non faciunt deteriorem.

Much more will the son’s religio profit the father, with whom even a suit can stand. ipsi, however, when referring back the condition of those to whom they are subject, do not make it worse.

Dig. 12.2.25

Digest 12.2.25

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian, 26 On the Edict.

Sed et si servus meus delato vel relato ei iureiurando, iuravit rem domini esse vel ei dari oportere, puto dandam mihi actionem vel pacti exceptionem propter religionem et conventionem.

But also, if my slave, upon an oath tendered to him or returned by him, swore that the thing is the master’s or that it ought to be given to him, I think an action should be granted to me, or an exception of pact, on account of the religious obligation and the agreement.

Dig. 12.2.26pr.

Digest 12.2.26, preface.

Paulus 18 ad ed.

Paulus 18 on the Edict.

Qui iurasse dicitur nihil refert cuius sexus aetatisve sit: omni enim modo custodiri debet iusiurandum adversus eum, qui contentus eo cum deferret fuit: quamvis pupillus non videatur peierare, quia sciens fallere non videatur.

One who is said to have sworn: it makes no difference of what sex or age he is; for in every way the oath must be kept against the one who, when he tendered it, was content with it; although a ward does not seem to perjure himself, since he does not seem to deceive knowingly.

Dig. 12.2.26.1

Digest 12.2.26.1

Paulus 18 ad ed.

Paulus 18 on the Edict.

Si pater filium dare non oportere iuraverit, cassius respondit et patri et filio dandam exceptionem iurisiurandi: si pater iuraverit in peculio nihil esse, filius conveniri poterit: sed et pater ita convenietur, ut post adquisiti peculii ratio habeatur.

If a father has sworn that the son ought not to give (to pay), Cassius answered that the exception of the oath is to be granted to both the father and the son; if the father has sworn that there is nothing in the peculium, the son can be sued; but the father too will be sued in such a way that account is taken of peculium acquired afterwards.

Dig. 12.2.26.2

Digest 12.2.26.2

Paulus 18 ad ed.

Paulus 18 On the Edict.

Iurisiurandi condicio ex numero esse potest videri novandi delegandive, quia proficiscitur ex conventione, quamvis habeat et instar iudicii.

The condition of an oath may be seen to belong to the class of novation or of delegation, because it proceeds from convention, although it also has the semblance of a judgment.

Dig. 12.2.27

Digest 12.2.27

Gaius 5 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 5 on the Provincial Edict.

Iusiurandum etiam loco solutionis cedit.

An oath also takes the place of payment.

Dig. 12.2.28pr.

Digest 12.2.28, beginning.

Paulus 18 ad ed.

Paulus 18 on the Edict.

In duobus reis stipulandi ab altero delatum iusiurandum etiam alteri nocebit.

In the case of two co-stipulators, an oath tendered by one will also prejudice the other.

Dig. 12.2.28.1

Digest 12.2.28.1

Paulus 18 ad ed.

Paulus 18 on the Edict.

Quod reus iuravit, etiam fideiussori proficit. a fideiussore exactum iusiurandum prodesse etiam reo cassius et iulianus aiunt: nam quia in locum solutionis succedit, hic quoque eodem loco habendum est: si modo ideo interpositum est iusiurandum, ut de ipso contractu et de re, non de persona iurantis ageretur.

What the defendant has sworn also profits the surety. an oath exacted from the surety, Cassius and Julian say, likewise profits the defendant: for because it succeeds to the place of payment, here too it is to be held in the same position: provided that the oath was interposed for this reason, that the matter concerned the contract itself and the thing, not the person of the swearer.

Dig. 12.2.28.2

Digest 12.2.28.2

Paulus 18 ad ed.

Paulus, 18 on the Edict.

Si ei, qui debitorem meum in iudicium exhibere promisit, iusiurandum detulerim isque iuraverit se omnino exhibitionem eius non promisisse, prodesse debitori meo id non debet: si vero iuraverit se nihil mihi praestare oportere, distinguendum sit et replicatione emendandum, utrum ideo iuraverit an quia post promissionem exhibuerit an vero quia solverit: quod et in fideiussorem debiti distinguendum est.

If to one who promised to produce my debtor into court I have tendered an oath, and he has sworn that he by no means promised his production, that ought not to benefit my debtor; but if he has sworn that he ought to render nothing to me, it must be distinguished and corrected by a replication whether he swore thus for that reason, or because after the promise he produced him, or indeed because he paid: which must likewise be distinguished in the case of a surety for the debt.

Dig. 12.2.28.3

Digest 12.2.28.3

Paulus 18 ad ed.

Paulus 18 on the Edict.

Ex duobus reis promittendi eiusdem pecuniae alter iuravit: alteri quoque prodesse debebit.

Of two joint promisors of the same money, one has sworn: it ought to benefit the other as well.

Dig. 12.2.28.4

Digest 12.2.28.4

Paulus 18 ad ed.

Paulus 18 on the Edict.

Exceptio iurisiurandi non tantum si ea actione quis utatur, cuius nomine exegit iusiurandum, opponi debet, sed etiam si alia, si modo eadem quaestio in hoc iudicium deducatur, forte si ob actionem mandati negotiorum gestorum societatis ceterasque similes iusiurandum exactum sit, deinde ex isdem causis certum condicatur, quia per alteram actionem altera quoque consumitur.

The exception of the oath ought to be pleaded not only if one uses that action in whose name he exacted the oath, but also if another, provided that the same question is brought into this proceeding—for instance, if on account of the action of mandate, of negotiorum gestorum (management of affairs), of partnership, and other similar actions an oath has been exacted, and thereafter from the same causes a condictio for a determinate sum is brought—because by one action the other also is consumed.

Dig. 12.2.28.5

Digest 12.2.28.5

Paulus 18 ad ed.

Paulus 18 on the Edict.

Si quis iuraverit se non rapuisse, non debet adiuvari hoc iureiurando in actione furti aut condictione, quia aliud est furtum fecisse, quod vel clam fieri potest.

If someone has sworn that he did not commit rapine, he ought not to be aided by this oath in an action for theft or in a condiction, because to have committed theft is another matter, one which can even be done secretly.

Dig. 12.2.28.6

Digest 12.2.28.6

Paulus 18 ad ed.

Paulus 18 on the Edict.

Colonus, cum quo propter succisas forte arbores agebatur ex locato, si iuraverit se non succidisse, sive e lege duodecim tabularum de arboribus succisis sive e lege aquilia damni iniuria sive interdicto quod vi aut clam postea convenietur, per exceptionem iurisiurandi defendi poterit.

The colonus (tenant-farmer), with whom an action ex locato was being pursued on account of trees perchance cut down, if he shall have sworn that he did not cut them down, whether he is later proceeded against under the Law of the Twelve Tables concerning felled trees, or under the Lex Aquilia for wrongful damage, or by the interdict quod vi aut clam, can be defended by the exceptio iurisiurandi (plea of oath).

Dig. 12.2.28.7

Digest 12.2.28.7

Paulus 18 ad ed.

Paulus 18 on the Edict.

Quae iuravit divortii causa rem se non amovisse, non debet defendi per exceptionem, si cum ea in rem agatur, et si contendat suam esse, alio iureiurando opus est: contra si iuraverit suam esse, debet in actione rerum amotarum defendi. et omnino hoc observandum est, licet per aliam actionem eadem quaestio moveatur, ut exceptio iurisiurandi locum habeat.

She who has sworn, in the cause of divorce, that she did not remove the thing, ought not to be defended by an exception, if an in rem action is brought against her; and if she contends that it is hers, another oath is needed. Conversely, if she has sworn that it is hers, she ought to be defended in the action for things removed. And in general this must be observed, although by another action the same question is raised, that the exception of the oath should have place.

Dig. 12.2.28.8

Digest 12.2.28.8

Paulus 18 ad ed.

Paulus, 18 on the Edict.

Igitur si quis iuravit se non esse condemnatum, etiamsi ex stipulatu iudicatum solvi ob rem iudicatam conveniatur, defendetur per exceptionem. contra si, cum ex stipulatu iudicatum solvi conveniretur, iuravit se dare non oportere, agenti iudicati non utique obstabit exceptio: potest enim fieri, ut non sit commissa stipulatio, licet res iudicata sit: nisi ideo iurasset, quod nec damnatum se esse diceret.

Therefore, if someone has sworn that he has not been condemned, even if he is proceeded against under the stipulation “iudicatum solvi” on account of res judicata, he will be defended by an exceptio. Conversely, if, when he was being proceeded against under the stipulation “iudicatum solvi,” he swore that he ought not to give, the exceptio will not necessarily bar the plaintiff on the judgment: for it can happen that the stipulation has not been incurred, although the matter has been adjudged—unless he swore for this reason, namely that he also said he was not condemned.

Dig. 12.2.28.9

Digest 12.2.28.9

Paulus 18 ad ed.

Paulus 18 on the Edict.

Item pomponius ait eum, qui furtum sibi factum alicuius rei iuravit, non statim etiam condictionis causam nancisci.

Likewise Pomponius says that he who has sworn that a theft of some thing has been committed against him does not immediately thereby also acquire a cause for a condiction.

Dig. 12.2.28.10

Digest 12.2.28.10

Paulus 18 ad ed.

Paulus book 18 on the Edict.

Item cum ex hac parte iusiurandum et actionem et exceptionem inducat, si forte reus extra iudicium actore inferente iuraverit se dare non oportere et actor reo deferente dari sibi oportere, vel contra, posterior causa iurisiurandi potior habebitur: nec tamen praeiudicium periurio alterius fiet, quia non quaeretur, an dare eum oportet, sed an actor iuraverit.

Likewise, since on this side the oath introduces both an action and an exception, if by chance the defendant outside of judgment, with the plaintiff tendering it, has sworn that he is not obliged to give, and the plaintiff, with the defendant tendering it, (has sworn) that it ought to be given to him, or conversely, the later ground of swearing will be held the stronger; nor, however, will prejudice be done on account of the other’s perjury, because the inquiry will not be whether he ought to give, but whether the plaintiff has sworn.

Dig. 12.2.29

Digest 12.2.29

Tryphonus 6 disp.

Tryphonus 6 Disputations.

Quod si iuravi te deferente non iurasse te dare tibi oportere, et adversus utilem actionem, qua hoc quaeritur, an iuraveris tibi dari oportere, opponenda est exceptio iurisiurandi perementis quaestionem actione comprehensam.

But if, with you tendering it, I swore that you had not sworn that it ought to be given to you, then, against the useful action by which this is inquired—whether you have sworn that it ought to be given to you—there must be opposed the exception of the oath, perempting the question encompassed by the action.

Dig. 12.2.30pr.

Digest 12.2.30, preface.

Paulus 18 ad ed.

Paulus 18 On the Edict.

Eum, qui iuravit ex ea actione quae infitiando crescit aliquid sibi deberi, simpli, non dupli persecutionem sibi adquirere pedius ait: abunde enim sufficere exonerare petitorem probandi necessitate, cum omissa hac parte edicti dupli actio integra maneat: et potest dici hoc iudicio non principalem causam exerceri, sed iusiurandum actoris conservari.

He who has sworn that, from that action which grows by denial, something is owed to him, acquires for himself, as Pedius says, an action for the single, not for the double (amount): for it is amply sufficient to exonerate the claimant from the necessity of proof, since, with this part of the edict left aside, the action for the double remains intact; and it can be said that in this judgment the principal cause is not being exercised, but the plaintiff’s oath is being conserved.

Dig. 12.2.30.1

Digest 12.2.30.1

Paulus 18 ad ed.

Paulus 18 on the Edict.

Si iuravero te stichum mihi dare oportere, qui non sit in rerum natura, nec aestimationem mihi praestare reus debet nisi ex causa furtiva vel propter moras: tunc enim etiam post mortem servi aestimatio praestatur.

If I have sworn that you ought to give me Stichus, who is not in the nature of things (i.e., does not exist), the defendant ought not to render me an estimation unless from a furtive cause or on account of delays: for then even after the slave’s death an estimation is rendered.

Dig. 12.2.30.2

Digest 12.2.30.2

Paulus 18 ad ed.

Paulus 18 on the edict.

Si mulier iuraverit decem dotis sibi deberi, tota ea summa praestanda est: sed si iuravit decem se dedisse in dotem, hoc solum non erit quaerendum, an data sint, sed quasi data sint, quod ex eo reddi oportet praestandum erit.

If a woman has sworn that ten of dowry are owed to her, that whole sum must be furnished; but if she has sworn that she gave ten into dowry, this alone will not be inquired—whether they were given—but, as though they had been given, that which ought to be returned therefrom will have to be furnished.

Dig. 12.2.30.3

Digest 12.2.30.3

Paulus 18 ad ed.

Paulus 18 On the Edict.

In popularibus actionibus iusiurandum exactum ita demum adversus alios proderit, si bona fide exactum fuerit: nam et si quis egerit, ita demum consumit publicam actionem, si non per collusionem actum sit.

In popular actions an oath exacted will be of avail against others only if it has been exacted in good faith; for even if someone has brought suit, he only then consumes the public action if it has not been done through collusion.

Dig. 12.2.30.4

Digest 12.2.30.4

Paulus 18 ad ed.

Paulus 18 on the Edict.

Si libertus deferente patrono iuravit se libertum non esse, ratum habendum est iusiurandum, ut nec operarum petitio nec bonorum possessio contra tabulas dari debeat.

If a freedman, upon the patron’s denunciation, swore that he is not a freedman, the oath is to be held ratified, so that neither a petition for services nor a possession of goods against the tablets ought to be granted.

Dig. 12.2.30.5

Digest 12.2.30.5

Paulus 18 ad ed.

Paulus 18 on the Edict.

Si iuravero usum fructum mihi dari oportere, non aliter dari debet, quam si caveam boni viri arbitratu me usurum et finito usu fructu restituturum.

If I have sworn that a usufruct ought to be given to me, it ought not to be given otherwise than if I give security, at the arbitrament of a good man, that I will use it and, when the usufruct is finished, will restore it.

Dig. 12.2.31

Digest 12.2.31

Gaius 30 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 30 on the provincial edict.

Admonendi sumus interdum etiam post iusiurandum exactum permitti constitutionibus principum ex integro causam agere, si quis nova instrumenta se invenisse dicat, quibus nunc solis usurus sit. sed hae constitutiones tunc videntur locum habere, cum a iudice aliquis absolutus fuerit ( solent enim saepe iudices in dubiis causis exacto iureiurando secundum eum iudicare qui iuraverit): quod si alias inter ipsos iureiurando transactum sit negotium, non conceditur eandem causam retractare.

We must be admonished that sometimes even after an oath has been exacted it is permitted by the emperors’ constitutions to prosecute the case anew, if someone says that he has discovered new instruments, which alone he will now make use of. But these constitutions seem to have a place when someone has been absolved by the judge ( for judges are often accustomed, in doubtful causes, after an oath has been exacted, to judge in favor of the one who has sworn): but if otherwise the matter has been transacted by an oath between the parties themselves, it is not conceded to re‑argue the same case.

Dig. 12.2.32

Digest 12.2.32

Modestinus libro diff.

Modestinus, in the book of Differences.

Iurisiurandi gratiam facere pupillus non potest.

A ward cannot grant dispensation concerning an oath.

Dig. 12.2.33

Digest 12.2.33

Ulpianus 28 ad sab.

Ulpian 28 on Sabinus.

Qui per salutem suam iurat, licet per deum iurare videtur ( respectu enim divini numinis ita iurat), attamen, si non ita specialiter iusiurandum ei delatum est, iurasse non videtur: et ideo ex integro sollemniter iurandum est.

He who swears by his own salvation, although he seems to swear by God ( for with respect to the divine numen he thus swears), nevertheless, if the oath has not been tendered to him in this special manner, he is not deemed to have sworn; and therefore it must be solemnly sworn afresh.

Dig. 12.2.34pr.

Digest 12.2.34, preface.

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the Edict.

Iusiurandum et ad pecunias et ad omnes res locum habet: etiam de operis iusiurandum deferri potest. nec de iniuria queri adversarius potest, cum possit iusiurandum referre. quid tamen, si ideo dicat reus se liberatum, quoniam stichum, quem promiserat, putat decessisse?

An oath has place both for monies and for all things: even an oath concerning services/works can be tendered. Nor can the adversary complain of injury, since he can refer the oath back. But what, however, if for this reason the defendant says that he has been released, because he thinks that Stichus, whom he had promised, has died?

non erit tutus per relationem. et ideo ex hac causa putat Marcellus, et recte, aut remittendum ei iusiurandum aut spatium dandum, ut certioretur et sic iuret.

he will not be safe by referral. And therefore, for this cause Marcellus thinks, and rightly, that either the oath should be remitted to him, or time should be granted, so that he may be made certain and thus swear.

Dig. 12.2.34.1

Digest 12.2.34.1

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the Edict.

Defensor municipum vel cuiusvis corporis iusiurandum deferre potest, si super hoc mandatum habeat.

A defender of the municipalities or of any corporate body can tender an oath, if he has a mandate concerning this.

Dig. 12.2.34.2

Digest 12.2.34.2

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the Edict.

Pupillo non defertur iusiurandum.

An oath is not tendered to a ward.

Dig. 12.2.34.3

Digest 12.2.34.3

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the edict.

Procurator non compellitur iurare nec defensor, et ita iulianus scribit libro decimo digestorum defensorem iurare non compelli sufficereque ad plenam defensionem, si paratus sit iudicium accipere.

A procurator is not compelled to swear, nor a defensor; and thus Julian writes in the tenth book of the Digesta that a defensor is not compelled to swear, and that it suffices for a full defense if he is ready to accept the judgment.

Dig. 12.2.34.4

Digest 12.2.34.4

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian, 26 on the Edict.

Qui iusiurandum defert, prior de calumnia debet iurare, si hoc exigatur, deinde sic ei iurabitur. hoc iusiurandum de calumnia aeque patrono parentibusque remittitur.

He who tenders the oath must first swear concerning calumny, if this is demanded; then thus shall the oath be sworn to him. This oath concerning calumny is likewise remitted to the patron and to parents.

Dig. 12.2.34.5

Digest 12.2.34.5

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian, 26 on the Edict.

Si de qualitate iuramenti fuerit inter partes dubitatum, conceptio eius arbitri iudicantis est.

If there has been doubt between the parties about the quality of the oath, its formulation belongs to the adjudicating arbiter.

Dig. 12.2.34.6

Digest 12.2.34.6

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the Edict.

Ait praetor: " eum, a quo iusiurandum petetur, solvere aut iurare cogam": alterum itaque eligat reus, aut solvat aut iuret: si non iurat, solvere cogendus erit a praetore.

The praetor says: "I will compel him, from whom an oath shall be sought, to pay or to swear": therefore let the defendant choose one or the other, either let him pay or let him swear: if he does not swear, he will be compelled by the praetor to pay.

Dig. 12.2.34.7

Digest 12.2.34.7

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian, 26 on the Edict.

Datur autem et alia facultas reo, ut, si malit, referat iusiurandum: et si is qui petet condicione iurisiurandi non utetur, iudicium ei praetor non dabit. aequissime enim hoc facit, cum non deberet displicere condicio iurisiurandi ei qui detulit: sed nec iusiurandum de calumnia referenti defertur, quia non est ferendus actor, si condicionis quam ipse detulit de calumnia velit sibi iurari.

Moreover, another faculty is given to the defendant, that, if he prefers, he may refer the oath back; and if he who seeks (sues) will not make use of the condition of the oath, the praetor will not grant him an action. For he does this most equitably, since the condition of the oath ought not to displease him who tendered it; but neither is the oath concerning calumny tendered to one who refers it, because the plaintiff (actor) is not to be borne, if he wishes that, from the condition which he himself tendered, an oath about calumny be sworn to his own advantage.

Dig. 12.2.34.8

Digest 12.2.34.8

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the Edict.

Non semper autem consonans est per omnia referri iusiurandum quale defertur, forsitan ex diversitate rerum vel personarum quibusdam emergentibus, quae varietatem inducunt: ideoque si quid tale inciderit, officio iudicis conceptio huiuscemodi iurisiurandi terminetur.

However, it is not always consonant that an oath be referred in all respects just as it is proffered, perhaps because, from the diversity of matters or of persons, certain things emerge which introduce variety: and therefore, if anything of this sort should occur, the conception (formulation) of such an oath is to be determined by the office of the judge.

Dig. 12.2.34.9

Digest 12.2.34.9

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian, 26 on the Edict.

Cum res in iusiurandum demissa sit, iudex iurantem absolvit: referentem audiet et, si actor iuret, condemnet reum: nolentem iurare reum si solvat, absolvit, non solventem condemnat: ex relatione non iurante actore absolvit reum.

When the matter has been remitted to an oath, the judge absolves the one who swears: he will hear the referrer and, if the plaintiff swears, he condemns the defendant: if the defendant, unwilling to swear, pays, he absolves him; if he does not pay, he condemns him: on the referral, if the plaintiff does not swear, he absolves the defendant.

Dig. 12.2.35pr.

Digest 12.2.35, pr.

Paulus 28 ad ed.

Paulus, book 28 on the Edict.

Tutor pupilli omnibus probationibus aliis deficientibus iusiurandum deferens audiendus est: quandoque enim pupillo denegabitur actio.

The tutor of the pupil, with all other proofs failing, must be heard when tendering an oath; for sometimes an action will be denied to the pupil.

Dig. 12.2.35.1

Digest 12.2.35.1

Paulus 28 ad ed.

Paul, 28th book on the Edict.

Prodigus si deferat iusiurandum, audiendus non est: idemque in ceteris similibus ei dicendum est. nam sive pro pacto convento sive pro solutione sive pro iudicio hoc iusiurandum cedit, non ab aliis delatum probari debet, quam qui ad haec habiles sunt.

If a prodigal tenders an oath, he is not to be heard; and the same must be said in other matters similar to this. For whether this oath accrues for a pact or convention, or for a solution (payment), or for a judgment, it ought not to be approved when proffered by any others than those who are competent for these things.

Dig. 12.2.35.2

Digest 12.2.35.2

Paulus 28 ad ed.

Paulus 28 on the Edict.

Qui non compelluntur romae iudicium accipere, nec iurare compellendi sunt, ut legati provinciales.

those who are not compelled at Rome to submit to judgment are not to be compelled to swear either, as (with) provincial legates.

Dig. 12.2.36

Digest 12.2.36

Ulpianus 27 ad ed.

Ulpian 27 on the Edict.

Si actor deferat iusiurandum de sola constituta pecunia et reus iuraverit, exceptione utetur, si de constituta conveniatur: sed si de sorte, id est de priore obligatione conveniatur, exceptio cessabit, nisi de hac quoque iuraverit adversario deferente.

If the actor tenders an oath concerning only the constituted money, and the reus has sworn, he will use an exceptio if he is sued on the constitutum; but if he is sued for the principal (that is, on the prior obligation), the exceptio will cease, unless he has also sworn concerning this as well, the adversary tendering it.

Dig. 12.2.37

Digest 12.2.37

Ulpianus 33 ad ed.

Ulpian 33 on the Edict.

Si non fuerit remissum iusiurandum ab eo qui detulerit, sed de calumnia non iuratur, consequens est, ut debeat denegari ei actio: sibi enim imputet, qui processit ad delationem iurisiurandi nec prius de calumnia iuravit, ut sit iste remittendi similis.

If the oath has not been remitted by him who has tendered it, but no oath concerning calumny is sworn, it follows that the action ought to be denied to him: let him impute it to himself, who proceeded to the delation of the oath and did not first swear about calumny, so that he is like one remitting it.

Dig. 12.2.38

Digest 12.2.38

Paulus 37 ad ed.

Paulus 37 on the Edict.

Manifestae turpitudinis et confessionis est nolle nec iurare nec iusiurandum referre.

It is of manifest turpitude and confession to be unwilling either to swear or to tender the oath.

Dig. 12.2.39

Digest 12.2.39

Iulianus 10 Dig.

Julian, 10 Digest.

Si quis cum debitore suo pepigerit, ne ab eo pecunia peteretur, si iurasset se capitolium non ascendisse vel aliud quodlibet fecisse vel non fecisse, isque iuraverit, et exceptio iurisiurandi dari debebit et solutum repeti poterit: est enim iusta conventio, si quaelibet causa in condicione iurisiurandi deducta fuerit.

If anyone has bargained with his debtor that a pecuniary demand shall not be made upon him, if he should swear that he has not ascended the Capitol or has done or not done any other thing whatsoever, and he has sworn, then the exception of an oath ought to be granted, and what was paid can be reclaimed: for it is a just convention, if any cause whatsoever has been brought under the condition of the oath.

Dig. 12.2.40

Digest 12.2.40

Iulianus 13 Dig.

Julian 13 Digest.

Iusiurandum a debitore exactum efficit, ut pignus liberetur: est enim hoc acceptilationi simile: perpetuam certe exceptionem parit. idcirco poenam quoque petentem creditorem exceptione summoveri oportet et solutum repeti potest, utpote cum interposito eo ab omni controversia discedatur.

An oath exacted from the debtor brings it about that the pledge is released: for this is similar to acceptilation; it certainly begets a perpetual exception. Therefore the creditor, even when seeking a penalty, ought to be repelled by the exception, and what has been paid can be reclaimed, since, that being interposed, one departs from all controversy.

Dig. 12.2.41

Digest 12.2.41

Pomponius l.S. reg.

Pomponius, in the single book of Rules.

Labeo etiam absenti et ignoranti iurisiurandi gratiam fieri posse respondit: sed et per epistulam gratia iurisiurandi fieri potest.

Labeo also responded that the favor of an oath can be made for one who is absent and unaware; and the favor of an oath can also be effected by letter.

Dig. 12.2.42pr.

Digest 12.2.42pr.

Pomponius 18 epist.

Pomponius letters 18.

Creditore, qui de mutua pecunia contra pupillum contendebat, iusiurandum deferente pupillus iuravit se dare non oportere: eandem pecuniam a fideiussore eius petit: an excludendus sit exceptione iurisiurandi? quid tibi placet, rescribe mihi. eam rem apertius explicat iulianus.

With the creditor, who was contending against a ward concerning money lent as a mutuum, tendering an oath, the ward swore that he ought not to pay; he seeks the same money from his surety: is he to be excluded by the exception of the oath? What seems good to you? Write back to me. Julian explains this matter more explicitly.

nam si controversia inter creditorem et pupillum fuerit, an omnino pecuniam mutuam accepisset, et convenit, ut ab omni condicione discederetur, si pupillus iurasset, isque iuraverit se dare non oportere, naturalis obligatio hac pactione tolletur et soluta pecunia repeti poterit. sin vero creditor quidem se mutuam dedisse contendebat, pupillus autem hoc solo defendebatur, quod tutor eius non intervenisset et hoc tale iusiurandum interpositum est, hoc casu fideiussorem praetor non tuebitur. si autem liquido probari non potest, quid actum sit, et in obscuro erit ( ut plerumque fit), de facto an de iure inter creditorem et pupillum controversia fuerit deferente creditore pupillum iurasse, intellegere debemus id actum inter eos, ut, si iurasset se dare non oportere, ab omni condicione discederetur: atque ita et solutam pecuniam repeti posse et fideiussoribus exceptionem dari debere existimavimus.

for if there is a controversy between the creditor and the pupil, whether he had at all received a loan of money, and it is agreed that all condition be departed from if the pupil should swear, and he has sworn that he ought not to pay, the natural obligation will be removed by this pact, and money that has been paid may be reclaimed. but if indeed the creditor was contending that he had given the loan, while the pupil was defending himself on this ground alone, that his tutor had not intervened, and such an oath has been interposed, in this case the praetor will not protect the surety. if however it cannot be clearly proved what was done, and it will be in obscurity ( as it generally happens), whether the controversy between the creditor and the pupil was about the fact or about the law, the creditor having tendered the oath and the pupil having sworn, we must understand that this was transacted between them: that, if he should swear that he ought not to pay, all condition was to be departed from; and thus we have judged that both money paid can be reclaimed, and that to the sureties the exceptio ought to be given.

Dig. 12.2.42.1

Digest 12.2.42.1

Pomponius 18 epist.

Pomponius 18 epistles.

Si fideiussor iuraverit se dare non oportere, exceptione iurisiurandi reus promittendi tutus est: atquin si, quasi omnino idem non fideiussisset, iuravit, non debet hoc iusiurandum reo promittendi prodesse.

If the surety has sworn that he ought not to pay, by the exception of the oath the promissory defendant is protected; but if he swore as though he had in no wise become surety for the same, this oath ought not to benefit the promissory defendant.

Dig. 12.2.42.2

Digest 12.2.42.2

Pomponius 18 epist.

Pomponius Letters, book 18.

Sed et si actore deferente defensor absentis vel praesentis iuravit eum quem defendit dare non oportere, exceptio iurisiurandi ei cuius nomine iurandum fuerit dari debebit. eadem ratio est et si fideiussoris defensor iuraverit: reo enim detur exceptio:

But also, if, with the plaintiff tendering it, the defender of an absent or present person swore that the one whom he defends ought not to give, the exception of the oath ought to be given to him in whose name the oath was sworn. The same reasoning applies also if the defender of a surety swore: for let the exception be given to the defendant:

Dig. 12.2.42.3

Digest 12.2.42.3

Pomponius 18 epist.

Pomponius 18 letters.

Item si reus iuravit, fideiussor tutus sit, quia res iudicata secundum alterutrum eorum utrique proficeret.

Likewise, if the defendant has sworn, let the surety be safe, since res judicata in favor of either of them would benefit both.

Dig. 12.3.0. De in litem iurando.

Dig. 12.3.0. On swearing an oath as to the value of the suit.

Dig. 12.3.1

Digest 12.3.1

Ulpianus 51 ad sab.

Ulpian, 51 on Sabinus.

Rem in iudicio deductam non idcirco pluris esse opinamur, quia crescere condemnatio potest ex contumacia non restituentis per iusiurandum in litem: non enim res pluris fit per hoc, sed ex contumacia aestimatur ultra rei pretium.

We do not therefore suppose that a thing brought into judgment is for that reason of greater value, because the condemnation can increase, out of the contumacy of the party not restoring, through an oath in litem: for the thing does not become worth more by this, but on account of contumacy it is appraised beyond the price of the thing.

Dig. 12.3.2

Digest 12.3.2

Paulus 13 ad sab.

Paulus book 13 on Sabinus.

Sive nostrum quid petamus sive ad exhibendum agatur, interdum quod intersit agentis solum aestimatur, veluti cum culpa non restituentis vel non exhibentis punitur: cum vero dolus aut contumacia non restituentis vel non exhibentis, quanti in litem iuraverit actor.

Whether we claim something that is ours or an action for exhibition is brought, sometimes only what it is in the interest of the actor is assessed, as when the fault of the non-restorer or non-exhibitor is punished; but when there is fraud or contumacy of the non-restorer or non-exhibitor, it is for as much as the actor has sworn in the suit.

Dig. 12.3.3

Digest 12.3.3

Ulpianus 30 ad ed.

Ulpian book 30 on the Edict.

Nummis depositis iudicem non oportet in litem iusiurandum deferre, ut iuret quisque quod sua interfuit, cum certa sit nummorum aestimatio. nisi forte de eo quis iuret, quod sua interfuit nummos sibi sua die redditos esse: quid enim, si sub poena pecuniam debuit? aut sub pignore, quod, quia deposita ei pecunia adnegata est, distractum est?

When coins have been deposited, the judge ought not to tender an oath in litem, that each person swear what it was to his interest, since the valuation of coins is certain—unless perhaps someone should swear to this, that it was to his interest that the coins had been returned to him on their proper day: for what, if he owed the money subject to a penalty? or under a pledge, which was sold off because, although the money had been deposited with him, it was refused?

Dig. 12.3.4pr.

Digest 12.3.4, pr.

Ulpianus 36 ad ed.

Ulpian, 36 on the Edict.

Videamus in tutelari causa quis iurare et adversus quem possit. et quidem ipse pupillus, si impubes est, non potest: hoc enim saepissime rescriptum est. sed nec tutorem cogendum vel matrem pupilli admittendam, etsi parata esset iurare, divi fratres rescripserunt: grave enim videbatur et ignorantes et invitos tutores sub alieni compendii emolumento etiam periurium anceps subire.

Let us see, in a guardianship matter, who can swear an oath and against whom. And indeed the ward himself, if he is under the age of puberty, cannot: for this has been most frequently determined by rescript. But the Deified Brothers rescripted that neither should the tutor be compelled nor the mother of the ward be admitted, even if she were ready to swear: for it seemed grievous that tutors, both unknowing and unwilling, should, for the emolument of another’s profit, also incur the two-edged peril of perjury.

curatores quoque pupilli vel adulescentis non esse cogendos in litem iurare rescriptis imperatoris nostri et divi patris eius continetur. si tamen tantam affectionem pupillo suo vel adulescenti tutores vel curatores praestare volunt, auctoritas iuris non refragabitur, quin iudicio, quod inter ipsos acceptum est, finis eiusmodi possit adhiberi. non enim ad suam utilitatem iurisiurandi referenda aestimatio est, sed ad domini, cuius nomine tutelae ratio postulatur.

It is contained in the rescripts of our emperor and of his deified father that the curators also of a pupil or of an adolescent are not to be compelled to swear in-litem. If, however, the tutors or curators wish to render such affection to their own pupil or adolescent, the authority of the law will not gainsay it, so that an end of this kind may be applied to the proceeding which has been entered between them. For the appraisal of the oath is not to be referred to their own utility, but to that of the owner, in whose name the account of the guardianship is demanded.

adulescens vero si velit iurare potest.

an adolescent, however, if he wishes, can swear.

Dig. 12.3.4.1

Digest 12.3.4.1

Ulpianus 36 ad ed.

Ulpian, 36 on the Edict.

Deferre autem iusiurandum iudicem oportet: ceterum si alius detulerit iusiurandum vel non delato iuratum sit, nulla erit religio nec ullum iusiurandum: et ita constitutionibus expressum est imperatoris nostri et divi patris eius.

Moreover, the judge ought to defer (tender) the oath; but if someone else has deferred the oath, or if, with it not having been deferred, it has been sworn, there will be no religious obligation nor any oath; and thus it has been expressly set forth in the constitutions of our emperor and of his deified father.

Dig. 12.3.4.2

Digest 12.3.4.2

Ulpianus 36 ad ed.

Ulpian, 36 on the edict.

Iurare autem in infinitum licet. sed an iudex modum iuriiurando statuere possit, ut intra certam quantitatem iuretur, ne arrepta occasione in immensum iuretur, quaero. et quidem in arbitrio esse iudicis deferre iusiurandum nec ne constat: an igitur qui possit iusiurandum non deferre, idem possit et taxationem iuriiurando adicere, quaeritur: arbitrio tamen bonae fidei iudicis etiam hoc congruit.

To swear for an unlimited amount is permitted. But whether a judge can set a limit for the oath, so that one swear within a certain quantity, lest, the occasion having been seized, one swear to an immense amount, I ask. And indeed it is established that it is within the judge’s discretion to tender the oath or not: therefore the question is whether he who can refrain from tendering the oath can likewise add an assessment to the oath. Yet this too accords with the discretion of a good‑faith judge.

Dig. 12.3.4.3

Digest 12.3.4.3

Ulpianus 36 ad ed.

Ulpian, 36 on the Edict.

Item videndum, an possit iudex, qui detulit iusiurandum, non sequi id, sed vel prorsus absolvere vel etiam minoris condemnare quam iuratum est: et magis est, ut ex magna causa et postea repertis probationibus possit.

Likewise it must be considered whether a judge who has tendered the oath can not follow it, but either absolutely acquit or even condemn for less than has been sworn: and the better view is that he can, for a grave cause and upon proofs afterwards discovered.

Dig. 12.3.4.4

Digest 12.3.4.4

Ulpianus 36 ad ed.

Ulpian, 36 on the Edict.

Ex culpa autem non esse iusiurandum deferendum constat, sed aestimationem a iudice faciendam.

But it is established that in matters of fault an oath is not to be tendered, but an estimation is to be made by the judge.

Dig. 12.3.5pr.

Digest 12.3.5, beginning.

Marcianus 4 reg.

Marcianus Rules 4.

In actionibus in rem et in ad exhibendum et in bonae fidei iudiciis in litem iuratur.

In actions in rem and in the action ad exhibendum, and in good‑faith suits, an oath in litem is sworn.

Dig. 12.3.5.1

Digest 12.3.5.1

Marcianus 4 reg.

Marcianus book 4 of the rules.

Sed iudex potest praefinire certam summam, usque ad quam iuretur: licuit enim ei a primo nec deferre.

But the judge can predefine a certain sum, up to which the oath is to be sworn: for from the outset it was permitted to him not to tender it.

Dig. 12.3.5.2

Digest 12.3.5.2

Marcianus 4 reg.

Marcianus 4 rules.

Item et si iuratum fuerit, licet iudici vel absolvere vel minoris condemnare.

Likewise, even if an oath has been sworn, it is permitted to the judge either to absolve or to condemn for a lesser amount.

Dig. 12.3.5.3

Digest 12.3.5.3

Marcianus 4 reg.

Marcianus book 4 of the Rules.

Sed in his omnibus ob dolum solum in litem iuratur, non etiam ob culpam: haec enim iudex aestimat.

But in all these cases, an oath in litem is sworn only on account of fraud (dolus), not also on account of fault (culpa): for the judge assesses these.

Dig. 12.3.5.4

Digest 12.3.5.4

Marcianus 4 reg.

Marcianus 4 Rules.

Plane interdum et in actione stricti iudicii in litem iurandum est, veluti si promissor stichi moram fecerit et stichus decesserit, quia iudex aestimare sine relatione iurisiurandi non potest rem quae non extat:

Plainly, sometimes even in an action of strict law an oath in litem must be sworn, for example, if the promisor of Stichus has caused delay and Stichus has deceased, because the judge cannot estimate, without reference to the oath, a thing which is not extant:

Dig. 12.3.6

Digest 12.3.6

Paulus 26 ad ed.

Paul 26 on the Edict.

Alias, si ex stipulatu vel ex testamento agatur, non solet in litem iurari.

Otherwise, if action is brought on a stipulation or on a testament, it is not usual to swear in litem.

Dig. 12.3.7

Digest 12.3.7

Ulpianus 8 ad ed.

Ulpian 8 on the Edict.

Volgo praesumitur alium in litem non debere iurare quam dominum litis: denique papinianus ait alium non posse iurare quam eum, qui litem suo nomine contestatus est.

Commonly it is presumed that no one ought to swear in the suit except the owner of the suit; indeed Papinian says that no one else can swear except the one who has contested the suit in his own name.

Dig. 12.3.8

Digest 12.3.8

Marcellus 8 Dig.

Marcellus 8 Digest.

Tutor rem adulti, quam possidet, restituere ei non vult: quaero, utrum quanti res est an quanti in litem iuratum fuerit condemnari debet, respondi: non est aequum pretio, id est quanti res est, litem aestimari, cum et contumacia punienda sit et arbitrio potius domini rei pretium statuendum sit potestate petitori in litem iurandi concessa.

The tutor does not wish to restore to the adult the thing which he possesses: I ask whether he ought to be condemned for as much as the thing is worth, or for as much as has been sworn in for the suit; I replied: it is not equitable that the suit be assessed by the price, that is, by how much the thing is worth, since contumacy too is to be punished, and the price ought rather to be set at the discretion of the owner of the thing, the power having been conceded to the petitioner to swear in litem.

Dig. 12.3.9

Digest 12.3.9

Iavolenus 15 ex cass.

Javolenus Book 15 from Cassius.

Cum furti agitur, iurare ita oportet " tanti rem fuisse cum furtum factum sit", non adici " eo plurisve", quia quod res pluris est, utique tanti est.

When theft is litigated, one ought to swear thus: "that the thing was worth so much when the theft was committed," not to add "or by so much more," because a thing which is of greater value is, in any case, of that value.

Dig. 12.3.10

Digest 12.3.10

Callistratus 1 quaest.

Callistratus 1 Questions.

In instrumentis, quae quis non exhibet, actori permittitur in litem iurare, quanti sua interest ea proferri, ut tanti condemnetur reus: idque etiam divus commodus rescripsit.

In the case of instruments which someone does not produce, the plaintiff is permitted to swear in litem as to how much it is to his interest that they be brought forward, so that the defendant be condemned for that amount: and the deified Commodus also prescribed this by rescript.

Dig. 12.3.11

Digest 12.3.11

Paulus 3 resp.

Paulus Responses, Book 3.

De periurio eius, qui ex necessitate iuris in litem iuravit, quaeri facile non solere.

Concerning the perjury of one who, by necessity of law, swore in the suit, inquiry is not wont to be easily made.

Dig. 12.4.0. De condictione causa data causa non secuta.

Digest 12.4.0. On the condiction: cause given, cause not ensuing.

Dig. 12.4.1pr.

Digest 12.4.1 pr.

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the Edict.

Si ob rem non inhonestam data sit pecunia, ut filius emanciparetur vel servus manumitteretur vel a lite discedatur, causa secuta repetitio cessat.

If money has been given for a not-dishonorable matter, that a son be emancipated or a slave be manumitted or that there be a withdrawal from the suit, once the purpose has been effected, recovery ceases.

Dig. 12.4.1.1

Digest 12.4.1.1

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian, 26 on the Edict.

Si parendi condicioni causa tibi dedero decem, mox repudiavero hereditatem vel legatum, possum condicere.

If for the sake of obeying the condition I have given you ten, and soon after I repudiate the inheritance or the legacy, I can bring a condictio.

Dig. 12.4.2

Digest 12.4.2

Hermogenianus 2 iuris epit.

Hermogenianus 2, Epitome of Law.

Sed et si falsum testamentum sine scelere eius qui dedit vel inofficiosum pronuntietur, veluti causa non secuta decem repetentur.

But also, if a false testament, without the crime of the one who delivered it, or an inofficious one is pronounced, then, as though the cause had not followed, ten will be reclaimed.

Dig. 12.4.3pr.

Digest 12.4.3pr.

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian, 26 on the Edict.

Dedi tibi pecuniam, ne ad iudicem iretur: quasi decidi. an possim condicere, si mihi non caveatur ad iudicem non iri? et est verum multum interesse, utrum ob hoc solum dedi, ne eatur, an ut et mihi repromittatur non iri: si ob hoc, ut et repromittatur, condici poterit, si non repromittatur: si ut ne eatur, condictio cessat quamdiu non itur.

I gave you money, so that it not be gone before the judge: as if I had settled. Whether I can bring a condictio, if I am not given security that there will not be a going before the judge? And it is true that it matters much whether I gave for this alone, that one not go, or also that it be re-promised to me that one will not go: if for this, that it also be re-promised, a condictio can be brought if it is not re-promised; if [I gave] so that one not go, the condictio is in abeyance so long as one does not go.

Dig. 12.4.3.1

Digest 12.4.3.1

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian, 26 on the Edict.

Idem erit et si tibi dedero, ne stichum manumittas: nam secundum distinctionem supra scriptam aut admittenda erit repetitio aut inhibenda.

It will be the same also if I have given to you that you not manumit Stichus: for, according to the distinction written above, either the repetition must be admitted or inhibited.

Dig. 12.4.3.2

Digest 12.4.3.2

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian, 26 on the Edict.

Sed si tibi dedero, ut stichum manumittas: si non facis, possum condicere, aut si me paeniteat, condicere possum.

But if I have given to you, in order that you manumit Stichus: if you do not do it, I can bring a condiction, or if I repent, I can bring a condiction.

Dig. 12.4.3.3

Digest 12.4.3.3

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 26 on the Edict.

Quid si ita dedi, ut intra certum tempus manumittas? si nondum tempus praeteriit, inhibenda erit repetitio, nisi paeniteat: quod si praeteriit, condici poterit. sed si stichus decesserit, an repeti quod datum est possit?

What if I gave on this basis: that you manumit within a fixed time? If the time has not yet elapsed, repetition (recovery) is to be inhibited, unless he repents; but if it has elapsed, a condictio can be brought. But if Stichus has died, can what was given be recovered?

proculus ait, si post id temporis decesserit, quo manumitti potuit, repetitionem esse, si minus, cessare.

proculus says that, if he has died after that time at which he could have been manumitted, there is repetition; if not, it ceases.

Dig. 12.4.3.4

Digest 12.4.3.4

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian, 26 on the Edict.

Quin immo et si nihil tibi dedi, ut manumitteres, placuerat tamen, ut darem, ultro tibi competere actionem, quae ex hoc contractu nascitur, id est condictionem defuncto quoque eo.

Rather, even if I gave you nothing that you might manumit, it was nevertheless held that I ought to give; moreover, that the action which arises from this contract, that is, the condiction, is available to you even after he has died.

Dig. 12.4.3.5

Digest 12.4.3.5

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the edict.

Si liber homo, qui bona fide serviebat, mihi pecuniam dederit, ut eum manumittam, et fecero: postea liber probatus an mihi condicere possit, quaeritur. et iulianus libro undecimo digestorum scribit competere manumisso repetitionem. neratius etiam libro membranarum refert paridem pantomimum a domitia neronis filia decem, quae ei pro libertate dederat, repetisse per iudicem nec fuisse quaesitum, an domitia sciens liberum accepisset.

If a free man, who was serving in good faith, has given me money so that I might manumit him, and I have done so: afterwards, when he is proved free, the question arises whether he can bring a condiction against me. And Julian, in the eleventh book of the Digest, writes that repetition is available to the manumitted. Neratius also, in the book Membranae, reports that Paris the pantomime recovered through a judge from Domitia, Nero’s daughter, the ten which he had given her for his freedom, and that it was not inquired whether Domitia had knowingly received a free person.

Dig. 12.4.3.6

Digest 12.4.3.6

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the Edict.

Si quis quasi statuliber mihi decem dederit, cum iussus non esset, condicere eum decem celsus scribit.

If someone, as if a statuliber, were to give me ten, when he had not been ordered, Celsus writes that he may bring a condictio for the ten against him.

Dig. 12.4.3.7

Digest 12.4.3.7

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the Edict.

Sed si servus, qui testamento heredi iussus erat decem dare et liber esse, codicillis pure libertatem accepit et id ignorans dederit heredi decem, an repetere possit? et refert patrem suum celsum existimasse repetere eum non posse: sed ipse celsus naturali aequitate motus putat repeti posse. quae sententia verior est, quamquam constet, ut et ipse ait, eum qui dedit ea spe, quod se ab eo qui acceperit remunerari existimaret vel amiciorem sibi esse eum futurum, repetere non posse opinione falsa deceptum.

But if a slave, who by testament had been ordered to give ten to the heir and to be free, received liberty unconditionally by codicils, and, not knowing this, gave the heir ten, can he recover it? And he reports that his father Celsus thought that he could not recover; but Celsus himself, moved by natural equity, thinks that it can be recovered. Which opinion is truer, although it is agreed, as he himself says, that he who gave in the hope that he would be remunerated by the one who received, or that he would be more friendly to him in the future, cannot recover, having been deceived by a false opinion.

Dig. 12.4.3.8

Digest 12.4.3.8

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the Edict.

Suptilius quoque illud tractat, an ille, qui se statuliberum putaverit, nec fecerit nummos accipientis, quoniam heredi dedit quasi ipsius heredis nummos daturus, non quasi suos, qui utique ipsius fuerunt, adquisiti scilicet post libertatem ei ex testamento competentem. et puto, si hoc animo dedit, non fieri ipsius: nam et cum tibi nummos meos quasi tuos do, non facio tuos. quid ergo, si hic non heredi, sed alii dedit, cui putabat se iussum?

Suptilius also treats this point, whether the man who thought himself statuliber, and did not make the coins the recipient’s, since he gave to the heir as if he were going to give the heir’s coins, not as if his own—which indeed were his, acquired, namely, after the freedom due to him under the testament—And I think, if he gave with this intention, they do not become the recipient’s: for even when I give you my coins as though they were yours, I do not make them yours. What then, if he gave not to the heir, but to another, to whom he thought himself ordered?

si quidem peculiares dedit, nec fecit accipientis: si autem alius pro eo dedit aut ipse dedit iam liber factus, fient accipientis.

if indeed he gave peculium-assets, he did not make them the recipient’s: but if another gave on his behalf, or he himself gave, once he had been made free, they will become the recipient’s.

Dig. 12.4.3.9

Digest 12.4.3.9

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian, 26 on the Edict.

Quamquam permissum sit statulibero etiam de peculio dare implendae condicionis causa, si tamen vult heres nummos salvos facere, potest eum vetare dare: sic enim fiet, ut et statuliber perveniat ad libertatem quasi impleta condicione cui parere prohibitus est, et nummi non peribunt. sed is, quem testator accipere voluit, adversus heredem in factum actione agere potest, ut testatori pareatur.

Although it is permitted to a statuliber even to give from his peculium for the sake of fulfilling the condition, nevertheless, if the heir wishes to keep the money safe, he can forbid him to give: for thus it will come about that both the statuliber will attain freedom as if the condition—obedience to which he was prohibited—had been fulfilled, and the coins will not perish. But the person whom the testator wished to receive it can bring an actio in factum against the heir, so that obedience may be rendered to the testator.

Dig. 12.4.4

Digest 12.4.4

Ulpianus 39 ad ed.

Ulpian, 39 on the Edict.

Si quis accepto tulerit debitori suo, cum conveniret, ut expromissorem daret, nec ille det, potest dici condici posse ei, qui accepto sit liberatus.

If someone, having granted acceptilation to his debtor, it having been agreed that he would provide an expromissor, and he does not provide one, it can be said that a condictio may be brought against the one who has been released by acceptilation.

Dig. 12.4.5pr.

Digest 12.4.5pr.

Ulpianus 2 disp.

Ulpian, Disputations, book 2.

Si pecuniam ideo acceperis, ut capuam eas, deinde parato tibi ad proficiscendum condicio temporis vel valetudinis impedimento fuerit, quo minus proficiscereris, an condici possit, videndum: et cum per te non steterit, potest dici repetitionem cessare: sed cum liceat paenitere ei qui dedit, procul dubio repetetur id quod datum est, nisi forte tua intersit non accepisse te ob hanc causam pecuniam. nam si ita se res habeat, ut, licet nondum profectus sis, ita tamen rem composueris, ut necesse habeas proficisci, vel sumptus, qui necessarii fuerunt ad profectionem, iam fecisti, ut manifestum sit te plus forte quam accepisti erogasse, condictio cessabit: sed si minus erogatum sit, condictio locum habebit, ita tamen, ut indemnitas tibi praestetur eius quod expendisti.

If you received money for this purpose, that you go to Capua, and then, when you were prepared for departure, the condition of time or of health proved an impediment whereby you did not set out, it must be considered whether a condictio can lie: and since it did not rest with you, it can be said that repetition ceases. But since it is permitted to the giver to repent, without doubt what was given will be recovered, unless perhaps it is in your interest that you should not have received the money for this cause. For if the matter stands thus, that although you have not yet set out, nevertheless you have so arranged the affair that you must set out, or you have already made expenses which were necessary for the departure, so that it is manifest that you have perhaps expended more than you received, the condictio will cease: but if less has been expended, the condictio will have place, provided, however, that indemnity be afforded to you for what you expended.

Dig. 12.4.5.1

Digest 12.4.5.1

Ulpianus 2 disp.

Ulpian 2 Disputations.

Si servum quis tradiderit alicui ita, ut ab eo intra certum tempus manumitteretur, si paenituerit eum qui tradiderit et super hoc eum certioraverit et fuerit manumissus post paenitentiam, attamen actio propter paenitentiam competit ei qui dedit. plane si non manumiserit, constitutio succedit facitque eum liberum, si nondum paenituerat eum qui in hoc dedit.

If someone has delivered a slave to another on the understanding that he be manumitted by him within a certain time, and the one who delivered repents and notifies him of this, and the slave is manumitted after the repentance, nevertheless an action on account of the repentance is available to the one who gave. Clearly, if he does not manumit, the constitution intervenes and makes him free, provided the person who gave him for this had not yet repented.

Dig. 12.4.5.2

Digest 12.4.5.2

Ulpianus 2 disp.

Ulpian 2 Disputations.

Item si quis dederit titio decem, ut servum emat et manumittat, deinde paeniteat, si quidem nondum emptus est, paenitentia dabit condictionem, si hoc ei manifestum fecerit, ne si postea emat, damno adficietur: si vero iam sit emptus, paenitentia non facit iniuriam ei qui redemit, sed pro decem quae accepit ipsum servum quem emit restituet aut, si ante decessisse proponatur, nihil praestabit, si modo per eum factum non est. quod si fugit nec culpa eius contigit qui redemit, nihil praestabit: plane repromittere eum oportet, si in potestatem suam pervenerit, restitutum iri.

Likewise, if someone has given Titius ten, that he may buy a slave and manumit him, and then repents, if indeed he has not yet been bought, repentance will give a condictio, provided he has made this manifest to him, lest, if he buys afterward, he be affected with loss: but if he has already been bought, repentance does not work an injury to him who purchased, but, in place of the ten which he received, he shall restore the slave himself whom he bought, or, if it is alleged that he died beforehand, he shall provide nothing, provided only that it did not happen through his act. But if he has fled and it did not occur through the fault of him who purchased, he shall provide nothing: plainly, he ought to promise anew that, if he comes into his power, he will be restored.

Dig. 12.4.5.3

Digest 12.4.5.3

Ulpianus 2 disp.

Ulpian 2 disputations.

Sed si accepit pecuniam ut servum manumittat isque fugerit prius quam manumittatur, videndum, an condici possit quod accepit. et si quidem distracturus erat hunc servum et propter hoc non distraxit, quod acceperat ut manumittat non oportet ei condici: plane cavebit, ut, si in potestatem suam pervenerit servus, restituat id quod accepit eo minus, quo vilior servus factus est propter fugam. plane si adhuc eum manumitti velit is qui dedit, ille vero manumittere nolit propter fugam offensus, totum quod accepit restituere eum oportet.

But if he received money in order to manumit a slave and the latter fled before he was manumitted, it must be considered whether what he received can be recoverable by condictio. And if indeed he was about to sell this slave and on this account did not sell him, what he had received to manumit ought not to be subject to a condictio against him: clearly, he shall give security that, if the slave comes into his power, he will restore what he received, less by as much as the slave has been made cheaper on account of the flight. Clearly, if the one who gave still wishes him to be manumitted, but the other, offended because of the flight, does not wish to manumit, he ought to restore the whole of what he received.

sed si eligat is, qui decem dedit, ipsum servum consequi, necesse est aut ipsum ei dari aut quod dedit restitui. quod si distracturus non erat eum, oportet id quod accepit restitui, nisi forte diligentius eum habiturus esset, si non accepisset ut manumitteret: tunc enim non est aequum eum et servo et toto pretio carere.

but if the one who gave ten chooses to obtain the slave himself, it is necessary either that the slave be delivered to him or that what he gave be restored. but if he was not about to sell him, what he received ought to be restored, unless perhaps he would have kept him more diligently if he had not received [the payment] to manumit; for then it is not equitable that he be deprived both of the slave and of the whole price.

Dig. 12.4.5.4

Digest 12.4.5.4

Ulpianus 2 disp.

Ulpian 2 Disputations.

Sed ubi accepit, ut manumitteret, deinde servus decessit, si quidem moram fecit manumissioni, consequens est, ut dicamus refundere eum quod accepit: quod si moram non fecit, sed cum profectus esset ad praesidem vel apud quem manumittere posset, servus in itinere decesserit, verius est, si quidem distracturus erat vel quo ipse usurus, oportere dici nihil eum refundere debere. enimvero si nihil eorum facturus, ipsi adhuc servum obisse: decederet enim et si non accepisset ut manumitteret: nisi forte profectio manumissionis gratia morti causam praebuit, ut vel a latronibus sit interfectus, vel ruina in stabulo oppressus, vel vehiculo obtritus, vel alio quo modo, quo non periret, nisi manumissionis causa proficisceretur.

But when he has received [money] to manumit, and thereafter the slave has died, if indeed he caused delay to the manumission, it follows that we should say he must refund what he received. But if he did not cause delay, but, when he had set out to the governor or before someone by whom he could manumit, the slave died on the journey, the truer view is that, if indeed he was about to alienate (sell) him or to use him himself, it ought to be said that he need refund nothing. However, if he was going to do none of these things, the slave died while still his [property]; for he would have died even if he had not accepted [money] to manumit—unless perhaps the departure for the sake of manumission furnished the cause of death, such that he was either slain by robbers, or crushed by a collapse in a stable, or run over by a vehicle, or in some other way, in which he would not have perished unless he had set out for the sake of manumission.

Dig. 12.4.6

Digest 12.4.6

Ulpianus 3 disp.

Ulpian 3 Disputations.

Si extraneus pro muliere dotem dedisset et pactus esset, ut, quoquo modo finitum esset matrimonium, dos ei redderetur, nec fuerint nuptiae secutae, quia de his casibus solummodo fuit conventum qui matrimonium sequuntur, nuptiae autem secutae non sint, quaerendum erit, utrum mulieri condictio an ei qui dotem dedit competat. et verisimile est in hunc quoque casum eum qui dat sibi prospicere: nam quasi causa non secuta habere potest condictionem, qui ob matrimonium dedit, matrimonio non copulato, nisi forte evidentissimis probationibus mulier ostenderit hoc eum ideo fecisse, ut ipsi magis mulieri quam sibi prospiceret. sed et si pater pro filia det et ita convenit, nisi evidenter aliud actum sit, condictionem patri competere Marcellus ait.

if an outsider had given a dowry on behalf of a woman and had stipulated that, in whatever manner the marriage were finished, the dowry be returned to him, and the nuptials did not follow, since agreement was made only about those cases which follow upon marriage, but nuptials have not followed, it will have to be inquired whether the condiction lies with the woman or with him who gave the dowry. and it is verisimilar that in this case too the giver is providing for himself: for, as for a cause not ensuing, he who gave on account of marriage, the marriage not having been coupled, can have the condiction, unless perhaps by most evident proofs the woman should show that he did this for the reason that he was looking out rather for the woman herself than for himself. but also if a father gives on behalf of his daughter and thus it is agreed, unless it is clearly established that something else was transacted, Marcellus says that the condiction belongs to the father.

Dig. 12.4.7pr.

Digest 12.4.7, beginning.

Iulianus 16 Dig.

Julianus 16 Digest.

Qui se debere pecuniam mulieri putabat, iussu eius dotis nomine promisit sponso et solvit: nuptiae deinde non intercesserunt: quaesitum est, utrum ipse potest repetere eam pecuniam qui dedisset, an mulier. nerva, atilicinus responderunt, quoniam putasset quidem debere pecuniam, sed exceptione doli mali tueri se potuisset, ipsum repetiturum. sed si, cum sciret se nihil mulieri debere, promisisset, mulieris esse actionem, quoniam pecunia ad eam pertineret.

He who thought that he owed money to a woman, at her order, in the name of the dowry, promised to the bridegroom and paid; then the marriage did not take place. It was asked whether he himself can recover that money who had given it, or the woman. Nerva and Atilicinus answered that, since he had indeed thought he owed the money, but could have protected himself by the exceptio doli mali (defense of fraud), he himself would recover it. But if, when he knew that he owed the woman nothing, he had promised, the action would belong to the woman, since the money pertained to her.

si autem vere debitor fuisset et ante nuptias solvisset et nuptiae secutae non fuissent, ipse possit condicere, causa debiti integra mulieri ad hoc solum manente, ut ad nihil aliud debitor compellatur, nisi ut cedat ei condicticia actione.

but if he had truly been a debtor and had paid before the nuptials, and the nuptials did not ensue, he himself can bring a condiction; the cause of the indebtedness remains intact to the woman for this sole purpose, that the debtor be compelled to nothing else except to cede to her the condictory action.

Dig. 12.4.7.1

Digest 12.4.7.1

Iulianus 16 Dig.

Julian 16 Digest.

Fundus dotis nomine traditus, si nuptiae insecutae non fuerint, condictione repeti potest: fructus quoque condici poterunt. idem iuris est de ancilla et partu eius.

A landed estate delivered under the name of a dowry, if the nuptials have not ensued, can be reclaimed by condiction; the fruits likewise can be claimed by condiction. The same rule of law applies to a handmaid and her issue.

Dig. 12.4.8

Digest 12.4.8

Nerva 2 membr.

Nerva 2 membranes.

Quod servius in libro de dotibus scribit, si inter eas personas, quarum altera nondum iustam aetatem habeat, nuptiae factae sint, quod dotis nomine interim datum sit, repeti posse, sic intellegendum est, ut, si divortium intercesserit, priusquam utraque persona iustam aetatem habeat, sit eius pecuniae repetitio, donec autem in eodem habitu matrimonii permanent, non magis id repeti possit, quam quod sponsa sponso dotis nomine dederit, donec maneat inter eos adfinitas: quod enim ex ea causa nondum coito matrimonio datur, cum sic detur tamquam in dotem perventurum, quamdiu pervenire potest, repetitio eius non est.

What Servius writes in the book On Dowries—that if a marriage has been made between persons of whom one has not yet the just (lawful) age, what has meanwhile been given under the name of dowry can be reclaimed—is to be understood thus: if a divorce has intervened before both persons have the just age, there is a recovery of that money; but so long as they remain in the same condition of marriage, it can no more be reclaimed than what a bride has given to the bridegroom under the name of dowry, so long as affinity remains between them: for what for that cause is given, the marriage not yet having been consummated, since it is given as though it were going to come into the dowry, so long as it can so come, there is no recovery of it.

Dig. 12.4.9pr.

Digest 12.4.9pr.

Paulus 17 ad plaut.

Paulus 17 on Plautius.

Si donaturus mulieri iussu eius sponso numeravi nec nuptiae secutae sunt, mulier condicet. sed si ego contraxi cum sponso et pecuniam in hoc dedi, ut, si nuptiae secutae essent, mulieri dos adquireretur, si non essent secutae, mihi redderetur, quasi ob rem datur et re non secuta ego a sponso condicam.

If, intending to make a gift to the woman, at her order I counted out the money to her betrothed, and the nuptials did not ensue, the woman will bring a condictio. But if I contracted with the betrothed and gave the money on this basis: that, if the nuptials had ensued, a dowry would be acquired for the woman, but if they had not ensued, it would be returned to me—then, as it is given quasi “for the sake of the thing,” and the thing not ensuing, I will bring a condictio against the betrothed.

Dig. 12.4.9.1

Digest 12.4.9.1

Paulus 17 ad plaut.

Paulus 17 on Plautius.

Si quis indebitam pecuniam per errorem iussu mulieris sponso eius promisisset et nuptiae secutae fuissent, exceptione doli mali uti non potest: maritus enim suum negotium gerit et nihil dolo facit nec decipiendus est: quod fit, si cogatur indotatam uxorem habere. itaque adversus mulierem condictio ei competit, ut aut repetat ab ea quod marito dedit aut ut liberetur, si nondum solverit. sed si soluto matrimonio maritus peteret, in eo dumtaxat exceptionem obstare debere, quod mulier receptura esset.

If someone, through error, had promised money not owed, at a woman’s order, to her betrothed, and the marriage had followed, he cannot employ the exception of dolus malus: for the husband is conducting his own business and does nothing by dolus, nor is he to be deceived—which is what happens if he is forced to have a wife without a dowry. Therefore a condictio lies for him against the woman, so that either he may recover from her what he gave to the husband, or that he be released if he has not yet paid. But if, the marriage having been dissolved, the husband should sue, the exception ought to obstruct only to this extent, namely, to the extent that the woman would be about to receive it.

Dig. 12.4.10

Digest 12.4.10

Iavolenus 1 ex plaut.

Javolenus 1 from Plautius.

Si mulier ei cui nuptura erat cum dotem dare vellet, pecuniam quae sibi debebatur acceptam fecit neque nuptiae insecutae sunt, recte ab eo pecunia condicetur, quia nihil interest, utrum ex numeratione pecunia ad eum sine causa an per acceptilationem pervenerit.

If a woman, to him whom she was about to marry, when she wished to give a dowry, treated as received (by acceptilation) money that was owed to herself, and the nuptials did not ensue, the money is rightly recoverable from him by an action for recovery (condictio), for it makes no difference whether the money, without cause, came to him by payment or by acceptilation.

Dig. 12.4.11

Digest 12.4.11

Iulianus 10 Dig.

Julian 10 Dig.

Si heres arbitratu liberti certa summa monumentum iussus facere dederit liberto pecuniam et is accepta pecunia monumentum non faciat, condictione tenetur.

If an heir, at the discretion of a freedman, having been ordered to make a monument, has given the freedman a fixed sum, and he, after receiving the money, does not make the monument, he is liable under a condictio.

Dig. 12.4.12

Digest 12.4.12

Paulus 6 ad l. iul. et pap.

Paulus 6 on the Julian and Papian law.

Cum quis mortis causa donationem, cum convaluisset donator, condicit, fructus quoque donatarum rerum et partus et quod adcrevit rei donatae repetere potest.

When someone brings a condictio for a donation mortis causa, after the donor has recovered, he can also reclaim the fruits of the donated things, and the offspring, and whatever has accrued to the donated thing.

Dig. 12.4.13

Digest 12.4.13

Marcianus 3 reg.

Marcianus book 3 of the Rules.

Si filius contulerit fratri quasi adgniturus bonorum possessionem et non adgnovit, repetere eum posse Marcellus libro quinto digestorum scribit.

If a son has contributed to his brother as though he were about to acknowledge the bonorum possessio and did not acknowledge it, Marcellus writes in the fifth book of the Digest that he can recover it.

Dig. 12.4.14

Digest 12.4.14

Paulus 3 ad sab.

Paulus book 3 on Sabinus.

Si procuratori falso indebitum solutum sit, ita demum a procuratore repeti non potest, si dominus ratum habuerit, sed ipse dominus tenetur, ut iulianus scribit. quod si dominus ratum non habuisset, etiamsi debita pecunia soluta fuisset, ab ipso procuratore repetetur: non enim quasi indebitum datum repetetur, sed quasi ob rem datum nec res secuta sit ratihabitione non intercedente: vel quod furtum faceret pecuniae falsus procurator, cum quo non tantum furti agi, sed etiam condici ei posse.

If an undue payment has been made to a false procurator, then only in the case that the master has ratified it can it not be reclaimed from the procurator, but the master himself is liable, as Julian writes. But if the master has not ratified, even if money that was due had been paid, it is to be reclaimed from the procurator himself: for it is not reclaimed as though an undue payment had been given, but as given on account of a thing and the thing did not ensue, since ratihabition did not intervene; or because the false procurator would be committing theft of the money, against whom not only an action for theft can be brought, but also a condictio can be brought against him.

Dig. 12.4.15

Digest 12.4.15

Pomponius 22 ad sab.

Pomponius 22 on Sabinus.

Cum servus tuus in suspicionem furti attio venisset, dedisti eum in quaestionem sub ea causa, ut, si id repertum in eo non esset, redderetur tibi: is eum tradidit praefecto vigilum quasi in facinore deprehensum: praefectus vigilum eum summo supplicio adfecit. ages cum attio dare eum tibi oportere, quia et ante mortem dare tibi eum oportuerit. labeo ait posse etiam ad exhibendum agi, quoniam fecerit quo minus exhiberet.

When your slave had come under suspicion of theft with attio, you gave him into questioning under this condition, that, if that were not found in him, he should be returned to you: he handed him over to the prefect of the watch as though caught in a crime: the prefect of the watch inflicted the highest punishment upon him. You will sue attio that he ought to deliver him to you, since even before death he ought to have delivered him to you. labeo says that it is also possible to proceed by the action ad exhibendum, since he has done that by which he failed to exhibit him.

sed proculus dari oportere ita ait, si fecisses eius hominem, quo casu ad exhibendum agere te non posse: sed si tuus mansisset, etiam furti te acturum cum eo, quia re aliena ita sit usus, ut sciret se invito domino uti aut dominum si sciret prohibiturum esse.

but Proculus says that the action for “to give” ought to lie on this footing, if you had made him his man (i.e., his slave), in which case you would not be able to sue by the action ad exhibendum; but if he had remained yours, you would also bring an action of theft against him, because he used another’s property in such a way that he knew he was using it against the owner’s will, or that he knew the owner, if he knew of it, would prohibit it.

Dig. 12.4.16

Digest 12.4.16

Celsus 3 Dig.

Celsus Digest, Book 3

Dedi tibi pecuniam, ut mihi stichum dares: utrum id contractus genus pro portione emptionis et venditionis est, an nulla hic alia obligatio est quam ob rem dati re non secuta? in quod proclivior sum: et ideo, si mortuus est stichus, repetere possum quod ideo tibi dedi, ut mihi stichum dares. finge alienum esse stichum, sed te tamen eum tradidisse: repetere a te pecuniam potero, quia hominem accipientis non feceris: et rursus, si tuus est stichus et pro evictione eius promittere non vis, non liberaberis, quo minus a te pecuniam repetere possim.

I gave you money, so that you would give me Stichus: whether that genus of contract is, in proportion, of purchase and sale, or whether here there is no other obligation than for the cause of a thing given, the thing not having followed? to which view I am more inclined: and therefore, if Stichus has died, I can recover what I for that reason gave you, namely that you might give me Stichus. Suppose Stichus is another’s, but you nevertheless delivered him: I shall be able to recover the money from you, because you did not make the man the recipient’s; and again, if Stichus is yours and you are unwilling to promise for eviction, you will not be freed, so as to hinder me from recovering the money from you.

Dig. 12.5.0. De condictione ob turpem vel iniustam causam.

Dig. 12.5.0. On the condictio for a shameful or unjust cause.

Dig. 12.5.1pr.

Digest 12.5.1pr.

Paulus 10 ad sab.

Paulus 10 on Sabinus.

Omne quod datur aut ob rem datur aut ob causam, et ob rem aut turpem aut honestam: turpem autem, aut ut dantis sit turpitudo, non accipientis, aut ut accipientis dumtaxat, non etiam dantis, aut utriusque.

Everything that is given is given either on account of a thing or on account of a cause, and on account of a thing either shameful or honest: and in the shameful case, either so that the turpitude is the giver’s, not the recipient’s, or the recipient’s only, not also the giver’s, or of both.

Dig. 12.5.1.1

Digest 12.5.1.1

Paulus 10 ad sab.

Paulus 10 on Sabinus.

Ob rem igitur honestam datum ita repeti potest, si res, propter quam datum est, secuta non est.

Therefore, that which was given on account of an honest matter can thus be reclaimed, if the thing for the sake of which it was given did not ensue.

Dig. 12.5.1.2

Digest 12.5.1.2

Paulus 10 ad sab.

Paulus Book 10 on Sabinus.

Quod si turpis causa accipientis fuerit, etiamsi res secuta sit, repeti potest:

But if the recipient’s cause is shameful, even if the thing has ensued, it can be recovered:

Dig. 12.5.2pr.

Digest 12.5.2, beginning.

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian, 26 on the Edict.

Ut puta dedi tibi ne sacrilegium facias, ne furtum, ne hominem occidas. in qua specie iulianus scribit, si tibi dedero, ne hominem occidas, condici posse:

For example, I have given to you on condition that you do not commit sacrilege, nor theft, nor kill a man. in which case julianus writes that, if I have given to you on condition that you do not kill a man, a condictio can be brought:

Dig. 12.5.2.1

Digest 12.5.2.1

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian, 26 on the Edict.

Item si tibi dedero, ut rem mihi reddas depositam apud te vel ut instrumentum mihi redderes.

Likewise, if I have given to you, that you return to me the thing deposited with you, or that you would return to me the instrument.

Dig. 12.5.2.2

Digest 12.5.2.2

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian, 26 on the Edict.

Sed si dedi, ut secundum me in bona causa iudex pronuntiaret, est quidem relatum condictioni locum esse: sed hic quoque crimen contrahit ( iudicem enim corrumpere videtur) et non ita pridem imperator noster constituit litem eum perdere.

But if I have given, so that the judge would pronounce in my favor in a good cause, it has indeed been reported that there is room for a condiction: but here too he incurs a crime ( for he seems to corrupt the judge) and not so long ago our emperor decreed that he lose the lawsuit.

Dig. 12.5.3

Digest 12.5.3

Paulus 10 ad sab.

Paulus 10 to Sabinus.

Ubi autem et dantis et accipientis turpitudo versatur, non posse repeti dicimus: veluti si pecunia detur, ut male iudicetur.

But where the turpitude of both the giver and the recipient is involved, we say it cannot be recovered: for example, if money is given so that judgment may be rendered wrongly.

Dig. 12.5.4pr.

Digest 12.5.4 pr.

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the Edict.

Idem si ob stuprum datum sit, vel si quis in adulterio deprehensus redemerit se: cessat enim repetitio, idque sabinus et pegasus responderunt.

The same [rule] if something has been given on account of stuprum, or if someone apprehended in adultery has redeemed himself: for repetition ceases; and Sabinus and Pegasus gave this response.

Dig. 12.5.4.1

Digest 12.5.4.1

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the Edict.

Item si dederit fur, ne proderetur, quoniam utriusque turpitudo versatur, cessat repetitio.

Likewise, if the thief has given (money) so that he not be betrayed, since the turpitude of both is in play, recovery ceases.

Dig. 12.5.4.2

Digest 12.5.4.2

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the edict.

Quotiens autem solius accipientis turpitudo versatur, celsus ait repeti posse: veluti si tibi dedero, ne mihi iniuriam facias.

However, whenever the turpitude is that of the recipient alone, Celsus says it can be recovered: for example, if I have given to you so that you do not inflict an injury on me.

Dig. 12.5.4.3

Digest 12.5.4.3

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the Edict.

Sed quod meretrici datur, repeti non potest, ut labeo et Marcellus scribunt, sed nova ratione, non ea, quod utriusque turpitudo versatur, sed solius dantis: illam enim turpiter facere, quod sit meretrix, non turpiter accipere, cum sit meretrix.

But what is given to a prostitute cannot be recovered, as Labeo and Marcellus write, yet on a new rationale: not on the ground that the turpitude of both is involved, but only that of the giver; for she acts shamefully in being a prostitute, not shamefully in accepting, since she is a prostitute.

Dig. 12.5.4.4

Digest 12.5.4.4

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the edict.

Si tibi indicium dedero, ut fugitivum meum indices vel furem rerum mearum, non poterit repeti quod datum est: nec enim turpiter accepisti. quod si a fugitivo meo acceperis ne eum indicares, condicere tibi hoc quasi furi possim: sed si ipse fur indicium a me accepit vel furis vel fugitivi socius, puto condictionem locum habere.

If I should give you an informer’s reward, so that you may denounce my fugitive or the thief of my goods, what was given cannot be reclaimed: for you did not receive it shamefully. But if you have received from my fugitive so that you would not denounce him, I can sue you by condictio for this as if against a thief. Yet if the thief himself received the informer’s reward from me, or the associate of the thief or of the fugitive, I think the condictio has a place.

Dig. 12.5.5

Digest 12.5.5

Iulianus 3 ad urs. ferocem.

Julianus Book 3 to Urseius Ferox.

Si a servo meo pecuniam quis accepisset, ne furtum ab eo factum indicaret, sive indicasset sive non, repetitionem fore eius pecuniae proculus respondit.

If someone had received money from my slave so that he would not indicate the theft committed by him, whether he did indicate it or not, Proculus replied that recovery of that money would lie.

Dig. 12.5.6

Digest 12.5.6

Ulpianus 18 ad sab.

Ulpian 18 on Sabinus.

Perpetuo sabinus probavit veterum opinionem existimantium id, quod ex iniusta causa apud aliquem sit, posse condici: in qua sententia etiam celsus est.

Sabinus consistently approved the opinion of the ancients, who thought that what is with someone from an unjust cause can be sued for by condiction; in this view Celsus also is.

Dig. 12.5.7

Digest 12.5.7

Pomponius 22 ad sab.

Pomponius 22nd Book on Sabinus.

Ex ea stipulatione, quae per vim extorta esset, si exacta esset pecunia, repetitionem esse constat.

From that stipulation which had been extorted by force, if the money had been exacted, it is established that repetition lies.

Dig. 12.5.8

Digest 12.5.8

Paulus 3 quaest.

Paulus book 3 of Questions.

Si ob turpem causam promiseris titio, quamvis si petat, exceptione doli mali vel in factum summovere eum possis, tamen si solveris, non posse te repetere, quoniam sublata proxima causa stipulationis, quae propter exceptionem inanis esset, pristina causa, id est turpitudo, superesset: porro autem si et dantis et accipientis turpis causa sit, possessorem potiorem esse et ideo repetitionem cessare, tametsi ex stipulatione solutum est.

If on account of a shameful cause you have promised to Titius, although, if he should demand it, you could ward him off by an exception of dolus malus or in factum, nevertheless, if you pay, you cannot recover, since, with the proximate cause of the stipulation removed—which on account of the exception would be void—the original cause, that is, turpitude, would remain: furthermore, if the cause be shameful for both the giver and the recipient, the possessor has the superior right and therefore repetition ceases, although it was paid under the stipulation.

Dig. 12.5.9pr.

Digest 12.5.9pr.

Paulus 5 ad plaut.

Paulus 5 on Plautius.

Si vestimenta utenda tibi commodavero, deinde pretium, ut reciperem, dedissem, condictione me recte acturum responsum est: quamvis enim propter rem datum sit et causa secuta sit, tamen turpiter datum est.

If I loaned you garments for use, and then gave a price in order to get them back, it has been answered that I would proceed rightly by a condictio: for although it was given on account of the thing and the cause ensued, nevertheless it was given shamefully.

Dig. 12.5.9.1

Digest 12.5.9.1

Paulus 5 ad plaut.

Paulus 5 on Plautius.

Si rem locatam tibi vel venditam a te vel mandatam ut redderes, pecuniam acceperis, habebo tecum ex locato vel vendito vel mandati actionem: quod si, ut id, quod ex testamento vel ex stipulatu debebas, redderes mihi, pecuniam tibi dederim, condictio dumtaxat pecuniae datae eo nomine erit. idque et pomponius scribit.

If you have received money for a thing let to you, or for a thing sold by you, or for a thing entrusted to you with a mandate to return it, I shall have against you an action ex locato or ex vendito or mandati: but if I have given you money so that you might render to me what you owed under a testament or from a stipulation, there will be only the condictio for money given under that head. And Pomponius also writes this.

Dig. 12.6.0. De condictione indebiti.

Digest 12.6.0. On the condictio indebiti.

Dig. 12.6.1pr.

Digest 12.6.1, preface.

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the Edict.

Nunc videndum de indebito soluto.

Now it must be considered concerning what has been paid though not owed.

Dig. 12.6.1.1

Digest 12.6.1.1

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian, 26 on the Edict.

Et quidem si quis indebitum ignorans solvit, per hanc actionem condicere potest: sed si sciens se non debere solvit, cessat repetitio.

And indeed, if someone, being ignorant, pays an undue (thing), he can by this action bring a condictio: but if, knowing himself not to owe, he pays, repetition (recovery) ceases.

Dig. 12.6.2pr.

Digest 12.6.2, preface.

Ulpianus 16 ad sab.

Ulpian, 16 on Sabinus.

Si quis sic solverit, ut, si apparuisset esse indebitum vel falcidia emerserit, reddatur, repetitio locum habebit: negotium enim contractum est inter eos.

If someone thus pays, on the terms that, if it should appear to be not owed (indebitum) or a Falcidian reduction should emerge, it be returned, restitution (repetitio) will have its place: for a transaction (negotium) has been contracted between them.

Dig. 12.6.2.1

Digest 12.6.2.1

Ulpianus 16 ad sab.

Ulpian, 16 On Sabinus.

Si quid ex testamento solutum sit, quod postea falsum vel inofficiosum vel irritum vel ruptum apparuerit, repetetur, vel si post multum temporis emerserit aes alienum, vel codicilli diu celati prolati, qui ademptionem continent legatorum solutorum vel deminutionem per hoc, quia aliis quoque legata relicta sunt. nam divus hadrianus circa inofficiosum et falsum testamentum rescripsit actionem dandam ei, secundum quem de hereditate iudicatum est.

If anything has been paid from a testament which later has appeared false, or inofficious, or void or revoked, it shall be reclaimed; likewise if, after a long time, a debt has emerged, or codicils long concealed are produced, which contain the revocation of legacies that have been paid, or a diminution on that account, because legacies have also been left to others. For the deified Hadrian, concerning an inofficious and a false testament, issued a rescript that an action is to be given to the person in whose favor judgment about the inheritance has been rendered.

Dig. 12.6.3

Digest 12.6.3

Papinianus 28 quaest.

Papinianus 28 questions.

Idem est et si solutis legatis nova et inopinata causa hereditatem abstulit, veluti nato postumo, quem heres in utero fuisse ignorabat, vel etiam ab hostibus reverso filio, quem pater obisse falso praesumpserat: nam utiles actiones postumo vel filio, qui hereditatem evicerat, dari oportere in eos, qui legatum perceperunt, imperator titus antoninus rescripsit, scilicet quod bonae fidei possessor in quantum locupletior factus est tenetur nec periculum huiusmodi nominum ad eum, qui sine culpa solvit, pertinebit.

The same is the case also if, after the legacies have been paid, a new and unexpected cause has taken away the inheritance, as, for example, when a posthumous child is born, whom the heir did not know had been in the womb, or also when a son returns from the enemy, whom the father had falsely presumed to have died: for Emperor Titus Antoninus replied by rescript that useful actions ought to be given to the posthumous child or to the son who had recovered the inheritance, against those who received the legacy, namely that a possessor of good faith is held insofar as he has been made richer, and that the risk of claims of this sort will not pertain to him who paid without fault.

Dig. 12.6.4

Digest 12.6.4

Paulus 3 ad sab.

Paulus 3 on sab.

Idem divus hadrianus rescripsit et si aliud testamentum proferatur.

The same deified Hadrian issued a rescript also if another testament is produced.

Dig. 12.6.5

Digest 12.6.5

Ulpianus 16 ad sab.

Ulpian, 16 on Sabinus.

Nec novum, ut quod alius solverit alius repetat. nam et cum minor viginti quinque annis inconsulte adita hereditate solutis legatis in integrum restituitur, non ipsi repetitionem competere, sed ei, ad quem bona pertinent, arrio titiano rescriptum est.

Nor is it novel that what one person has paid another should reclaim. For even when a minor under twenty-five years, having imprudently entered upon an inheritance, is restored in integrum after the legacies have been paid, it has been rescripted to Arrius Titianus that the repetition (recovery) does not belong to him himself, but to the one to whom the goods pertain.

Dig. 12.6.6pr.

Digest 12.6.6pr.

Paulus 3 ad sab.

Paulus 3 on Sabinus.

Si procurator tuus indebitum solverit et tu ratum non habeas, posse repeti labeo libris posteriorum scripsit: quod si debitum fuisset, non posse repeti celsus: ideo, quoniam, cum quis procuratorem rerum suarum constituit, id quoque mandare videtur, ut solvat creditori, neque postea exspectandum sit, ut ratum habeat.

If your procurator pays what was not owed (an indebite payment) and you do not hold it ratified, Labeo wrote in his Later Books that it can be reclaimed; but if it had been owed, Celsus [wrote] that it cannot be reclaimed: for this reason, since when someone appoints a procurator of his affairs, he also seems to mandate that he pay the creditor, and thereafter there is no need to wait for ratification by the principal.

Dig. 12.6.6.1

Digest 12.6.6.1

Paulus 3 ad sab.

Paulus 3 on Sabinus.

Idem labeo ait, si procuratori indebitum solutum sit et dominus ratum non habeat, posse repeti.

The same Labeo says that, if an undue payment has been made to a procurator and the owner does not have it ratified, it can be reclaimed.

Dig. 12.6.6.2

Digest 12.6.6.2

Paulus 3 ad sab.

Paulus 3 to Sab.

Celsus ait eum, qui procuratori debitum solvit, continuo liberari neque ratihabitionem considerari: quod si indebitum acceperit, ideo exigi ratihabitionem, quoniam nihil de hoc nomine exigendo mandasse videretur, et ideo, si ratum non habeatur, a procuratore repetendum.

Celsus says that he who pays a debt to a procurator is released at once and no ratification is considered; but if he has received a not‑owed payment, then ratification is demanded, since he would seem to have mandated nothing about exacting under this title, and therefore, if it is not ratified, recovery is to be sought from the procurator.

Dig. 12.6.6.3

Digest 12.6.6.3

Paulus 3 ad sab.

Paul 3 on Sabinus.

Iulianus ait neque tutorem neque procuratorem solventes repetere posse neque interesse, suam pecuniam an pupilli vel domini solvant.

Julian says that neither a tutor (guardian) nor a procurator, when making payment, can recover, nor does it make a difference whether they pay their own money or that of the ward or of the master.

Dig. 12.6.7

Digest 12.6.7

Pomponius 9 ad sab.

Pomponius 9 on Sabinus.

Quod indebitum per errorem solvitur, aut ipsum aut tantundem repetitur.

That which is not owed, if it is paid through error, is recovered, either the very thing itself or the same amount.

Dig. 12.6.8

Digest 12.6.8

Paulus 6 ad sab.

Paul 6 on Sabinus.

Quod nomine mariti, qui solvendo non sit, alius mulieri solvisset, repetere non potest: adeo debitum esset mulieri.

That which, in the name of the husband who is not solvent, someone else paid to the woman cannot be recovered: so indeed the debt was owed to the woman.

Dig. 12.6.9

Digest 12.6.9

Ulpianus 66 ad ed.

Ulpian, 66 on the edict.

Nam et maritus, si, cum facere nihil possit, dotem solverit, in ea causa est, ut repetere non possit.

For also a husband, if, when he can do nothing, he has paid (discharged) the dowry, is in such a position that he cannot recover it.

Dig. 12.6.10

Digest 12.6.10

Paulus 7 ad sab.

Paulus 7 on Sabinus.

In diem debitor adeo debitor est, ut ante diem solutum repetere non possit.

A debtor for a fixed day is so truly a debtor that he cannot recover a payment made before the day.

Dig. 12.6.11

Digest 12.6.11

Ulpianus 35 ad sab.

Ulpian, 35 on Sabinus.

Si is, cum quo de peculio actum est, per imprudentiam plus quam in peculio est solverit, repetere non potest.

If the one against whom suit about the peculium has been brought, through imprudence has paid more than is in the peculium, he cannot recover it.

Dig. 12.6.12

Digest 12.6.12

Paulus 7 ad sab.

Paulus 7 to Sabinus.

Si fundi mei usum fructum tibi dedero falso existimans me eum tibi debere et antequam repetam decesserim, condictio eius ad heredem quoque meum transibit.

If I shall have given you the usufruct of my estate, falsely supposing that I owed it to you, and I die before I reclaim it, the condictio for it will pass also to my heir.

Dig. 12.6.13pr.

Digest 12.6.13 pr.

Paulus 10 ad sab.

Paulus 10 on Sabinus.

Naturaliter etiam servus obligatur: et ideo, si quis nomine eius solvat vel ipse manumissus, ut pomponius scribit, ex peculio, cuius liberam administrationem habeat, repeti non poterit: et ob id et fideiussor pro servo acceptus tenetur et pignus pro eo datum tenebitur et, si servus, qui peculii administrationem habet, rem pignori in id quod debeat dederit, utilis pigneraticia reddenda est.

Naturally a slave also is bound: and therefore, if someone pays in his name, or he himself, having been manumitted, as Pomponius writes, pays out of the peculium of which he has free administration, it cannot be reclaimed: and on that account both a surety (fideiussor) taken for the slave is held, and a pledge given for him will be held, and, if a slave who has the administration of a peculium has given a thing in pledge for what he owes, a “useful” pigneratic action is to be afforded.

Dig. 12.6.13.1

Digest 12.6.13.1

Paulus 10 ad sab.

Paulus 10 on Sabinus.

Item quod pupillus sine tutoris auctoritate mutuum accepit et locupletior factus est, si pubes factus solvat, non repetit.

Likewise, if a ward received a loan (mutuum) without his guardian’s authority and became more wealthy, if, on coming of age, he pays, he does not recover it.

Dig. 12.6.14

Digest 12.6.14

Pomponius 21 ad sab.

Pomponius 21 on Sabinus.

Nam hoc natura aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento fieri locupletiorem.

For this is naturally equitable: that no one become wealthier with another’s detriment.

Dig. 12.6.15pr.

Digest 12.6.15pr.

Paulus 10 ad sab.

Paulus 10 on Sabinus.

Indebiti soluti condictio naturalis est et ideo etiam quod rei solutae accessit, venit in condictionem, ut puta partus qui ex ancilla natus sit vel alluvione accessit: immo et fructus, quos is cui solutum est bona fide percepit, in condictionem venient.

The condiction of what was paid though not owed is natural, and therefore even that which has acceded to the thing paid comes into the condiction, for example offspring born from a handmaid or that which has acceded by alluvion; nay rather, even the fruits which the one to whom it was paid has in good faith taken will come into the condiction.

Dig. 12.6.15.1

Digest 12.6.15.1

Paulus 10 ad sab.

Paulus 10 on Sabinus.

Sed et si nummi alieni dati sint, condictio competet. ut vel possessio eorum reddatur: quemadmodum si falso existimans possessionem me tibi debere alicuius rei tradidissem, condicerem. sed et si possessionem tuam fecissem ita, ut tibi per longi temporis praescriptionem avocari non possit, etiam sic recte tecum per indebitam condictionem agerem.

But even if someone else’s coins have been given, a condiction will lie, so that either the possession of them be restored: just as, if I had, falsely supposing that I owed you the possession of some thing, delivered it to you, I would bring a condiction. But even if I had made the possession yours in such a way that it cannot be removed from you by long-time prescription, even so I would rightly proceed with you by the condictio indebiti.

Dig. 12.6.15.2

Digest 12.6.15.2

Paulus 10 ad sab.

Paulus 10 to Sabinus.

Sed et si usus fructus in re soluta alienus sit, deducto usu fructu a te condicam.

But also, if the usufruct in an unencumbered thing is another’s, after deducting the usufruct I will bring a condictio against you.

Dig. 12.6.16pr.

Digest 12.6.16pr.

Pomponius 15 ad sab.

Pomponius 15 on Sabinus.

Sub condicione debitum per errorem solutum pendente quidem condicione repetitur, condicione autem existente repeti non potest.

A debt owed under a condition, if paid by error, is recoverable while the condition is pending; however, once the condition exists, it cannot be recovered.

Dig. 12.6.16.1

Digest 12.6.16.1

Pomponius 15 ad sab.

Pomponius 15 on Sabinus.

Quod autem sub incerta die debetur, die existente non repetitur.

But what is owed under an uncertain day, once the day has arrived, is not recoverable.

Dig. 12.6.17

Digest 12.6.17

Ulpianus 2 ad ed.

Ulpian 2 on the edict.

Nam si cum moriar dare promisero et antea solvam, repetere me non posse celsus ait: quae sententia vera est.

For if I have promised to give when I die and I pay beforehand, Celsus says that I cannot reclaim: which opinion is true.

Dig. 12.6.18

Digest 12.6.18

Ulpianus 47 ad sab.

Ulpian 47 to Sabinus.

Quod si ea condicione debetur, quae omnimodo exstatura est, solutum repeti non potest, licet sub alia condicione, quae an impleatur incertum est, si ante solvatur, repeti possit.

But if it is owed under a condition which in every way is going to come to pass, what has been paid cannot be reclaimed, although under another condition—the fulfillment of which is uncertain—if it is paid beforehand, it can be reclaimed.

Dig. 12.6.19pr.

Digest 12.6.19, preface.

Pomponius 22 ad sab.

Pomponius 22 on Sabinus.

Si poenae causa eius cui debetur debitor liberatus est, naturalis obligatio manet et ideo solutum repeti non potest.

If, for the sake of a penalty, the debtor has been released by the one to whom it is owed, the natural obligation remains, and therefore what has been paid cannot be reclaimed.

Dig. 12.6.19.1

Digest 12.6.19.1

Pomponius 22 ad sab.

Pomponius 22 on Sabinus.

Quamvis debitum sibi quis recipiat, tamen si is qui dat non debitum dat, repetitio competit: veluti si is qui heredem se vel bonorum possessorem falso existimans creditori hereditario solverit: hic enim neque verus heres liberatus erit et is quod dedit repetere poterit: quamvis enim debitum sibi quis recipiat, tamen si is qui dat non debitum dat, repetitio competit.

Although someone receives what is owed to him, nevertheless if the one who gives gives what is not owed, a recovery lies: for example, if someone, falsely thinking himself to be the heir or the possessor of the estate, has paid an hereditary creditor: for here neither will the true heir be released, and he who paid will be able to recover what he gave: for although someone receives what is owed to him, nevertheless if the one who gives gives what is not owed, a recovery lies.

Dig. 12.6.19.2

Digest 12.6.19.2

Pomponius 22 ad sab.

Pomponius 22 on Sabinus.

Si falso existimans debere nummos solvero, qui pro parte alieni, pro parte mei fuerunt, eius summae partem dimidiam, non corporum condicam.

If, falsely supposing that I owe, I shall have paid coins which were partly another’s and partly mine, I will bring a condictio for half of that sum, not for the bodies (i.e., the specific coins).

Dig. 12.6.19.3

Digest 12.6.19.3

Pomponius 22 ad sab.

Pomponius 22 on Sabinus.

Si putem me stichum aut pamphilum debere, cum stichum debeam, et pamphilum solvam, repetam quasi indebitum solutum: nec enim pro eo quod debeo videor id solvisse.

If I suppose that I owe Stichus or Pamphilus, when I owe Stichus, and I pay Pamphilus, I shall recover as for an undue payment: for I do not appear to have paid in discharge of that which I owe.

Dig. 12.6.19.4

Digest 12.6.19.4

Pomponius 22 ad sab.

Pomponius 22 on Sabinus.

Si duo rei, qui decem debebant, viginti pariter solverint, celsus ait singulos quina repetituros, quia, cum decem deberent, viginti solvissent, et quod amplius ambo solverint, ambo repetere possunt.

If two defendants, who owed 10, have together paid 20, Celsus says each will recover 5, because, when they owed 10, they paid 20; and what both have paid in excess, both can recover.

Dig. 12.6.20

Digest 12.6.20

Iulianus 10 Dig.

Julian 10 Digest.

Si reus et fideiussor solverint pariter, in hac causa non differunt a duobus reis promittendi; quare omnia, quae de his dicta sunt, et ad hos transferre licebit.

If the principal debtor and the surety pay together, in this case they do not differ from two co-promisors; therefore everything that has been said about such persons may likewise be transferred to them.

Dig. 12.6.21

Digest 12.6.21

Paulus 3 quaest.

Paulus 3 Questions.

Plane si duos reos non eiusdem pecuniae, sed alterius obligationis constitueris, ut puta stichi aut pamphili, et pariter duos datos, aut togam vel denaria mille, non idem dici poterit in repetitione ut partes repetant, quia nec solvere ab initio sic potuerunt. igitur hoc casu electio est creditoris, cui velit solvere, ut alterius repetitio impediatur.

Clearly, if you have constituted two debtors not for the same money, but under a different obligation—say, for Stichus or for Pamphilus—and likewise two have been stipulated, either a toga or a thousand denarii, the same cannot be said upon repetition, namely that they recover in shares, since they could not from the outset pay in that way. Therefore, in this case the choice is the creditor’s, as to which he wishes to have performance made, so that the other’s repetition is impeded.

Dig. 12.6.22pr.

Digest 12.6.22pr.

Pomponius 22 ad sab.

Pomponius 22 on Sabinus.

Sed et si me putem tibi aut titio promisisse, cum aut neutrum factum sit aut titii persona in stipulatione comprehensa non sit, et titio solvero, repetere a titio potero.

But also, if I suppose that I have promised to you or to titio, when either neither has been effected or titio’s person has not been included in the stipulation, and I shall have paid to titio, I shall be able to recover from titio.

Dig. 12.6.22.1

Digest 12.6.22.1

Pomponius 22 ad sab.

Pomponius 22 on Sabinus.

Cum iter excipere deberem, fundum liberum per errorem tradidi: incerti condicam, ut iter mihi concedatur.

When I ought to except (reserve) a right of way, I transferred the estate free through error: I shall bring a condictio incerti, so that a right of way may be granted to me.

Dig. 12.6.23pr.

Digest 12.6.23pr.

Ulpianus 43 ad sab.

Ulpian, 43 on Sabinus.

Eleganter pomponius quaerit, si quis suspicetur transactionem factam vel ab eo cui heres est vel ab eo cui procurator est et quasi ex transactione dederit, quae facta non est, an locus sit repetitioni. et ait repeti posse: ex falsa enim causa datum est. idem puto dicendum et si transactio secuta non fuerit, propter quam datum est: sed et si resoluta sit transactio, idem erit dicendum.

Elegantly Pomponius asks whether, if someone suspects that a settlement (transactio) was made either by him whose heir he is or by him whose procurator he is, and, as if on the basis of that settlement—which in fact was not made—he has given, whether there is room for repetition (recovery). And he says it can be reclaimed: for it was given on a false cause. I think the same must be said even if the settlement did not ensue, on account of which it was given; and likewise, if the settlement has been dissolved, the same is to be said.

Dig. 12.6.23.1

Digest 12.6.23.1

Ulpianus 43 ad sab.

Ulpian, 43 On Sabinus.

Si post rem iudicatam quis transegerit et solverit, repetere poterit idcirco, quia placuit transactionem nullius esse momenti: hoc enim imperator antoninus cum divo patre suo rescripsit. retineri tamen atque compensari in causam iudicati, quod ob talem transactionem solutum est, potest. quid ergo si appellatum sit vel hoc ipsum incertum sit, an iudicatum sit vel an sententia valeat?

If, after a matter has been adjudged, someone has transacted and paid, he will be able to reclaim it, because it has been settled that a transaction is of no moment: for this the emperor antoninus, together with his deified father, wrote in a rescript. Nevertheless, what was paid on account of such a transaction can be retained and set off toward the judgment. What then if an appeal has been taken, or if this very point is uncertain, whether it has been adjudged, or whether the sentence is valid?

magis est, ut transactio vires habeat: tunc enim rescriptis locum esse credendum est, cum de sententia indubitata, quae nullo remedio adtemptari potest, transigitur.

the better view is that the transaction has force; for then rescripts are to be believed to have a place, when one settles concerning an indubitable sentence, which can be assailed by no remedy.

Dig. 12.6.23.2

Digest 12.6.23.2

Ulpianus 43 ad sab.

Ulpian 43 on Sabinus.

Item si ob transactionem alimentorum testamento relictorum datum sit, apparet posse repeti quod datum est, quia transactio senatus consulto infirmatur.

Likewise, if something has been given on account of a transaction regarding alimentary support bequeathed by testament, it is apparent that what was given can be reclaimed, because the transaction is invalidated by a senatorial decree.

Dig. 12.6.23.3

Digest 12.6.23.3

Ulpianus 43 ad sab.

Ulpian, 43 on Sabinus.

Si quis post transactionem nihilo minus condemnatus fuerit, dolo quidem id fit, sed tamen sententia valet. potuit autem quis, si quidem ante litem contestatam transegerit, volenti litem contestari opponere doli exceptionem: sed si post litem contestatam transactum est, nihilo minus poterit exceptione doli uti post secuti: dolo enim facit, qui contra transactionem expertus amplius petit. ideo condemnatus repetere potest, quod ex causa transactionis dedit.

If anyone, after a transaction (settlement), has nonetheless been condemned, this indeed happens by deceit, yet the sentence (judgment) stands. However, a person could, if he settled before the suit was contested (before litis contestatio), oppose to one willing to contest the suit the exception of deceit (exceptio doli); but if the settlement was made after the suit was contested, nonetheless he will be able to use the exception of deceit afterwards: for he acts by deceit who, contrary to the transaction, having proceeded, demands more. Therefore, once condemned, he can recover what he gave by reason of the transaction.

sane quidem ob causam dedit neque repeti solet quod ob causam datum est causa secuta: sed hic non videtur causa secuta, cum transactioni non stetur. cum igitur repetitio oritur, transactionis exceptio locum non habet: neque enim utrumque debet locum habere et repetitio et exceptio.

indeed, to be sure, he gave on account of a cause, and what has been given on account of a cause is not usually reclaimed if the cause has followed; but here the cause does not seem to have followed, since the settlement is not abided by. therefore, when repetition (recovery) arises, the exception of the settlement has no place: for both ought not to have place—both the repetition and the exception.

Dig. 12.6.23.4

Digest 12.6.23.4

Ulpianus 43 ad sab.

Ulpian 43 On Sabinus.

Si qua lex ab initio dupli vel quadrupli statuit actionem, dicendum est solutum ex falsa eius causa repeti posse.

If any law from the outset has established an action of double or quadruple, it must be said that what has been paid can be recovered on account of its false cause.

Dig. 12.6.24

Digest 12.6.24

Ulpianus 46 ad sab.

Ulpian 46 to Sabinus.

Si is, qui perpetua exceptione tueri se poterat, cum sciret sibi exceptionem profuturam, promiserit aliquid ut liberaretur, condicere non potest.

If one who could defend himself by a perpetual exception, when he knew that the exception would be advantageous to him, has promised something in order to be released, he cannot bring a condictio.

Dig. 12.6.25

Digest 12.6.25

Ulpianus 47 ad sab.

Ulpian 47 on Sabinus.

Cum duo pro reo fideiussissent decem, deinde reus tria solvisset et postea fideiussores quina, placuit eum qui posterior solvit repetere tria posse: hoc merito, quia tribus a reo solutis septem sola debita supererant, quibus persolutis tria indebita soluta sunt.

When two had stood surety for the defendant for 10, then the defendant paid 3, and afterwards the sureties 5 each, it was held that the one who paid later can recover 3; rightly so, because with 3 paid by the defendant only 7 remained owed, and when these had been paid in full, 3 not owed were paid.

Dig. 12.6.26pr.

Digest 12.6.26, beginning.

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the Edict.

Si non sortem quis, sed usuras indebitas solvit, repetere non poterit, si sortis debitae solvit: sed si supra legitimum modum solvit, divus severus rescripsit ( quo iure utimur) repeti quidem non posse, sed sorti imputandum et, si postea sortem solvit, sortem quasi indebitam repeti posse. proinde et si ante sors fuerit soluta, usurae supra legitimum modum solutae quasi sors indebita repetuntur. quid si simul solverit?

If someone did not pay the principal (sors), but paid usury not owed, he will not be able to recover it, if he paid the principal that was owed; but if he paid above the lawful measure, the deified Severus issued a rescript (whose law we use) that it indeed cannot be recovered, but must be imputed to the principal, and, if afterwards he pays the principal, the principal can be recovered as if not owed. Accordingly, even if earlier the principal has been paid, usury paid above the lawful measure is recovered as if undue principal. What if he pays them at the same time?

poterit dici et tunc repetitionem locum habere.

it can be said that even then recovery has a place.

Dig. 12.6.26.1

Digest 12.6.26.1

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the edict.

Supra duplum autem usurae et usurarum usurae nec in stipulatum deduci nec exigi possunt et solutae repetuntur, quemadmodum futurarum usurarum usurae.

Moreover, interest above double and interest-on-interest can neither be reduced into stipulation nor exacted, and, if paid, are recoverable, just as the interest on future interest.

Dig. 12.6.26.2

Digest 12.6.26.2

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 On the Edict.

Si quis falso se sortem debere credens usuras solverit, potest condicere nec videtur sciens indebitum solvisse.

If anyone, falsely believing that he owes the principal, has paid interest, he can bring a condictio, nor is he considered to have knowingly paid what was not owed.

Dig. 12.6.26.3

Digest 12.6.26.3

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian, 26 on the edict.

Indebitum autem solutum accipiemus non solum si omnino non debeatur, sed et si per aliquam exceptionem perpetuam peti non poterat: quare hoc quoque repeti poterit, nisi sciens se tutum exceptione solvit.

We shall treat as a payment not due not only if it was not owed at all, but also if, by reason of some perpetual exception, it could not be claimed: wherefore this too may be reclaimed, unless he paid knowing himself to be secure by the exception.

Dig. 12.6.26.4

Digest 12.6.26.4

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian, 26 on the Edict.

Si centum debens, quasi ducenta deberem, fundum ducentorum solvi, competere repetitionem Marcellus libro vicensimo digestorum scribit et centum manere stipulationem: licet enim placuit rem pro pecunia solutam parere liberationem, tamen si ex falsa debiti quantitate maioris pretii res soluta est, non fit confusio partis rei cum pecunia ( nemo enim invitus compellitur ad communionem), sed et condictio integrae rei manet et obligatio incorrupta: ager autem retinebitur, donec debita pecunia solvatur.

If, owing one hundred, as though I were owing two hundred, I paid a farm of the value of two hundred, Marcellus writes in the twentieth book of the Digest that a repetition is available and that the stipulation for one hundred remains: for although it has been agreed that a thing paid in lieu of money produces liberation, nevertheless, if by a false estimate of the amount of the debt a thing of greater price has been paid, there is no confusion of a part of the thing with the money ( nemo enim invitus compellitur ad communionem), but both the condiction for the entire thing remains and the obligation uncorrupted: however, the field will be retained until the owed money is paid.

Dig. 12.6.26.5

Digest 12.6.26.5

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the edict.

Idem Marcellus ait, si pecuniam debens oleum dederit pluris pretii quasi plus debens, vel cum oleum deberet, oleum dederit quasi maiorem modum debens, superfluum olei esse repetendum, non totum et ob hoc peremptam esse obligationem.

The same Marcellus says that, if, while owing money, he has given oil of greater price, as if owing more, or when he owed oil, he has given oil as if owing a greater measure, the surplus of the oil is to be reclaimed, not the whole, and on this account the obligation is extinguished.

Dig. 12.6.26.6

Digest 12.6.26.6

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the Edict.

Idem Marcellus adicit, si, cum fundi pars mihi deberetur, quasi totus deberetur aestimatione facta, solutio pecuniae solidi pretii fundi facta sit, repeti posse non totum pretium, sed partis indebitae pretium.

The same Marcellus adds that, if, when a part of a farm was owed to me, a valuation was made as though the whole were owed, and a payment of money for the entire price of the farm has been made, it may be reclaimed not the whole price, but the price of the part not owed.

Dig. 12.6.26.7

Digest 12.6.26.7

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the Edict.

Adeo autem perpetua exceptio parit condictionem, ut iulianus libro decimo scripsit, si emptor fundi damnaverit heredem suum, ut venditorem nexu venditi liberaret, mox venditor ignorans rem tradiderit, posse eum fundum condicere: idemque et si debitorem suum damnaverit liberare et ille ignorans solverit.

Moreover, to such an extent does a perpetual exception beget a condictio, that Julian, in the tenth book, wrote: if the buyer of an estate has bound his heir to release the seller from the bond (nexus) of the sale, and then the seller, unaware, has delivered the thing, he can bring a condictio for the land; and the same holds if he has bound his debtor to release him, and that man, unaware, has paid.

Dig. 12.6.26.8

Digest 12.6.26.8

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the Edict.

Qui filio familias solverit, cum esset eius peculiaris debitor, si quidem ignoravit ademptum ei peculium, liberatur: si scit et solvit, condictionem non habet, quia sciens indebitum solvit.

He who pays to a son in paternal power, when he was a debtor to that one’s peculium, is discharged if indeed he did not know that the peculium had been taken away from him; but if he knows and pays, he has no condiction, because he knowingly paid what was not due.

Dig. 12.6.26.9

Digest 12.6.26.9

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the edict.

Filius familias contra macedonianum mutuatus si solverit et patri suo heres effectus velit vindicare nummos, exceptione summovebitur a vindicatione nummorum.

A son under paternal power who has borrowed contrary to the Macedonian law, if he has paid and, having become his father’s heir, wishes to vindicate the monies, will be removed by an exception from the vindication of the monies.

Dig. 12.6.26.10

Digest 12.6.26.10

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the edict.

Si quis quasi ex compromisso condemnatus falso solverit, repetere potest.

If anyone, as though condemned on a compromise, has paid by mistake, he can recover.

Dig. 12.6.26.11

Digest 12.6.26.11

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian, 26 on the Edict.

Hereditatis vel bonorum possessori, si quidem defendat hereditatem, indebitum solutum condici poterit: si vero is non defendat, etiam debitum solutum repeti potest.

To the possessor of an inheritance or of the estate, if indeed he defends the inheritance, an undue payment may be reclaimed by condictio; but if he does not defend, even a payment of a debt may be recovered.

Dig. 12.6.26.12

Digest 12.6.26.12

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian book 26 on the Edict.

Libertus cum se putaret operas patrono debere, solvit: condicere eum non posse, quamvis putans se obligatum solvit, iulianus libro decimo digestorum scripsit: natura enim operas patrono libertus debet. sed et si non operae patrono sunt solutae, sed, cum officium ab eo desideraretur, cum patrono decidit pecunia et solvit, repetere non potest. sed si operas patrono exhibuit non officiales, sed fabriles, veluti pictorias vel alias, dum putat se debere, videndum an possit condicere.

When a freedman, thinking that he owed services to his patron, paid, Julianus wrote in the tenth book of the Digesta that he cannot bring a condiction, although he paid thinking himself obligated; for by nature the freedman owes services to his patron. But also if the services were not rendered to the patron, but, when officium was being demanded from him, he reached a monetary settlement with the patron and paid, he cannot recover. But if he rendered to the patron not officium-type services, but fabril (craftsman’s) services, for example painting or others, while supposing himself to owe them, it is to be considered whether he can bring a condiction.

et celsus libro sexto digestorum putat eam esse causam operarum, ut non sint eaedem neque eiusdem hominis neque eidem exhibentur: nam plerumque robur hominis, aetas temporis opportunitasque naturalis mutat causam operarum, et ideo nec volens quis reddere potest. sed hae, inquit, operae recipiunt aestimationem: et interdum licet aliud praestemus, inquit, aliud condicimus: ut puta fundum indebitum dedi et fructus condico: vel hominem indebitum, et hunc sine fraude modico distraxisti, nempe hoc solum refundere debes, quod ex pretio habes: vel meis sumptibus pretiosiorem hominem feci, nonne aestimari haec debent? sic et in proposito, ait, posse condici, quanti operas essem conducturus.

and Celsus, in the sixth book of the Digest, thinks this to be the causa of services, that they are neither the same, nor of the same man, nor rendered to the same person: for very often the vigor of a man, the age of time, and natural opportuneness change the causa of services, and therefore not even one who is willing can render them. but these services, he says, admit of aestimation: and sometimes, he says, although we furnish one thing, we sue for another: for example, I gave a farm (estate) not owed and I sue for the fruits; or a person (slave) not owed, and you, without fraud, sold him for a small price—surely you must refund only what you have from the price; or I made a person more valuable at my expense—must not these things be appraised? so too, in the case proposed, he says, it is possible to sue by condictio, for as much as I would have hired the services.

sed si denegatus sit a patrono officiales operas, apud Marcellum libro vicensimo digestorum quaeritur. et dicit Marcellus non teneri eum, nisi forte in artificio sint ( hae enim iubente patrono et alii edendae sunt): sed si solverit officiales delegatus, non potest condicere neque ei cui solvit creditori, cui alterius contemplatione solutum est quique suum recipit, neque patrono, quia natura ei debentur.

but if the official services have been refused by the patron, the question is raised with Marcellus in the twentieth book of the Digest. and Marcellus says that he is not held liable, unless perhaps they are in a craft (for these, at the patron’s order, are to be rendered even to another): but if a delegate has discharged the official services, he cannot bring a condictio either against the creditor to whom he paid, to whom payment was made in contemplation of another and who receives what is his own, nor against the patron, because by nature they are owed to him.

Dig. 12.6.26.13

Digest 12.6.26.13

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian 26 on the Edict.

Si decem aut stichum stipulatus solvam quinque, quaeritur, an possim condicere: quaestio ex hoc descendit, an liberer in quinque: nam si liberor, cessat condictio, si non liberor, erit condictio. placuit autem, ut celsus libro sexto et Marcellus libro vicensimo digestorum scripsit, non peremi partem dimidiam obligationis ideoque eum, qui quinque solvit, in pendenti habendum, an liberaretur, petique ab eo posse reliqua quinque aut stichum et, si praestiterit residua quinque, videri eum et priora debita solvisse, si autem stichum praestitisset, quinque eum posse condicere quasi indebita. sic posterior solutio comprobabit, priora quinque utrum debita an indebita solverentur.

If, having stipulated for ten or for Stichus, I pay five, the question is asked whether I can bring a condiction: the question descends from this, whether I am released as to five; for if I am released, the condiction ceases; if I am not released, there will be a condiction. It has been decided, as Celsus in Book 6 and Marcellus in Book 20 of the Digesta wrote, that I do not extinguish one half of the obligation, and therefore he who has paid five is to be held in suspense as to whether he is released, and the remaining five or Stichus can be demanded from him; and, if he should furnish the remaining five, he is considered also to have paid the earlier debt; but if he should furnish Stichus, he can bring a condiction for the five as if not owed. Thus the later performance will confirm whether the earlier five were paid as owed or as not owed.

sed et si post soluta quinque et stichus solvatur et malim ego habere quinque et stichum reddere, an sim audiendus, quaerit celsus. et putat natam esse quinque condictionem, quamvis utroque simul soluto mihi retinendi quod vellem arbitrium daretur.

But also, if after the five have been paid and Stichus is delivered, and I should prefer to keep the five and return Stichus, whether I ought to be heard, Celsus inquires. And he thinks that a condiction for the five has arisen, although, if both were performed at the same time, a discretion would be given to me of retaining whichever I wished.

Dig. 12.6.26.14

Digest 12.6.26.14

Ulpianus 26 ad ed.

Ulpian, 26 on the Edict.

Idem ait et si duo heredes sint stipulatoris, non posse alteri quinque solutis alteri partem stichi solvi: idem et si duo sint promissoris heredes. secundum quae liberatio non contingit, nisi aut utrique quina aut utrique partes stichi fuerunt solutae.

He likewise says that, if there are two heirs of the stipulator, it is not possible, with five having been paid to the one, for a part of Stichus to be paid to the other; the same holds if there are two heirs of the promissor. According to which, discharge does not occur unless either five apiece have been paid to both, or parts of Stichus to both.

Dig. 12.6.27

Digest 12.6.27

Paulus 28 ad ed.

Paulus 28 on the Edict.

Qui loco certo debere existimans indebitum solvit, quolibet loco repetet: non enim existimationem solventis eadem species repetitionis sequitur.

He who, supposing that he owed in a fixed place, paid what was not owed, may recover it in any place; for the same species of repetition (recovery) does not follow the payer’s supposition.

Dig. 12.6.28

Digest 12.6.28

Paulus 32 ad ed.

Paul 32 on the Edict.

Iudex si male absolvit et absolutus sua sponte solverit, repetere non potest.

If a judge wrongly absolves, and the absolved party has paid of his own accord, he cannot recover it.

Dig. 12.6.29

Digest 12.6.29

Ulpianus 2 disp.

Ulpian 2 disputations.

Interdum persona locum facit repetitioni, ut puta si pupillus sine tutoris auctoritate vel furiosus vel is cui bonis interdictum est solverit: nam in his personis generaliter repetitioni locum esse non ambigitur. et si quidem exstant nummi, vindicabuntur, consumptis vero condictio locum habebit.

Sometimes the status of the person gives occasion for repetition, for instance if a ward without the guardian’s authority, or a madman, or one interdicted from his goods, has paid: for in these persons it is generally not doubted that there is room for repetition. And if the coins are still extant, they will be vindicated; but if consumed, a condictio will have place.

Dig. 12.6.30

Digest 12.6.30

Ulpianus 10 disp.

Ulpian, book 10 of the Disputations.

Qui invicem creditor idemque debitor est, in his casibus, in quibus compensatio locum non habet, si solvit, non habet condictionem veluti indebiti soluti, sed sui crediti petitionem.

He who is in turn both creditor and the same debtor, in those cases in which compensation (set-off) has no place, if he pays, does not have a condiction as for an undue payment, but the claim of his own credit.

Dig. 12.6.31

Digest 12.6.31

Ulpianus 1 opin.

Ulpian 1 opin.

Is, qui plus quam hereditaria portio efficit per errorem creditori caverit, indebiti promissi habet condictionem.

He who, through error, has furnished security to a creditor for more than the hereditary portion amounts to, has the condiction for an undue promise (i.e., the action to recover what was not owed under the promise).

Dig. 12.6.32pr.

Digest 12.6.32 pr.

Iulianus 10 Dig.

Julian 10 Dig.

Cum is qui pamphilum aut stichum debet simul utrumque solverit, si, posteaquam utrumque solverit, aut uterque aut alter ex his desiit in rerum natura esse, nihil repetet: id enim remanebit in soluto quod superest.

When he who owes Pamphilus or Stichus has paid both at the same time, if, after he has paid both, either both or one of them has ceased to exist in the nature of things, he will reclaim nothing: for that which remains will remain as paid (in discharge).

Dig. 12.6.32.1

Digest 12.6.32.1

Iulianus 10 Dig.

Julian 10 Dig.

Fideiussor cum paciscitur, ne ab eo pecunia petatur, et per imprudentiam solverit, condicere stipulatori poterit et ideo reus quidem manet obligatus, ipse autem sua exceptione tutus est. nihil autem interest, fideiussor an heres eius solvat: quod si huic fideiussori reus heres extiterit et solverit, nec repetet et liberabitur.

When a surety stipulates by agreement that money is not to be sought from him, and through inadvertence he has paid, he will be able to bring a condiction against the stipulator; and therefore the principal debtor indeed remains obligated, but he himself is protected by his own exception. Moreover, it makes no difference whether the surety or his heir pays; but if the principal debtor has become the heir of this surety and pays, he will not recover and will be released.

Dig. 12.6.32.2

Digest 12.6.32.2

Iulianus 10 Dig.

Julian 10 Dig.

Mulier si in ea opinione sit, ut credat se pro dote obligatam, quidquid dotis nomine dederit, non repetit: sublata enim falsa opinione relinquitur pietatis causa, ex qua solutum repeti non potest.

If a woman be in such an opinion as to believe herself obligated on account of the dowry, whatever she has given in the name of dowry she does not reclaim: for, the false opinion having been removed, the cause of piety remains, on account of which what has been paid cannot be recovered.

Dig. 12.6.32.3

Digest 12.6.32.3

Iulianus 10 Dig.

Julianus 10 Digest.

Qui hominem generaliter promisit, similis est ei, qui hominem aut decem debet: et ideo si, cum existimaret se stichum promisisse, eum dederit, condicet, alium autem quemlibet dando liberari poterit.

He who has promised a slave in general is like one who owes a slave or ten: and therefore, if, when he supposed that he had promised Stichus, he has delivered him, he will bring a condiction; but he can be released by delivering any other slave whatsoever.

Dig. 12.6.33

Digest 12.6.33

Iulianus 39 Dig.

Julian 39 Digest.

Si in area tua aedificassem et tu aedes possideres, condictio locum non habebit, quia nullum negotium inter nos contraheretur: nam is, qui non debitam pecuniam solverit, hoc ipso aliquid negotii gerit: cum autem aedificium in area sua ab alio positum dominus occupat, nullum negotium contrahit. sed et si is, qui in aliena area aedificasset, ipse possessionem tradidisset, condictionem non habebit, quia nihil accipientis faceret, sed suam rem dominus habere incipiat. et ideo constat, si quis, cum existimaret se heredem esse, insulam hereditariam fulsisset, nullo alio modo quam per retentionem impensas servare posse.

If on your building-plot I had built and you possessed the house, the condiction will have no place, because no transaction would be contracted between us: for he who has paid money not owed, by that very fact conducts some business; but when the owner occupies a building set on his own plot by another, he contracts no transaction. But even if the one who had built on another’s plot himself had delivered possession, he will not have a condiction, because he would do nothing of the recipient’s, but the owner begins to have his own thing. And therefore it is agreed that if someone, when he supposed himself to be heir, had propped up an apartment-block of the inheritance, he is able to preserve his expenses in no other way than through retention.

Dig. 12.6.34

Digest 12.6.34

Iulianus 40 Dig.

Julianus 40 Digest.

Is cui hereditas tota per fideicommissum relicta est et praeterea fundus, si decem dedisset heredi, et heres suspectam hereditatem dixerit et eam ex trebelliano restituerit, causam dandae pecuniae non habet, et ideo quod eo nomine quasi implendae condicionis gratia dederit, condictione repetet.

He to whom the whole inheritance has been left by fideicommiss, and, besides, a farm—if he had given ten to the heir—and the heir has declared the inheritance suspect and has restored it under the Trebellian, has no cause for giving the money; and therefore what he gave under that title, as if for the sake of fulfilling the condition, he will recover by condiction.

Dig. 12.6.35

Digest 12.6.35

Iulianus 45 Dig.

Julian 45 Dig.

Qui ob rem non defensam solvit, quamvis postea defendere paratus est, non repetet quod solverit.

He who paid on account of a matter not defended, although afterwards he is prepared to defend it, will not recover what he has paid.

Dig. 12.6.36

Digest 12.6.36

Paulus 5 epit. alf. Dig.

Paul 5 epit. of Alfenus, Dig.

Servus cuiusdam insciente domino magidem commodavit: is cui commodaverat pignori eam posuit et fugit: qui accepit non aliter se redditurum aiebat, quam si pecuniam accepisset: accepit a servulo et reddidit magidem: quaesitum est, an pecunia ab eo repeti possit. respondit, si is qui pignori accepisset magidem alienam scit apud se pignori deponi, furti eum se obligasse ideoque, si pecuniam a servulo accepisset redimendi furti causa, posse repeti: sed si nescisset alienam apud se deponi, non esse furem, item, si pecunia eius nomine, a quo pignus acceperat, a servo ei soluta esset, non posse ab eo repeti.

A certain man’s slave, his master being unaware, loaned a dish for use; the one to whom he had loaned it put it in pledge and fled; the person who had received it said he would not return it otherwise than if he received money; he took money from the slave‑boy and returned the dish: the question was asked whether the money could be reclaimed from him. He answered that if the one who had accepted the dish in pledge knew that another’s dish was being deposited with him as a pledge, he had obligated himself for theft and therefore, if he had received money from the slave‑boy for the purpose of redeeming the theft, it can be reclaimed; but if he did not know that another’s property was being deposited with him, he is not a thief; likewise, if the money, in the name of the one from whom he had accepted the pledge, had been paid to him by the slave, it cannot be reclaimed from him.

Dig. 12.6.37

Digest 12.6.37

Iulianus 3 ad urs. ferocem.

Julianus 3 to Urseius Ferox.

Servum meum insciens a te emi pecuniamque tibi solvi: eam me a te repetiturum et eo nomine condictionem mihi esse omnimodo puto, sive scisses meum esse sive ignorasses.

Unknowing, I bought my own slave from you and paid you the money: I think that I will reclaim it from you, and that on that ground I have in every way a condictio, whether you knew him to be mine or were unaware.

Dig. 12.6.38pr.

Digest 12.6.38, beginning.

Africanus 9 quaest.

Africanus 9 Questions.

Frater a fratre, cum in eiusdem potestate essent, pecuniam mutuatus post mortem patris ei solvit: quaesitum est, an repetere possit. respondit utique quidem pro ea parte, qua ipse patri heres exstitisset, repetiturum, pro ea vero, qua frater heres exstiterit, ita repetiturum, si non minus ex peculio suo ad fratrem pervenisset: naturalem enim obligationem quae fuisset hoc ipso sublatam videri, quod peculii partem frater sit consecutus, adeo ut, si praelegatum filio eidemque debitori id fuisset, deductio huius debiti a fratre ex eo fieret. idque maxime consequens esse ei sententiae, quam iulianus probaret, si extraneo quid debuisset et ab eo post mortem patris exactum esset, tantum iudicio eum familiae herciscundae reciperaturum a coheredibus fuisse, quantum ab his creditor actione de peculio consequi potuisset.

A brother, having borrowed money from his brother while they were under the same potestas, paid it to him after the father’s death: the question was asked whether he can recover it. He answered that, certainly, as to that share in which he himself had become heir to the father, he will recover; but as to the share in which the brother has become heir, he will recover on this footing, if not less from his own peculium had come to the brother: for the natural obligation which had existed seems by that very fact to be removed, that the brother has obtained a portion of the peculium, to such an extent that, if it had been praelegated to the son, who is also the debtor, the deduction of this debt would be made by the brother out of that. And this is most consistent with the opinion which Julian approved: if he had owed something to a stranger and it had been exacted by him after the father’s death, he would by the action for partition of the family estate (familiae herciscundae) recover from his coheirs only so much as the creditor could have obtained from them by the action de peculio.

igitur et si re integra familiae herciscundae agatur, ita peculium dividi aequum esse, ut ad quantitatem eius indemnis a coherede praestetur: porro eum, quem adversus extraneum defendi oportet, longe magis in eo, quod fratri debuisset, indemnem esse praestandum.

therefore even if, with the matter still intact (re integra), an action for dividing the inheritance (familiae herciscundae) is brought, it is equitable that the peculium be divided in such a way that, up to its amount, he be held harmless by the coheir; furthermore, the one whom it is proper to defend against a stranger must, far more, be held harmless in that which he would have owed to his brother.

Dig. 12.6.38.1

Digest 12.6.38.1

Africanus 9 quaest.

Africanus 9 Questions.

Quaesitum est, si pater filio crediderit isque emancipatus solvat, an repetere possit. respondit, si nihil ex peculio apud patrem remanserit, non repetiturum: nam manere naturalem obligationem argumento esse, quod extraneo agente intra annum de peculio deduceret pater, quod sibi filius debuisset.

It was asked whether, if a father has lent to his son and he, after being emancipated, pays, he can recover it. He answered: if nothing of the peculium has remained with the father, he will not recover; for it is an argument that the natural obligation remains, that, if a stranger were suing within a year, the father would deduct from the peculium what the son had owed to himself.

Dig. 12.6.38.2

Digest 12.6.38.2

Africanus 9 quaest.

Africanus 9 Questions.

Contra si pater quod filio debuisset eidem emancipato solverit, non repetet: nam hic quoque manere naturalem obligationem eodem argumento probatur, quod, si extraneus intra annum de peculio agat, etiam quod pater ei debuisset computetur. eademque erunt et si extraneus heres exheredato filio solverit id, quod ei pater debuisset.

Conversely, if a father has paid to that same son, emancipated, what he would have owed to the son, he will not reclaim: for here too it is proved by the same argument that the natural obligation remains, because, if a stranger within a year brings an action de peculio, even that which the father would have owed to him is computed. And the same will hold if an extraneous heir pays to a disinherited son that which the father would have owed to him.

Dig. 12.6.38.3

Digest 12.6.38.3

Africanus 9 quaest.

Africanus 9 Questions.

Legati satis accepi et cum fideiussor mihi solvisset, apparuit indebitum fuisse legatum: posse eum repetere existimavit.

I took surety for a legacy, and when the surety had paid me, it appeared that the legacy had been undue: he judged that he could reclaim it.

Dig. 12.6.39

Digest 12.6.39

Marcianus 8 inst.

Marcianus 8 Institutes.

Si quis, cum a fideicommissario sibi cavere poterat, non caverit, quasi indebitum plus debito eum solutum repetere posse divi severus et antoninus rescripserunt.

If anyone, when he could have had security for himself from the fideicommissary, did not take security, the deified Severus and Antoninus declared by rescript that he can recover, as an undue payment, what was paid beyond what was due.

Dig. 12.6.40pr.

Digest 12.6.40, preface.

Marcianus 3 reg.

Marcianus Rules, book 3.

Qui exceptionem perpetuam habet, solutum per errorem repetere potest: sed hoc non est perpetuum. nam si quidem eius causa exceptio datur cum quo agitur, solutum repetere potest, ut accidit in senatus consulto de intercessionibus: ubi vero in odium eius cui debetur exceptio datur, perperam solutum non repetitur, veluti si filius familias contra macedonianum mutuam pecuniam acceperit et pater familias factus solverit, non repetit.

He who has a perpetual exception can recover what was paid by mistake: but this is not universal. For if indeed the exception is given for the sake of the one with whom suit is brought, he can recover what was paid, as happens in the senatorial decree on intercessions; but where the exception is given in hostility to him to whom it is owed, a wrongly paid sum is not recovered, as for instance if a son under paternal power has received money as a loan contrary to the Macedonian decree and, having become pater familias, has paid, he does not recover.

Dig. 12.6.40.1

Digest 12.6.40.1

Marcianus 3 reg.

Marcianus book 3 of the Rules.

Si pars domus, quae in diem per fideicommissum relicta est, arserit ante diem fideicommissi cedentem et eam heres sua impensa refecerit, deducendam esse impensam ex fideicommisso constat et, si sine deductione domum tradiderit, posse incerti condici, quasi plus debito dederit.

If a part of a house, which has been left by fideicommissum to take effect on a certain day, has burned before the day on which the fideicommissum vests, and the heir has restored it at his own expense, it is established that the expense is to be deducted from the fideicommissum; and, if he has delivered the house without the deduction, a condictio incerti can be brought, as though he had given more than was due.

Dig. 12.6.40.2

Digest 12.6.40.2

Marcianus 3 reg.

Marcianus Book 3 of the Rules.

Si pactus fuerit patronus cum liberto, ne operae ab eo petantur, quidquid postea solutum fuerit a liberto, repeti potest.

If the patron shall have made a pact with the freedman that services not be demanded from him, whatever has subsequently been paid by the freedman can be recovered.

Dig. 12.6.41

Digest 12.6.41

Nerva 6 membr.

Nerva 6 membranes.

Quod pupillus sine tutoris auctoritate stipulanti promiserit solverit, repetitio est, quia nec natura debet.

As to what a ward, without the tutor’s authority, has promised and paid to a stipulator, repetition lies, because he does not owe even by nature.

Dig. 12.6.42

Digest 12.6.42

Ulpianus 68 ad ed.

Ulpian 68 on the Edict.

Poenae non solent repeti, cum depensae sunt.

Penalties are not wont to be reclaimed, when they have been paid.

Dig. 12.6.43

Digest 12.6.43

Paulus 3 ad plaut.

Paulus 3 to Plautius.

Si quis iurasset se dare non oportere, ab omni contentione discedetur atque ita solutam pecuniam repeti posse dicendum est.

If anyone has sworn that he ought not to give, all contention shall be abandoned, and thus it must be said that money paid can be reclaimed.

Dig. 12.6.44

Digest 12.6.44

Paulus 14 ad plaut.

Paulus 14 on Plautius.

Repetitio nulla est ab eo qui suum recepit, tametsi ab alio quam vero debitore solutum est.

There is no repetition against one who has received what is his own, even though it was paid by someone other than the true debtor.

Dig. 12.6.45

Digest 12.6.45

Iavolenus 2 ex plaut.

Javolenus 2 from Plautius.

Si is, qui hereditatem vendidit et emptori tradidit, id, quod sibi mortuus debuerat, non retinuit, repetere poterit, quia plus debito solutum per condictionem recte recipietur.

If the one who sold an inheritance and delivered it to the purchaser did not retain that which the deceased had owed to him, he will be able to recover it, because what has been paid beyond what was due will rightly be recovered by condictio.

Dig. 12.6.46

Digest 12.6.46

Iavolenus 4 ex plaut.

Iavolenus 4 from Plautius.

Qui heredis nomine legata non debita ex nummis ipsius heredis solvit, ipse quidem repetere non potest: sed si ignorante herede nummos eius tradidit, dominus, ait, eos recte vindicabit. eadem causa rerum corporalium est.

He who, in the heir’s name, pays legacies not owed out of the heir’s own coins cannot himself recover; but if, the heir being unaware, he delivered his coins, the owner, he says, will rightly vindicate them. The same cause applies to corporeal things.

Dig. 12.6.47

Digest 12.6.47

Celsus 6 Dig.

Celsus Digest 6

Indebitam pecuniam per errorem promisisti: eam qui pro te fideiusserat solvit. ego existimo, si nomine tuo solverit fideiussor, te fideiussori, stipulatorem tibi obligatum fore: nec exspectandum est, ut ratum habeas, quoniam potes videri id ipsum mandasse, ut tuo nomine solveretur: sin autem fideiussor suo nomine solverit quod non debebat, ipsum a stipulatore repetere posse, quoniam indebitam iure gentium pecuniam solvit: quo minus autem consequi poterit ab eo cui solvit, a te mandati iudicio consecuturum, si modo per ignorantiam petentem exceptione non summoverit.

You promised money not owed through error: the one who had gone surety for you paid it. I think that, if the surety paid in your name, you will be bound to the surety, and the stipulator will be bound to you; nor is it necessary to wait for you to ratify, since you can be seen to have given that very mandate, that payment be made in your name. But if the surety paid in his own name what he did not owe, he himself can reclaim it from the stipulator, since he paid money not owed by the law of nations; and whatever he is less able to obtain from the person to whom he paid, he will obtain from you by an action on mandate—provided only that he has not repelled the claimant, suing in ignorance, by an exception (defense).

Dig. 12.6.48

Digest 12.6.48

Celsus 6 Dig.

Celsus 6 Digest.

Qui promisit, si aliquid a se factum sit vel cum aliquid factum sit, dare se decem, si, priusquam id factum fuerit, quod promisit dederit, non videbitur fecisse quod promisit atque ideo repetere potest.

He who has promised to give ten, if something be done by himself or when something has been done, if, before that has been done, he has given what he promised, will not be deemed to have performed what he promised, and therefore can recover it.

Dig. 12.6.49

Digest 12.6.49

Modestinus 3 reg.

Modestinus 3 Rules.

His solis pecunia condicitur, quibus quoquo modo soluta est, non quibus proficit.

Money is the object of a condictio only against those to whom it has in any way been paid, not against those whom it profits.

Dig. 12.6.50

Digest 12.6.50

Pomponius 5 ad q. muc.

Pomponius 5 on q. mucius.

Quod quis sciens indebitum dedit hac mente, ut postea repeteret, repetere non potest.

If someone knowingly gave what was not owed, with the intention of reclaiming it later, he cannot reclaim it.

Dig. 12.6.51

Digest 12.6.51

Pomponius 6 ad q. muc.

Pomponius 6 on Q. Mucius.

Ex quibus causis retentionem quidem habemus, petitionem autem non habemus, ea si solverimus, repetere non possumus.

From which causes we indeed have retention, but we do not have a claim; if we have paid them, we cannot recover.

Dig. 12.6.52

Digest 12.6.52

Pomponius 27 ad q. muc.

Pomponius 27 on Quintus Mucius.

Damus aut ob causam aut ob rem: ob causam praeteritam, veluti cum ideo do, quod aliquid a te consecutus sum vel quia aliquid a te factum est, ut, etiamsi falsa causa sit, repetitio eius pecuniae non sit: ob rem vero datur, ut aliquid sequatur, quo non sequente repetitio competit.

We give either on account of a cause or on account of a thing: on account of a past cause, for example when I give for this reason, that I have obtained something from you or because something has been done by you, so that, even if the cause is false, there is no repetition of that money; but it is given on account of a thing, so that something may follow, and if that does not follow, repetition is available.

Dig. 12.6.53

Digest 12.6.53

Proculus 7 epist.

Proculus 7 letters.

Dominus testamento servo suo libertatem dedit, si decem det: servo ignorante id testamentum non valere data sunt mihi decem: quaeritur, quis repetere potest. proculus respondit: si ipse servus peculiares nummos dedit, cum ei a domino id permissum non esset, manent nummi domini eosque non per condictionem, sed in rem actione petere debet. si autem alius rogatu servi suos nummos dedit, facti sunt mei eosque dominus servi, cuius nomine dati sunt, per condictionem petere potest: sed tam benignius quam utilius est recta via ipsum qui nummos dedit suum recipere.

By his testament the master gave his slave liberty, if he should give ten: the slave, not knowing that that testament was not valid, ten were given to me: the question is, who can recover. Proculus responded: if the slave himself gave coins of his peculium, when this had not been permitted to him by the master, the coins remain the master’s, and he ought to demand them not by condiction, but by an action in rem. But if another, at the slave’s request, gave his own coins, they became mine, and the master of the slave, in whose name they were given, can demand them by condiction: but both more benignly and more usefully it is the straight way that the very one who gave the coins should recover what is his.

Dig. 12.6.54

Digest 12.6.54

Papinianus 2 quaest.

Papinian 2 Questions.

Ex his omnibus causis, quae iure non valuerunt vel non habuerunt effectum, secuta per errorem solutione condictioni locus erit.

From all these causes which were not valid in law or did not have effect, if a payment followed through error, there will be room for a condictio.

Dig. 12.6.55

Digest 12.6.55

Papinianus 6 quaest.

Papinian 6 Questions.

Si urbana praedia locaverit praedo, quod mercedis nomine ceperit, ab eo qui solvit non repetetur, sed domino erit obligatus. idemque iuris erit in vecturis navium, quas ipse locaverit aut exercuerit, item mercedibus servorum, quorum operae per ipsum fuerint locatae. nam si servus non locatus mercedem ut domino praedoni rettulit, non fiet accipientis pecunia.

If a robber has leased out urban estates, what he has taken under the name of rent shall not be recovered from the one who paid, but he will be bound to the owner. And the same law will obtain in the freight-charges of ships, which he himself has leased or has operated, likewise in the hire-wages of slaves, whose services have been let out through him. For if a slave not hired out has rendered the wage to the robber as to his master, it will not become the recipient’s money.

quod si vecturas navium, quas dominus locaverat, item pensiones insularum acceperit, ob indebitum ei tenebitur, qui non est liberatus solvendo. quod ergo dici solet praedoni fructus posse condici, tunc locum habet, cum domini fructus fuerunt.

but if he has received the freights of ships which the owner had leased out, likewise the rents of the insulae, he will be held liable on account of an undue (payment) to the one who has not been released by his paying. therefore what is commonly said—that fruits can be recovered by condiction from the robber—has a place then, when they were the owner’s fruits.

Dig. 12.6.56

Digest 12.6.56

Papinianus 8 quaest.

Papinian 8 Questions.

Sufficit ad causam indebiti incertum esse, temporaria sit an perpetua exceptionis defensio. nam si qui, ne conveniatur, donec titius consul fiat, paciscatur, quia potest titio decedente perpetua fieri exceptio, quae ad tempus est titio consulatum ineunte, summa ratione dicetur, quod interim solvitur, repeti: ut enim pactum, quod in tempus certum collatum est, non magis inducit condictionem, quam si ex die debitor solvit, ita prorsum defensio iuris, quae causam incertam habet, condictionis instar optinet.

It suffices for the action for a not‑owed payment that it be uncertain whether the defense by exception is temporary or perpetual. For if someone, so that he not be sued, should make a pact until Titius becomes consul, since the exception which is for a time—until Titius enters upon the consulship—can become perpetual if Titius dies, with the best reason it will be said that what is paid in the meantime may be reclaimed. For just as a pact that is referred to a fixed term no more induces a condiction than if a debtor under a term pays before the day, so likewise a defense in law that has an uncertain basis has the effect of a condiction.

Dig. 12.6.57pr.

Digest 12.6.57pr.

Papinianus 3 resp.

Papinian book 3 of responses.

Cum indebitum impuberis nomine tutor numeravit, impuberis condictio est.

When the guardian has paid a not‑owed sum in the minor’s name, the minor’s condictio lies.

Dig. 12.6.57.1

Digest 12.6.57.1

Papinianus 3 resp.

Papinian, Responses, Book 3.

Creditor, ut procuratori suo debitum redderetur, mandavit: maiore pecunia soluta procurator indebiti causa convenietur: quod si nominatim, ut maior pecunia solveretur, delegavit, indebiti cum eo qui delegavit erit actio, quae non videtur perempta, si frustra cum procuratore lis fuerit instituta.

The creditor mandated that the debt be repaid to his procurator: if a greater sum was paid, the procurator will be sued on account of the not‑owed (indebitum): but if he specifically delegated that a greater sum be paid, the action for the not‑owed will be with the one who delegated, which is not considered extinguished if a suit has been instituted in vain against the procurator.

Dig. 12.6.58

Digest 12.6.58

Papinianus 9 resp.

Papinian 9 Responses

Servo manumisso fideicommissum ita reliquit, si ad libertatem ex testamento pervenerit: post acceptam sine iudice pecuniam ingenuus pronuntiatus est: indebiti fideicommissi repetitio erit.

He left a fideicommiss to a manumitted slave on this condition, if he should attain liberty from the testament: after the money was received without a judge, he was pronounced freeborn: there will be recovery of the undue fideicommiss.

Dig. 12.6.59

Digest 12.6.59

Papinianus 2 def.

Papinian 2 Definitions.

Si fideiussor iure liberatus solverit errore pecuniam, repetenti non oberit: si vero reus promittendi per errorem et ipse postea pecuniam solverit, non repetet, cum prior solutio, quae fuit irrita, naturale vinculum non dissolvit, nec civile, si reus promittendi tenebatur.

If a surety, lawfully released, should pay the money by mistake, it will not prejudice the one reclaiming it; but if the defendant-promisor, through mistake, himself thereafter pays the money, he will not recover, since the prior payment, which was ineffectual, did not dissolve the natural bond, nor the civil one, if the defendant-promisor was bound.

Dig. 12.6.60pr.

Digest 12.6.60pr.

Paulus 3 quaest.

Paulus 3 questions.

Iulianus verum debitorem post litem contestatam manente adhuc iudicio negabat solventem repetere posse, quia nec absolutus nec condemnatus repetere posset: licet enim absolutus sit, natura tamen debitor permanet: similemque esse ei dicit, qui ita promisit, sive navis ex asia venerit sive non venerit, quia ex una causa alterius solutionis origo proficiscitur.

Julian denied that a true debtor, after issue had been joined and with the proceeding still pending, could, upon paying, recover (by repetition), because neither, if absolved nor if condemned, could he recover: for although he be absolved, by nature he remains a debtor; and he says it is similar to the case of one who thus promised, whether the ship has come from Asia or has not come, because from a single cause the origin of either payment proceeds.

Dig. 12.6.60.1

Digest 12.6.60.1

Paulus 3 quaest.

Paulus 3 questions.

Ubi autem quis quod pure debet sub condicione novandi animo promisit, plerique putant pendente novatione solutum repetere posse, quia ex qua obligatione solvat, adhuc incertum sit: idemque esse etiam, si diversas personas ponas eandem pecuniam pure et sub condicione novandi animo promisisse. sed hoc dissimile est: in stipulatione enim pura et condicionali eundem debiturum certum est.

Where, however, someone, as to what he purely owes, has promised under a condition with the intention of novating, most think that, while the novation is pending, he can reclaim what has been paid, because it is still uncertain from which obligation he pays; and that it is the same even if you suppose different persons to have promised the same money, one purely and the other under a condition with the intention of novating. But this is dissimilar: for in a pure and a conditional stipulation it is certain that the same person will be debtor.

Dig. 12.6.61

Digest 12.6.61

Scaevola 5 resp.

Scaevola 5 responses.

Tutores pupilli quibusdam creditoribus patris ex patrimonio paterno solverunt, sed postea non sufficientibus bonis pupillum abstinuerunt: quaeritur, an quod amplius creditoribus per tutores pupilli solutum est vel totum quod acceperunt restituere debeant. respondi, si nihil dolo factum esset, tutori quidem vel pupillo non deberi, creditoribus autem aliis in id, quod amplius sui debiti solutum est, teneri.

The guardians of a ward paid, to certain creditors of the father, out of the paternal patrimony; but afterward, the assets being insufficient, they caused the ward to abstain: it is asked whether the creditors ought to restore what was paid to them in excess by the ward’s guardians, or the whole that they received. I answered that, if nothing was done by fraud, nothing is owed to the guardian or to the ward; but other creditors may hold those creditors liable to the extent that more than their own debt was paid.

Dig. 12.6.62

Digest 12.6.62

Maecenatus 4 fideic.

Maecenatus 4 on fideicommissa.

Fideicommissum in stipulatione deductum tametsi non debitum fuisset, quia tamen a sciente fidei explendae causa promissum esset, debetur.

A fideicommissum incorporated into a stipulation, although it would not have been due, is nevertheless owed, because it was promised by someone knowing, for the purpose of fulfilling the trust.

Dig. 12.6.63

Digest 12.6.63

Gaius l.S. de cas.

Gaius in the single book on cases.

Neratius casum refert, ut quis id quod solverit repetere non possit, quasi debitum dederit, nec tamen liberetur: velut si is, qui cum certum hominem deberet, statuliberum dederit: nam ideo eum non liberari, quod non in plenum stipulatoris hominem fecerit, nec tamen repetere eum posse, quod debitum dederit.

Neratius reports a case, namely, that someone cannot recover what he has paid, as if he had given it as a debt, and yet is not released: for example, if one who, when he owed a specific person (a certain slave), gave a statuliber (a slave to be freed upon a condition); for he is therefore not released, because he has not made the stipulator’s man into full ownership, and yet he cannot recover it, because he gave what was owed.

Dig. 12.6.64

Digest 12.6.64

Tryphonus 7 disp.

Tryphonus 7 Disputations.

Si quod dominus servo debuit, manumisso solvit, quamvis existimans ei aliqua teneri actione, tamen repetere non poterit, quia naturale adgnovit debitum: ut enim libertas naturali iure continetur et dominatio ex gentium iure introducta est, ita debiti vel non debiti ratio in condictione naturaliter intellegenda est.

If a master pays, to a manumitted slave, what he had owed to the slave, although supposing himself to be held to him by some action, nevertheless he will not be able to recover it, because he acknowledged a natural debt: for just as liberty is contained under natural law and dominion was introduced by the law of nations, so the rationale of “owed” or “not owed” in the condictio is to be understood naturally.

Dig. 12.6.65pr.

Digest 12.6.65pr.

Paulus 17 ad plaut.

Paulus 17 on Plautius.

In summa, ut generaliter de repetitione tractemus, sciendum est dari aut ob transactionem aut ob causam aut propter condicionem aut ob rem aut indebitum: in quibus omnibus quaeritur de repetitione.

In sum, that we may treat generally about repetition, it must be known that something is given either on account of a transaction, or for a cause, or by reason of a condition, or for a thing, or as not due: in all of which cases inquiry is made about repetition.

Dig. 12.6.65.1

Digest 12.6.65.1

Paulus 17 ad plaut.

Paulus, 17, on Plautius.

Et quidem quod transactionis nomine datur, licet res nulla media fuerit, non repetitur: nam si lis fuit, hoc ipsum, quod a lite disceditur, causa videtur esse. sin autem evidens calumnia detegitur et transactio imperfecta est, repetitio dabitur.

And indeed what is given under the name of a settlement, even though no intervening matter existed, is not recoverable: for if there was a suit, this very fact—that one departs from the suit—seems to be the cause. But if evident calumny is detected and the settlement is imperfect, recovery will be granted.

Dig. 12.6.65.2

Digest 12.6.65.2

Paulus 17 ad plaut.

Paul 17 on Plautius.

Id quoque, quod ob causam datur, puta quod negotia mea adiuta ab eo putavi, licet non sit factum, quia donari volui, quamvis falso mihi persuaserim, repeti non posse.

That also which is given on account of a cause—suppose that I thought my affairs were aided by him—although it was not in fact so, because I wished it to be a donation, although I had persuaded myself falsely, cannot be recovered.

Dig. 12.6.65.3

Digest 12.6.65.3

Paulus 17 ad plaut.

Paulus, 17, on Plautius.

Sed agere per condictionem propter condicionem legati vel hereditatis, sive non sit mihi legatum sive ademptum legatum, possum, ut repetam quod dedi, quoniam non contrahendi animo dederim, quia causa, propter quam dedi, non est secuta. idem et si hereditatem adire nolui vel non potui. non idem potest dici, si servus meus sub condicione heres institutus sit et ego dedero, deinde manumissus adierit: nam hoc casu secuta res est.

But I can proceed by condictio on account of the condition of a legacy or of an inheritance, whether no legacy has been left to me or the legacy has been taken away, so that I may reclaim what I gave, since I gave not with an intent to contract, because the cause on account of which I gave did not ensue. The same [holds] also if I did not wish, or was not able, to enter upon the inheritance. The same cannot be said if my slave was instituted heir under a condition and I gave, and then, after being manumitted, he entered upon it: for in this case the event ensued.

Dig. 12.6.65.4

Digest 12.6.65.4

Paulus 17 ad plaut.

Paulus 17 on Plautius.

Quod ob rem datur, ex bono et aequo habet repetitionem: veluti si dem tibi, ut aliquid facias, nec feceris.

What is given for a purpose has repetition on good-and-equitable grounds: for example, if I give to you so that you do something, and you have not done it.

Dig. 12.6.65.5

Digest 12.6.65.5

Paulus 17 ad plaut.

Paulus 17 on Plautius.

Ei, qui indebitum repetit, et fructus et partus restitui debet deducta impensa.

To him who seeks to recover what was not owed, both the fruits and the offspring must be restored, with the expense deducted.

Dig. 12.6.65.6

Digest 12.6.65.6

Paulus 17 ad plaut.

Paulus 17 on Plautius.

In frumento indebito soluto et bonitas est et, si consumpsit frumentum, pretium repetet.

In the case of grain paid though not owed, quality too is taken into account; and if he has consumed the grain, he will recover the price.

Dig. 12.6.65.7

Digest 12.6.65.7

Paulus 17 ad plaut.

Paulus 17 on Plautius.

Sic habitatione data pecuniam condicam, non quidem quanti locari potuit, sed quanti tu conducturus fuisses.

Thus, the right of habitation having been granted, I will bring a condictio for money, not indeed for as much as it could have been leased, but for as much as you would have leased it for.

Dig. 12.6.65.8

Digest 12.6.65.8

Paulus 17 ad plaut.

Paulus 17 on Plautius.

Si servum indebitum tibi dedi eumque manumisisti, si sciens hoc fecisti, teneberis ad pretium eius, si nesciens, non teneberis, sed propter operas eius liberti et ut hereditatem eius restituas.

If I gave you a slave not owed to you and you manumitted him, if you did this knowingly, you will be liable for his price; if unknowingly, you will not be liable, but you will be liable for the services of his freedman and for restoring his inheritance.

Dig. 12.6.65.9

Digest 12.6.65.9

Paulus 17 ad plaut.

Paulus 17 on Plautius.

Indebitum est non tantum, quod omnino non debetur, sed et quod alii debetur, si alii solvatur, aut si id quod alius debebat alius quasi ipse debeat solvat.

The indebitum is not only what is not owed at all, but also what is owed to one person if it is paid to another, or if that which one person owed is paid by another as though he himself owed it.

Dig. 12.6.66

Digest 12.6.66

Papinianus 8 quaest.

Papinian 8 Questions.

Haec condictio ex bono et aequo introducta, quod alterius apud alterum sine causa deprehenditur, revocare consuevit.

This condictio, introduced from good and equitable considerations, is accustomed to reclaim what of one person is found with another without cause.

Dig. 12.6.67pr.

Digest 12.6.67 pr.

Scaevola 5 Dig.

Scaevola 5 Digest.

Stichus testamento eius, quem dominum suum arbitrabatur, libertate accepta, si decem annis ex die mortis annuos decem heredibus praestitisset, per octo annos praefinitam quantitatem ut iussus erat dedit, postmodum se ingenuum comperit nec reliquorum annorum dedit et pronuntiatus est ingenuus: quaesitum est, an pecuniam, quam heredibus dedit, ut indebitam datam repetere et qua actione possit. respondit, si eam pecuniam dedit, quae neque ex operis suis neque ex re eius, cui bona fide serviebat, quaesita sit, posse repeti.

Stichus, by the testament of him whom he supposed to be his master, having received liberty on condition that for ten years from the day of death he should furnish ten each year to the heirs, for eight years gave the pre‑fixed amount as he had been ordered; afterward he discovered himself to be freeborn and did not give for the remaining years, and he was pronounced freeborn: it was asked whether he may reclaim as not‑due the money which he gave to the heirs, and by what action he might. He answered that, if he gave money which had been acquired neither from his own services nor from the property of him whom he was serving in good faith, it can be recovered.

Dig. 12.6.67.1

Digest 12.6.67.1

Scaevola 5 Dig.

Scaevola 5 Digest.

Tutor creditori pupilli sui plus quam debebatur exsolvit et tutelae iudicio pupillo non imputavit: quaero, an repetitionem adversus creditorem haberet. respondit habere.

A tutor paid to the creditor of his ward more than was owed, and in the action of guardianship did not impute it to the ward: I ask whether he would have repetition against the creditor. He answered that he would have.

Dig. 12.6.67.2

Digest 12.6.67.2

Scaevola 5 Dig.

Scaevola 5 Digest.

Titius cum multos creditores haberet, in quibus et seium, bona sua privatim facta venditione maevio concessit, ut satis creditoribus faceret: sed maevius solvit pecuniam seio tamquam debitam, quae iam a titio fuerat soluta: quaesitum est, cum postea repperiantur apochae apud titium debitorem partim solutae pecuniae, cui magis repetitio pecuniae indebitae solutae competit, titio debitori an maevio, qui in rem suam procurator factus est. respondit secundum ea quae proponerentur ei, qui postea solvisset.

Titius, when he had many creditors, among whom also seius, by a sale made privately conveyed his goods to maevius, in order to satisfy the creditors: but maevius paid money to seius as if owed, which had already been paid by titius: the question was asked, when later receipts (apochae) are found with titius the debtor for part of the money paid, to whom does the repetition of money not owed but paid more properly belong, to titius the debtor or to maevius, who was made a procurator in his own interest. he answered: according to the things that were proposed, to the one who had paid later.

Dig. 12.6.67.3

Digest 12.6.67.3

Scaevola 5 Dig.

Scaevola 5 Digest.

Idem quaesiit, an pactum, quod in pariationibus adscribi solet in hunc modum " ex hoc contractu nullam inter se controversiam amplius esse" impediat repetitionem. respondit nihil proponi, cur impediret.

The same man asked whether a pact, which is usually appended in settlements in this form, “from this contract there is to be no further controversy between themselves,” impedes repetition. He responded that nothing is put forward to show why it would impede.

Dig. 12.6.67.4

Digest 12.6.67.4

Scaevola 5 Dig.

Scaevola 5 Digest.

Lucius titius gaio seio minori annis viginti quinque pecuniam certam credidit et ab eo aliquantum usurarum nomine accepi, et gaii seii minoris heres adversus publium maevium a praeside provinciae in integrum restitutus est, ne debitum hereditarium solveret, et nec quicquam de usuris eiusdem sortis, quas seius minor annis viginti quinque exsolveret, repetendis tractatum apud praesidem aut ab eo est pronuntiatum: quaero, an usuras, quas gaius seius minor annis viginti quinque quoad viveret creditori exsolveret, heres eius repetere possit. respondit secundum ea quae proponerentur condici id, quod usurarum nomine defunctus solvisset, non posse. item quaero, si existimes repeti non posse, an ex alio debito heres retinere eas possit.

Lucius Titius lent a determinate sum of money to Gaius Seius, a minor under twenty-five years, and from him he received some amount under the name of interest; and the heir of Gaius Seius the minor was restored in integrum by the provincial praeses against Publius Maevius, so that he should not pay the hereditary debt; and nothing about reclaiming the interest on the same principal, which Seius, a minor under twenty-five years, had paid out, was argued before the praeses or pronounced by him: I ask whether the heir can recover the interest which Gaius Seius, a minor under twenty-five years, paid out to the creditor so long as he lived. He responded that, according to the matters proposed, that which the deceased had paid under the name of interest could not be condicted (recovered by condiction). Likewise I ask, if you think it cannot be reclaimed, whether the heir can retain them from another debt.

respondit ne hoc quidem.

He responded: not even this.

Dig. 12.7.0. De condictione sine causa.

Digest 12.7.0. On the condictio without cause.

Dig. 12.7.1pr.

Digest 12.7.1, preface.

Ulpianus 43 ad sab.

Ulpian 43 on Sabinus.

Est et haec species condictionis, si quis sine causa promiserit vel si solverit quis indebitum. qui autem promisit sine causa, condicere quantitatem non potest quam non dedit, sed ipsam obligationem.

There is also this species of condiction, if someone has promised without cause or if someone has paid an indebitum. But he who has promised without cause cannot bring a condiction for the amount which he did not give, but for the obligation itself.

Dig. 12.7.1.1

Digest 12.7.1.1

Ulpianus 43 ad sab.

Ulpian 43 On Sabinus.

Sed et si ob causam promisit, causa tamen secuta non est, dicendum est condictionem locum habere.

But even if he promised on account of a cause, yet the cause did not ensue, it must be said that the condiction lies.

Dig. 12.7.1.2

Digest 12.7.1.2

Ulpianus 43 ad sab.

Ulpian 43 On Sabinus.

Sive ab initio sine causa promissum est, sive fuit causa promittendi quae finita est vel secuta non est, dicendum est condictioni locum fore.

Whether from the beginning it was promised without cause, or there was a cause for promising which has ended or did not ensue, it must be said that there will be place for a condictio.

Dig. 12.7.1.3

Digest 12.7.1.3

Ulpianus 43 ad sab.

Ulpian 43 on sab.

Constat id demum posse condici alicui, quod vel non ex iusta causa ad eum pervenit vel redit ad non iustam causam.

It is settled that only that can be the object of a condiction against someone, which either did not reach him from a just cause or has reverted to a non-just cause.

Dig. 12.7.2

Digest 12.7.2

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 32 on the Edict.

Si fullo vestimenta lavanda conduxerit, deinde amissis eis domino pretium ex locato conventus praestiterit posteaque dominus invenerit vestimenta, qua actione debeat consequi pretium quod dedit? et ait cassius eum non solum ex conducto agere, verum condicere domino posse: ego puto ex conducto omnimodo eum habere actionem: an autem et condicere possit, quaesitum est, quia non indebitum dedit: nisi forte quasi sine causa datum sic putamus condici posse: etenim vestimentis inventis quasi sine causa datum videtur.

If a fuller has taken on garments to be washed under hire, then, the garments having been lost, has paid to the owner the price agreed under the locatio, and afterward the owner has found the garments, by what action ought he to recover the price that he gave? And Cassius says that he can not only sue ex conducto, but indeed can also bring a condictio against the owner. I think that in every way he has the action ex conducto; but whether he can also bring a condictio has been questioned, because he did not give something not due: unless perhaps we think it can be condicted as though given sine causa; for indeed, with the garments found, it seems to have been given as if without cause.

Dig. 12.7.3

Digest 12.7.3

Iulianus 8 Dig.

Julianus 8 Digest.

Qui sine causa obligantur, incerti condictione consequi possunt ut liberentur: nec refert, omnem quis obligationem sine causa suscipiat an maiorem quam suscipere eum oportuerit, nisi quod alias condictione id agitur, ut omni obligatione liberetur, alias ut exoneretur: veluti qui decem promisit, nam si quidem nullam causam promittendi habuit, incerti condictione consequitur, ut tota stipulatio accepto fiat, at si, cum quinque promittere deberet, decem promisit, incerti consequetur, ut quinque liberetur.

Those who are obligated without cause can obtain by the condictio incerti to be set free; and it makes no difference whether one undertakes an obligation wholly without cause or one greater than he ought to have undertaken, except that in one case by the condictio the aim is that he be freed from every obligation, in another that he be relieved: for example, one who has promised ten; for if indeed he had no cause for promising, he obtains by the condictio incerti that the whole stipulation be discharged by acceptilation; but if, when he ought to have promised five, he promised ten, he will obtain by the condictio incerti that he be freed as to five.

Dig. 12.7.4

Digest 12.7.4

Africanus 8 quaest.

Africanus book 8 of Questions.

Nihil refert, utrumne ab initio sine causa quid datum sit an causa, propter quam datum sit, secuta non sit.

It makes no difference whether from the beginning something was given without cause, or the cause on account of which it was given did not ensue.

Dig. 12.7.5pr.

Digest 12.7.5pr.

Papinianus 11 quaest.

Papinian 11 Questions.

Avunculo nuptura pecuniam in dotem dedit neque nupsit: an eandem repetere possit, quaesitum est. dixi, cum ob turpem causam dantis et accipientis pecunia numeretur, cessare condictionem et in delicto pari potiorem esse possessorem: quam rationem fortassis aliquem secutum respondere non habituram mulierem condictionem: sed recte defendi non turpem causam in proposito quam nullam fuisse, cum pecunia quae daretur in dotem converti nequiret: non enim stupri, sed matrimonii gratia datam esse.

About to marry her maternal uncle, she gave money as a dowry and did not marry: the question was asked whether she could recover the same. I said that, when money is paid on account of a shameful cause on the part of both giver and receiver, the condiction does not lie, and, in equal delict, the possessor has the stronger position. Following this reasoning, someone perhaps would answer that the woman would not have a condiction. But it is rightly maintained that in the case proposed the cause was not shameful, but rather none, since the money that was to be given could not be converted into a dowry: for it was given not for stuprum (illicit intercourse), but for the sake of matrimony.

Dig. 12.7.5.1

Digest 12.7.5.1

Papinianus 11 quaest.

Papinianus 11 Questions.

Noverca privigno, nurus socero pecuniam dotis nomine dedit neque nupsit. cessare condictio prima facie videtur, quoniam iure gentium incestum committitur: atquin vel magis in ea specie nulla causa dotis dandae fuit, condictio igitur competit.

A stepmother to a stepson, a daughter-in-law to a father-in-law, gave money under the name of a dowry and did not marry. the condictio seems to cease prima facie, since by the law of nations incest is committed: but rather, all the more in that case there was no cause for giving a dowry, therefore the condictio is available.