Justinian: DIGESTA

Si res vendita non tradatur, in id quod interest agitur, hoc est quod rem habere interest emptoris: hoc autem interdum pretium egreditur, si pluris interest, quam res valet vel empta est.

If the thing sold is not delivered, an action is brought for what is of interest, that is, for how much it interests the buyer to have the thing; and this sometimes exceeds the price, if it interests more than the thing is worth or than it was bought for.

Dig. 19.1.1.1

Digest 19.1.1.1

Ulpianus 28 ad sab.

Ulpian, 28 on Sabinus.

Venditor si, cum sciret deberi, servitutem celavit, non evadet ex empto actionem, si modo eam rem emptor ignoravit: omnia enim quae contra bonam fidem fiunt veniunt in empti actionem. sed scire venditorem et celare sic accipimus, non solum si non admonuit, sed et si negavit servitutem istam deberi, cum esset ab eo quaesitum. sed et si proponas eum ita dixisse: " nulla quidem servitus debetur, verum ne emergat inopinata servitus, non teneor", puto eum ex empto teneri, quia servitus debebatur et scisset.

If the vendor, when he knew it was owed, concealed a servitude, he will not escape the action ex empto, provided that the purchaser was ignorant of that matter: for all things which are done against good faith come into the action ex empto. And we thus understand the vendor’s knowing and concealing, not only if he did not admonish, but also if he denied that that servitude was owed when he was asked about it. And even if you were to suppose him to have said thus: "No servitude at all is owed; however, lest some unforeseen servitude should emerge, I am not bound," I think he is liable ex empto, because a servitude was owed and he knew it.

sed si id egit, ne cognosceret emptor aliquam servitutem deberi, opinor eum ex empto teneri. et generaliter dixerim, si improbato more versatus sit in celanda servitute, debere eum teneri, non si securitati suae prospectum voluit. haec ita vera sunt, si emptor ignoravit servitutes, quia non videtur esse celatus qui scit neque certiorari debuit qui non ignoravit.

but if he contrived that the buyer not come to know that some servitude was owed, I am of the opinion that he is liable on the ex empto. And, speaking generally, if he has conducted himself with an improper practice in concealing the servitude, he ought to be held liable, not if he wished to provide for his own security. These things are true thus, if the buyer was ignorant of the servitudes, because he who knows is not considered to have been concealed-from, nor did he need to be made more certain who was not ignorant.

Dig. 19.1.2pr.

Digest 19.1.2pr.

Paulus 5 ad sab.

Paul 5 on Sabinus.

Si in emptione modus dictus est et non praestatur, ex empto est actio.

If in a purchase a measure has been stipulated and it is not furnished, an action on the purchase lies.

Dig. 19.1.2.1

Digest 19.1.2.1

Paulus 5 ad sab.

Paulus 5 on Sabinus.

Vacua possessio emptori tradita non intellegitur, si alius in ea legatorum fideive commissorum servandorum causa in possessione est aut creditores bona possideant. idem dicendum est, si venter in possessione sit: nam et ad hoc pertinet vacui appellatio.

Vacant possession is not understood to have been delivered to the buyer, if another is in possession of it for the sake of preserving legacies or fideicommissa, or if the creditors possess the goods. The same must be said if the womb is in possession: for the appellation “vacant” pertains to this as well.

Dig. 19.1.3pr.

Digest 19.1.3pr.

Pomponius 9 ad sab.

Pomponius book 9 to Sabinus.

Ratio possessionis, quae a venditore fieri debeat, talis est, ut, si quis eam possessionem iure avocaverit, tradita possessio non intellegatur.

The standard of possession, which ought to be effected by the seller, is this: if anyone has lawfully reclaimed that possession, the delivered possession is not deemed to have been delivered.

Dig. 19.1.3.1

Digest 19.1.3.1

Pomponius 9 ad sab.

Pomponius 9 on Sabinus.

Si emptor vacuam possessionem tradi stipulatus sit et ex stipulatu agat, fructus non venient in eam actionem, quia et qui fundum dari stipularetur, vacuam quoque possessionem tradi oportere stipulari intellegitur nec tamen fructuum praestatio ea stipulatione continetur, neque rursus plus debet esse in stipulatione. sed ex empto superesse ad fructuum praestationem.

If the buyer has stipulated that vacant possession be delivered and sues ex stipulatu, the fruits do not fall within that action; for even one who stipulated that the estate be given is understood also to have stipulated that vacant possession ought to be delivered, and yet the furnishing of the fruits is not contained in that stipulation, nor, conversely, ought there to be more in the stipulation. But the action ex empto remains for the furnishing (recovery) of the fruits.

Dig. 19.1.3.2

Digest 19.1.3.2

Pomponius 9 ad sab.

Pomponius 9 on sab.

Si iter actum viam aquae ductum per tuum fundum emero, vacuae possessionis traditio nulla est: itaque cavere debes per te non fieri quo minus utar.

If I purchase a right of way on foot, of driving, a roadway, or a water‑conduit through your estate, there is no delivery of vacant possession: therefore you must give security that, on your part, nothing be done to hinder my use.

Dig. 19.1.3.3

Digest 19.1.3.3

Pomponius 9 ad sab.

Pomponius 9 on Sabinus.

Si per venditorem vini mora fuerit, quo minus traderet, condemnari eum oportet, utro tempore pluris vinum fuit, vel quo venit vel quo lis in condemnationem deducitur, item quo loco pluris fuit, vel quo venit vel ubi agatur.

If through the seller of the wine there has been delay, whereby he failed to deliver, he ought to be condemned according to whichever time the wine was of greater value, either when it was sold or when the suit is brought to condemnation; likewise according to whichever place it was of greater value, either where it was sold or where the case is being tried.

Dig. 19.1.3.4

Digest 19.1.3.4

Pomponius 9 ad sab.

Pomponius 9 on Sabinus.

Quod si per emptorem mora fuisset, aestimari oportet pretium quod sit cum agatur, et quo loco minoris sit. mora autem videtur esse, si nulla difficultas venditorem impediat, quo minus traderet, praesertim si omni tempore paratus fuit tradere. item non oportet eius loci pretia spectari, in quo agatur, sed eius, ubi vina tradi oportet: nam quod a brundisio vinum venit, etsi venditio alibi facta sit, brundisi tradi oportet.

But if the delay was owing to the buyer, it ought to be assessed at the price which prevails when the action is brought, and in the place where it is for less. Moreover, delay is deemed to exist if no difficulty hinders the seller from delivering, especially if he was at all times ready to deliver. Likewise, the prices of the place where the suit is brought ought not to be considered, but those of the place where the wines ought to be delivered: for wine that comes from brundisium, even if the sale has been made elsewhere, ought to be delivered at brundisium.

Dig. 19.1.4pr.

Digest 19.1.4, preface.

Paulus 5 ad sab.

Paulus 5 on Sabinus.

Si servum mihi ignoranti, sciens furem vel noxium esse, vendideris, quamvis duplam promiseris, teneris mihi ex empto, quanti mea intererit scisse, quia ex stipulatu eo nomine agere tecum non possum antequam mihi quid abesset.

If you have sold me a slave, I being unaware, you knowing that he is a thief or a noxious (wrongdoer), although you promised the double, you are liable to me under purchase (ex empto) for as much as it is my interest to have known; because under stipulation (ex stipulatu) I cannot sue you on that account before anything was lacking to me.

Dig. 19.1.4.1

Digest 19.1.4.1

Paulus 5 ad sab.

Paulus 5 on Sabinus.

Si modus agri minor inveniatur, pro numero iugerum auctor obligatus est, quia, ubi modus minor invenitur, non potest aestimari bonitas loci qui non exstat. sed non solum si modus agri totius minor est, agi cum venditore potest, sed etiam de partibus eius, ut puta si dictum est vineae iugera tot esse vel oliveti et minus inveniatur: ideoque his casibus pro bonitate loci fiet aestimatio.

If the measure of the field is found to be less, the warrantor is bound in proportion to the number of iugera, because, where the measure is found less, the goodness of a place which does not exist cannot be appraised. But not only if the measure of the whole field is less can action be brought against the seller, but also concerning parts of it—for instance, if it was said that the vineyard or the olive-grove has so many iugera and less is found: and therefore in these cases the valuation will be made according to the goodness of the place.

Dig. 19.1.5pr.

Digest 19.1.5pr.

Paulus 3 ad sab.

Paulus 3 on Sabinus.

Si heres testamento quid vendere damnatus sit et vendiderit, de reliquis, quae per consequentias emptionis propria sunt, vel ex empto vel ex testamento agi cum eo poterit.

If an heir has been enjoined by the testament to sell something and has sold it, then as to the remaining matters, which are proper as consequences of the purchase, one may proceed against him either by the action ex empto or under the testament.

Dig. 19.1.5.1

Digest 19.1.5.1

Paulus 3 ad sab.

Paulus 3 on Sabinus.

Sed si falso existimans se damnatum vendere vendiderit, dicendum est agi cum eo ex empto non posse, quoniam doli mali exceptione actor summoveri potest, quemadmodum, si falso existimans se damnatum dare promisisset, agentem doli mali exceptione summoveret. pomponius etiam incerti condicere eum posse ait, ut liberetur.

But if, falsely supposing himself condemned, he has sold, it must be said that one cannot proceed against him ex empto, since the plaintiff can be driven off by the exceptio of dolus malus; just as, if, falsely supposing himself condemned, he had promised to give, he would repel the one suing by the exceptio doli mali. Pomponius also says that he can bring a condictio incerti, so that he may be released.

Dig. 19.1.6pr.

Digest 19.1.6pr.

Pomponius 9 ad sab.

Pomponius, 9 On Sabinus.

Tenetur ex empto venditor, etiamsi ignoraverit minorem fundi modum esse.

The seller is held liable under purchase, even if he was unaware that the extent of the estate was smaller.

Dig. 19.1.6.1

Digest 19.1.6.1

Pomponius 9 ad sab.

Pomponius 9 on Sabinus.

Si vendidi tibi insulam certa pecunia et ut aliam insulam meam reficeres, agam ex vendito, ut reficias: si autem hoc solum, ut reficeres eam convenisset, non intelllegitur emptio et venditio facta, ut et neratius scripsit.

If I have sold you an insula for a fixed sum of money and so that you repair another insula of mine, I will bring an action ex vendito, that you repair it: but if only this had been agreed, that you repair it, it is not understood that a purchase and sale has been made, as Neratius also wrote.

Dig. 19.1.6.2

Digest 19.1.6.2

Pomponius 9 ad sab.

Pomponius 9 on Sabinus.

Sed si aream tibi vendidi certo pretio et tradidi, ita ut insula aedificata partem dimidiam mihi retradas, verum est et ut aedifices agere me posse ex vendito et ut aedificatam mihi retradas: quamdiu enim aliquid ex re vendita apud te superesset, ex vendito me habere actionem constat.

But if I have sold you a building-lot at a certain price and have delivered it, on the terms that, once an insula has been built, you hand back to me a half share, it is true both that I can bring an action ex vendito to make you build and that, when it has been built, you hand it back to me: for so long as anything of the thing sold remained with you, it is established that I have an action ex vendito.

Dig. 19.1.6.3

Digest 19.1.6.3

Pomponius 9 ad sab.

Pomponius 9 on Sabinus.

Si locum sepulchri emeris et propius eum locum, antequam mortuus ibi inferatur, aedificatum a venditore fuerit, poteris ad eum reverti.

If you have bought a place of sepulchre, and nearer to that place, before a dead person is interred there, a building has been erected by the seller, you can have recourse against him.

Dig. 19.1.6.4

Digest 19.1.6.4

Pomponius 9 ad sab.

Pomponius 9 on Sabinus.

Si vas aliquod mihi vendideris et dixeris certam mensuram capere vel certum pondus habere, ex empto tecum agam, si minus praestes. sed si vas mihi vendidieris ita, ut adfirmares integrum, si id integrum non sit, etiam id, quod eo nomine perdiderim, praestabis mihi: si vero non id actum sit, ut integrum praestes, dolum malum dumtaxat praestare te debere. labeo contra putat et illud solum observandum, ut, nisi in contrarium id actum sit, omnimodo integrum praestari debeat: et est verum.

If you sell me some vessel and say that it holds a certain measure or has a certain weight, I will bring an action on purchase against you if you do not make it good. But if you have sold me a vessel on the terms that you affirm it to be whole/sound, if it is not whole/sound, you will also make good to me that which I have lost on that account. But if indeed it was not agreed that you should warrant its soundness, you ought to be liable only for fraud (dolus malus). Labeo thinks the contrary, and that only this is to be observed: that, unless it was agreed to the contrary, in every way the soundness must be warranted; and this is true.

quod et in locatis doliis praestandum sabinum respondisse minicius refert.

Minicius reports that Sabinus also responded that this must be warranted in the case of casks let out on hire.

Dig. 19.1.6.5

Digest 19.1.6.5

Pomponius 9 ad sab.

Pomponius 9 on Sabinus.

Si tibi iter vendidero, ita demum auctorem me laudare poteris, si tuus fuerit fundus, cui adquirere servitutem volueris: iniquum est enim me teneri, si propter hoc adquirere servitutem non potueris, quia dominus vicini fundi non fueris.

If I have sold you a right of way, only then will you be able to call me in as warrantor, if the estate is yours to which you wished to acquire a servitude: for it is inequitable that I be held liable if for this reason you were not able to acquire the servitude, because you were not the owner of the neighboring estate.

Dig. 19.1.6.6

Digest 19.1.6.6

Pomponius 9 ad sab.

Pomponius 9 on Sabinus.

Sed si fundum tibi vendidero et ei fundo iter accessurum dixero, omnimodo tenebor itineris nomine, quia utriusque rei quasi unus venditor obligatus sum.

But if I shall have sold you a piece of land and shall have said that to that land a right of way will accrue, I shall in every way be held liable under the name of the right of way, because I am obligated as if a single vendor of both things.

Dig. 19.1.6.7

Digest 19.1.6.7

Pomponius 9 ad sab.

Pomponius book 9 on Sabinus.

Si filius familias rem vendiderit mihi et tradiderit, sic ut pater familias tenebitur.

If a filius familias has sold me a thing and delivered it, thus the pater familias will be liable.

Dig. 19.1.6.8

Digest 19.1.6.8

Pomponius 9 ad sab.

Pomponius 9 on Sabinus.

Si dolo malo aliquid fecit venditor in re vendita, ex empto eo nomine actio emptori competit: nam et dolum malum eo iudicio aestimari oportet, ut id, quod praestaturum se esse pollicitus sit venditor emptori, praestari oporteat.

If the seller has done anything with malicious fraud in the thing sold, an action ex empto on that ground lies for the buyer: for malicious fraud too ought to be assessed in that suit, so that that which the seller has promised he would make good to the buyer ought to be made good.

Dig. 19.1.6.9

Digest 19.1.6.9

Pomponius 9 ad sab.

Pomponius 9 on Sabinus.

Si venditor sciens obligatum aut alienum vendidisset et adiectum sit " neve eo nomine quid praestaret", aestimari oportet dolum malum eius, quem semper abesse oportet in iudicio empti, quod bonae fidei sit.

If the vendor knowingly had sold an encumbered or another’s property, and it has been added " neve eo nomine quid praestaret", his dolus malus must be assessed—something which ought always to be absent in the action of purchase, since it is of good faith.

Dig. 19.1.7

Digest 19.1.7

Pomponius 10 ad sab.

Pomponius 10 on Sabinus.

Fundum mihi cum venderes deducto usu fructu, dixisti eum usum fructum titii esse, cum is apud te remansurus esset. si coeperis eum usum fructum vindicare, reverti adversus te non potero, donec titius vivat nec in ea causa esse coeperit, ut, etiamsi eius usus fructus esset, amissurus eum fuerit: nam tunc, id est si capite deminutus vel mortuus fuerit titius, reverti potero ad te venditorem. idemque iuris est, si dicas eum usum fructum titii esse, cum sit sei.

When you sold me a farm with the usufruct deducted, you said that that usufruct was Titius’s, although it was going to remain with you. If you begin to vindicate that usufruct, I will not be able to revert against you until Titius lives and has not begun to be in such a condition that, even if the usufruct were his, he would be about to lose it: for then, that is, if Titius has been capite deminutus or has died, I will be able to revert to you the seller. And the same law stands, if you say that that usufruct is Titius’s, when it is Seius’s.

Dig. 19.1.8pr.

Digest 19.1.8, preface.

Paulus 5 ad sab.

Paul, Book 5 on Sabinus.

Si tibi liberum praedium tradidero, cum serviens tradere deberem, etiam condictio incerti competit mihi, ut patiaris eam servitutem, quam debuit, imponi.

If I have delivered to you a free estate, when I ought to have delivered a servient one, a condictio incerti likewise lies for me, so that you permit that servitude, which it ought to have borne, to be imposed.

Dig. 19.1.8.1

Digest 19.1.8.1

Paulus 5 ad sab.

Paulus 5 to Sabinus.

Quod si servum praedium in traditione fecero, quod liberum tibi tradere debui, tu ex empto habebis actionem remittendae eius servitutis gratia, quam pati non debeas.

But if, in the delivery, I have made the estate a servient tenement, which I ought to have delivered to you free, you will have an action ex empto for the sake of having that servitude remitted, which you ought not to have to endure.

Dig. 19.1.9

Digest 19.1.9

Pomponius 20 ad sab.

Pomponius 20 on Sabinus.

Si is, qui lapides ex fundo emerit, tollere eos nolit, ex vendito agi cum eo potest, ut eos tollat.

If the person who has bought stones from the land is unwilling to remove them, he can be sued on the sale, so that he removes them.

Dig. 19.1.10

Digest 19.1.10

Ulpianus 46 ad sab.

Ulpian, 46 on sab.

Non est novum, ut duae obligationes in eiusdem persona de eadem re concurrant: cum enim is qui venditorem obligatum habebat ei qui eundem venditorem obligatum habebat heres exstiterit, constat duas esse actiones in eiusdem persona concurrentes, propriam et hereditariam, et debere heredem institutum, si velit separatim duarum actionum commodo uti, ante aditam hereditatem proprium venditorem convenire, deinde adita hereditate hereditarium: quod si prius adierit hereditatem, unam quidem actionem movere potest, sed ita, ut per eam utriusque contractus sentiat commodum. ex contrario quoque si venditor venditori heres exstiterit, palam est duas evictiones eum praestare debere.

It is not novel that two obligations concur in the same person concerning the same thing: for when he who had the seller obligated has become heir to him who had the same seller obligated, it is agreed that two actions are concurrent in the same person, his own and the hereditary, and that the instituted heir, if he wishes to use separately the advantage of the two actions, ought, before the inheritance is entered upon, to convene his own seller, then, the inheritance having been entered upon, the hereditary one; but if he first enters upon the inheritance, he can indeed move one action, but in such a way that through it he feels the advantage of each contract. Conversely also, if a seller has become heir to a seller, it is plain that he must provide two warranties against eviction.

Dig. 19.1.11pr.

Digest 19.1.11, pr.

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Ex empto actione is qui emit utitur.

The action arising from purchase is employed by the purchaser.

Dig. 19.1.11.1

Digest 19.1.11.1

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the edict.

Et in primis sciendum est in hoc iudicio id demum deduci, quod praestari convenit: cum enim sit bonae fidei iudicium, nihil magis bonae fidei congruit quam id praestari, quod inter contrahentes actum est. quod si nihil convenit, tunc ea praestabuntur, quae naturaliter insunt huius iudicii potestate.

And in the first place it must be known that in this action that alone is brought forward which it was agreed should be rendered; for since it is a good‑faith action, nothing more accords with good faith than that there be rendered what was transacted between the contracting parties. But if nothing was agreed, then those things will be rendered which are naturally included under the authority of this action.

Dig. 19.1.11.2

Digest 19.1.11.2

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the edict.

Et in primis ipsam rem praestare venditorem oportet, id est tradere: quae res, si quidem dominus fuit venditor, facit et emptorem dominum, si non fuit, tantum evictionis nomine venditorem obligat, si modo pretium est numeratum aut eo nomine satisfactum. emptor autem nummos venditoris facere cogitur.

And in the first place the seller ought to furnish the thing itself, that is, to deliver it: which act, if indeed the seller was the owner, also makes the buyer the owner; if he was not, it only obligates the seller under the name of eviction, provided that the price has been counted out or satisfaction made on that account. The buyer, moreover, is compelled to pay the seller the money.

Dig. 19.1.11.3

Digest 19.1.11.3

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Redhibitionem quoque contineri empti iudicio et labeo et sabinus putant et nos probamus.

Both Labeo and Sabinus think that redhibition is also contained in the action on purchase, and we approve this.

Dig. 19.1.11.4

Digest 19.1.11.4

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 On the Edict.

Animalium quoque venditor cavere debet ea sana praestari, et qui iumenta vendidit solet ita promittere " esse bibere, ut oportet".

The vendor of animals too ought to warrant that they be provided sound, and he who has sold beasts of burden is accustomed thus to promise: “that they eat and drink as is proper.”

Dig. 19.1.11.5

Digest 19.1.11.5

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Si quis virginem se emere putasset, cum mulier venisset, et sciens errare eum venditor passus sit, redhibitionem quidem ex hac causa non esse, verum tamen ex empto competere actionem ad resolvendam emptionem, et pretio restituto mulier reddatur.

If someone supposed that he was buying a virgin, whereas a woman was delivered, and the seller, knowing he was in error, allowed it, there is not, indeed, a redhibition on this ground; nevertheless, an action ex empto lies for resolving the purchase, and, with the price restored, the woman shall be returned.

Dig. 19.1.11.6

Digest 19.1.11.6

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the edict.

Is qui vina emit arrae nomine certam summam dedit: postea convenerat, ut emptio irrita fieret. iulianus ex empto agi posse ait, ut arra restituatur, utilemque esse actionem ex empto etiam ad distrahendam, inquit, emptionem. ego illud quaero: si anulus datus sit arrae nomine et secuta emptione pretioque numerato et tradita re anulus non reddatur, qua actione agendum est, utrum condicatur, quasi ob causam datus sit et causa finita sit, an vero ex empto agendum sit.

He who bought wines gave a certain sum by way of arra; afterward it was agreed that the purchase should be made void. Julian says that one can sue ex empto so that the arra be restored, and that an actio ex empto is useful also, he says, for dissolving the purchase. I ask this: if a ring was given by way of arra, and after the purchase has followed, the price has been counted out, and the thing delivered, the ring is not returned—by what action should one proceed: whether it should be recovered by condictio, as if it were given on account of a cause and the cause has ended, or rather that one should proceed ex empto.

et iulianus diceret ex empto agi posse: certe etiam condici poterit, quia iam sine causa apud venditorem est anulus.

and Julian would say that one can proceed ex empto: certainly a condictio also will be possible, because now the ring is with the seller without cause.

Dig. 19.1.11.7

Digest 19.1.11.7

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the edict.

Venditorem, etiamsi ignorans vendiderit, fugitivum non esse praestare emptori oportere neratius ait.

Neratius says that the seller, even if he has sold in ignorance, ought to warrant to the buyer that the slave is not a fugitive.

Dig. 19.1.11.8

Digest 19.1.11.8

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Idem neratius, etiamsi alienum servum vendideris, furtis noxisque solutum praestare te debere ab omnibus receptum ait et ex empto actionem esse, ut habere licere emptori caveatur, sed et ut tradatur ei possessio.

The same Neratius says that, even if you have sold another’s slave, you ought to warrant that he is released from thefts and noxal liabilities—this is received by all—and that there is an action ex empto, to the effect that a guarantee be given to the buyer that it is lawful for him to have (hold) him, and also that possession be delivered to him.

Dig. 19.1.11.9

Digest 19.1.11.9

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Idem ait non tradentem quanti intersit condemnari: satis autem non dantem, quanti plurimum auctorem periclitari oportet.

He likewise says that one who does not deliver is to be condemned in the amount of the interest; but one who does not give security, that the warrantor (auctor) ought to be liable for the utmost amount.

Dig. 19.1.11.10

Digest 19.1.11.10

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Idem neratius ait propter omnia haec satis esse quod plurimum est praestari, id est ut sequentibus actionibus deducto eo quod praestitum est lis aestimetur.

The same Neratius says that, on account of all these things, it is sufficient that the maximum be rendered, that is, that in the subsequent actions, with what has been rendered deducted, the lawsuit be assessed.

Dig. 19.1.11.11

Digest 19.1.11.11

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Idem recte ait, si quid horum non praestetur, cum cetera facta sint, nullo deducto condemnationem faciendam.

He likewise rightly says that, if any of these is not provided, when the rest have been done, condemnation is to be made with nothing deducted.

Dig. 19.1.11.12

Digest 19.1.11.12

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Idem libro secundo responsorum ait emptorem noxali iudicio condemnatum ex empto actione id tantum consequi, quanti minimo defungi potuit: idemque putat et si ex stipulatu aget: et sive defendat noxali iudicio, sive non, quia manifestum fuit noxium servum fuisse, nihilo minus vel ex stipulatu vel ex empto agere posse.

The same, in the second book of the Responsa, says that a buyer who has been condemned in a noxal action can obtain by the action ex empto only this much: the amount with which he could have gotten off at the least; and he thinks the same also if he proceeds ex stipulatu: and whether he defends the noxal suit or not, because it was manifest that the slave had been noxal, nonetheless he can sue either ex stipulatu or ex empto.

Dig. 19.1.11.13

Digest 19.1.11.13

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Idem neratius ait venditorem in re tradenda debere praestare emptori, ut in lite de possessione potior sit: sed iulianus libro quinto decimo digestorum probat nec videri traditum, si superior in possessione emptor futurus non sit: erit igitur ex empto actio, nisi hoc praestetur.

the same neratius says that the vendor, in delivering the thing, ought to ensure for the purchaser that, in litigation about possession, he will be the stronger; but julian, in book 15 of the Digest, holds that it is not even considered to have been delivered if the purchaser will not be superior in possession: therefore an action ex empto will lie, unless this is ensured.

Dig. 19.1.11.14

Digest 19.1.11.14

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Cassius ait eum, qui ex duplae stipulatione litis aestimationem consecutus est, aliarum rerum nomine, de quibus in venditionibus caveri solet, nihil consequi posse. iulianus deficiente dupla ex empto agendum putavit.

Cassius says that he who, by the stipulation for the double (dupla), has obtained the valuation of the suit (litis aestimatio), can obtain nothing under the name of other matters for which it is customary to be provided-for in sales. julianus thought that, the dupla failing, one should proceed by an action ex empto (on the purchase).

Dig. 19.1.11.15

Digest 19.1.11.15

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Denique libro decimo apud minicium ait, si quis servum ea condicione vendiderit, ut intra triginta dies duplam promitteret, postea ne quid praestaretur, et emptor hoc fieri intra diem non desideraverit, ita demum non teneri venditorem, si ignorans alienum vendidit: tunc enim in hoc fieri, ut per ipsum et per heredem eius emptorem habere liceret: qui autem alienum sciens vendidit, dolo, inquit, non caret et ideo empti iudicio tenebitur.

Finally, in the tenth book he says, with minicium, that if someone should sell a slave on this condition, that within thirty days he would promise the double, and thereafter nothing should be performed; and if the buyer has not desired this to be done within the term, then only is the seller not held liable, if, being ignorant, he sold another’s property: for then it comes to this, that through him and through his heir it would be permitted for the buyer to have it; but he who knowingly sold another’s, he says, is not free from dolus and therefore will be held by the action on the purchase (empti).

Dig. 19.1.11.16

Digest 19.1.11.16

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Sententiam iuliani verissimam esse arbitror in pignoribus quoque: nam si iure creditoris vendiderit, deinde haec fuerint evicta, non tenetur nec ad pretium restituendum ex empto actione creditor: hoc enim multis constitutionibus effectum est. dolum plane venditor praestabit, denique etiam repromittit de dolo: sed et si non repromiserit, sciens tamen sibi non obligatam vel non esse eius qui sibi obligavit vendiderit, tenebitur ex empto, quia dolum eum praestare debere ostendimus.

I reckon Julian’s opinion to be most true also in matters of pledges: for if one has sold by the right of the creditor, and then these things are evicted, the creditor is not liable, not even to restore the price by the action ex empto; for this has been brought about by many constitutions. Plainly, the seller will be answerable for dolus, indeed he even re-promises concerning fraud; but even if he has not re-promised, yet if, knowing that the thing was not obligated to him or that it did not belong to the one who obligated it to him, he has sold, he will be liable under the action ex empto, because we have shown that he ought to answer for dolus.

Dig. 19.1.11.17

Digest 19.1.11.17

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Si quis rem vendiderit et ei accessurum quid dixerit, omnia quidem, quae diximus in re distracta, in hoc quoque sequenda sint, ut tamen evictionis nomine non in duplum teneatur, sed in hoc tantum obligetur, ut emptori habere liceat, et non solum per se, sed per omnes.

If anyone has sold a thing and has said that something will accede to it, all indeed that we have said concerning an alienated thing is to be followed here as well, provided, however, that under the heading of eviction he is not held for double, but is obligated only to this: that it be permitted to the buyer to have it, and that not only by himself, but against all.

Dig. 19.1.11.18

Digest 19.1.11.18

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Qui autem habere licere vendidit, videamus quid debeat praestare. et multum interesse arbitror, utrum hoc polliceatur per se venientesque a se personas non fieri, quo minus habere liceat, an vero per omnes. nam si per se, non videtur id praestare, ne alius evincat: proinde si evicta res erit, sive stipulatio interposita est, ex stipulatu non tenebitur, sive non est interposita, ex empto non tenebitur.

But as for one who has sold that it is permitted to have, let us see what he ought to furnish. and I think it makes much difference whether he promises this on his own account and that persons coming from himself will not do anything to make it less permitted to have, or rather on account of all (persons). for if only on his own account, he does not seem to guarantee this, that another will not evict; accordingly, if the thing is evicted, whether a stipulatio has been interposed, he will not be held ex stipulatu; or if it has not been interposed, he will not be held ex empto.

sed iulianus libro quinto decimo digestorum scribit, etiamsi aperte venditor pronuntiet per se heredemque suum non fieri, quo minus habere liceat, posse defendi ex empto eum in hoc quidem non teneri, quod emptoris interest, verum tamen ut pretium reddat teneri. ibidem ait idem esse dicendum et si aperte in venditione comprehendatur nihil evictionis nomine praestatum iri: pretium quidem deberi re evicta, utilitatem non deberi: neque enim bonae fidei contractus hac patitur convenitone, ut emptor rem amitteret et pretium venditor retineret. nisi forte, inquit, sic quis omnes istas supra scriptas conventiones recipiet, quemadmodum recipitur, ut venditor nummos accipiat, quamvis merx ad emptorem non pertineat, veluti cum futurum iactum retis a piscatore emimus aut indaginem plagis positis a venatore, vel pantheram ab aucupe: nam etiamsi nihil capit, nihilo minus emptor pretium praestare necesse habebit: sed in supra scriptis conventionibus contra erit dicendum.

but Julianus in book fifteen of the Digests writes that, even if the seller openly proclaims that through himself and his heir nothing will be done to prevent the buyer’s having, it can be defended that under the action on purchase he is not liable as to the buyer’s interest, yet is liable to return the price. in the same place he says the same must be said even if it is expressly included in the sale that nothing will be provided under the name of eviction: the price indeed is owed if the thing is evicted, the utility is not owed; for a contract of good faith does not allow an agreement of this sort, that the buyer should lose the thing and the seller retain the price. unless perhaps, he says, someone will thus take all those above-written agreements, in the same way as it is accepted that the seller may receive the coins although the merchandise does not pertain to the buyer, as when we buy the future cast of a net from a fisherman, or a game-drive with snares set from a hunter, or a panther from a fowler: for even if he catches nothing, nevertheless the buyer will have to render the price; but in the above-written agreements the contrary must be said.

nisi forte sciens alienum vendit: tunc enim secundum supra a nobis relatam iuliani sententiam dicendum est ex empto eum teneri, quia dolo facit.

unless perhaps he knowingly sells another’s property: then indeed, according to Julian’s opinion reported above by us, it must be said that he is liable under the purchase (ex empto), because he acts fraudulently.

Dig. 19.1.12

Digest 19.1.12

Celsus 27 Dig.

Celsus 27 Digest.

Si iactum retis emero et iactare retem piscator noluit, incertum eius rei aestimandum est: si quod extraxit piscium reddere mihi noluit, id aestimari debet quod extraxit.

If I buy the cast of a net and the fisherman was unwilling to cast the net, the uncertain value of that matter must be appraised: if he was unwilling to hand over to me the fish that he hauled up, what he hauled up ought to be appraised.

Dig. 19.1.13pr.

Digest 19.1.13 pr.

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Iulianus libro quinto decimo inter eum, qui sciens quid aut ignorans vendidit, differentiam facit in condemnatione ex empto: ait enim, qui pecus morbosum aut tignum vitiosum vendidit, si quidem ignorans fecit, id tantum ex empto actione praestaturum, quanto minoris essem empturus, si id ita esse scissem: si vero sciens reticuit et emptorem decepit, omnia detrimenta, quae ex ea emptione emptor traxerit, praestaturum ei: sive igitur aedes vitio tigni corruerunt, aedium aestimationem, sive pecora contagione morbosi pecoris perierunt, quod interfuit idonea venisse erit praestandum.

Julianus in the fifteenth book makes a distinction, in the condemnation under the action ex empto, between one who sold knowing what the thing was and one who sold not knowing: for he says that the man who sold diseased livestock or a defective beam, if indeed he did it not knowing, will by the action ex empto have to make good just so much as I would have been going to buy it for less if I had known it to be so; but if, knowing, he kept silence and deceived the buyer, he will make good to him all the detriments which the buyer has drawn from that purchase: accordingly, if a house collapsed by the vice of a beam, the valuation of the house must be paid; if cattle perished by contagion from the diseased cattle, there must be made good what it was to his interest that sound ones should have come.

Dig. 19.1.13.1

Digest 19.1.13.1

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Item qui furem vendidit aut fugitivum, si quidem sciens, praestare debebit, quanti emptoris interfuit non decipi: si vero ignorans vendiderit, circa fugitivum quidem tenetur, quanti minoris empturus esset, si eum esse fugitivum scisset, circa furem non tenetur: differentiae ratio est, quod fugitivum quidem habere non licet et quasi evictionis nomine tenetur venditor, furem autem habere possumus.

Likewise, he who has sold a thief or a runaway (slave): if indeed knowingly, he must make good as much as it was in the purchaser’s interest not to be deceived; but if he sold in ignorance, then, as to the runaway, he is liable for as much less as the buyer would have purchased him for, if he had known him to be a runaway; as to the thief, he is not liable. The rationale of the difference is that it is not permitted to have a runaway, and the vendor is held, as it were, under the name of eviction, whereas we may have a thief.

Dig. 19.1.13.2

Digest 19.1.13.2

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the edict.

Quod autem diximus " quanti emptoris interfuit non decipi", multa continet, et si alios secum sollicitavit ut fugerent, vel res quasdam abstulit.

But as to what we have said, "the amount of the buyer’s interest in not being deceived," it contains many things, even if he incited others along with him to flee, or abstracted certain things.

Dig. 19.1.13.3

Digest 19.1.13.3

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the edict.

Quid tamen si ignoravit quidem furem esse, adseveravit autem bonae frugi et fidum et caro vendidit? videamus, an ex empto teneatur. et putem teneri.

What, however, if he indeed was unaware that he was a thief, but asserted that he was of good character and trustworthy, and sold him for a high price? Let us see whether he is liable on the purchase. And I think he is liable.

atqui ignoravit: sed non debuit facile quae ignorabat adseverare. inter hunc igitur et qui scit praemonere debuit furem esse, hic non debuit facilis esse ad temerariam indicationem.

And yet he was ignorant: but he ought not to have readily asserted what he did not know. Between this man, then, and the one who knows, the latter ought to have forewarned that he was a thief; this man ought not to have been ready for a rash accusation.

Dig. 19.1.13.4

Digest 19.1.13.4

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Si venditor dolo fecerit, ut rem pluris venderet, puta de artificio mentitus est aut de peculio, empti eum iudicio teneri, ut praestaret emptori, quanto pluris servum emisset, si ita peculiatus esset vel eo artificio instructus.

If the seller has acted by fraud so as to sell the thing for a higher price—for instance, he lied about the craft or about the peculium—he is held by the action on purchase (empti) to make good to the buyer the amount by which he bought the slave for more, on the supposition that the slave had in fact been so endowed with a peculium or equipped with that craft.

Dig. 19.1.13.5

Digest 19.1.13.5

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the edict.

Per contrarium quoque idem iulianus scribit, cum terentius victor decessisset relicto herede fratre suo et res quasdam ex hereditate et instrumenta et mancipia bellicus quidam subtraxisset, quibus subtractis facile, quasi minimo valeret hereditas, ut sibi ea venderetur persuasit: an venditi iudicio teneri possit? et ait iulianus competere actionem ex vendito in tantum, quanto pluris hereditas valeret, si hae res subtractae non fuissent.

By the contrary, the same Julian also writes: when Terentius Victor had deceased, his brother having been left as heir, and a certain Bellicus had removed certain things from the inheritance—equipment and slaves—, with these removed he easily persuaded that, as though the inheritance were worth very little, it be sold to himself. Whether he can be held by the action on the sale (iudicium venditi)? And Julian says that an action ex vendito is available to this extent: by however much more the inheritance would have been worth, if these things had not been removed.

Dig. 19.1.13.6

Digest 19.1.13.6

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the edict.

Idem iulianus dolum solere a venditore praestari etiam in huiusmodi specie ostendit: si, cum venditor sciret fundum pluribus municipiis legata debere, in tabula quidem conscripserit uni municipio deberi, verum postea legem consignaverit, si qua tributorum aut vectigalis indictionisve quid nomine aut ad viae collationem praestare oportet, id emptorem dare facere praestareque oportere, ex empto eum teneri, quasi decepisset emptorem: quae sententia vera est.

The same Julian shows that fraud is regularly to be answered for by the seller even in a case of this sort: if, when the seller knew that the estate owed legacies to several municipalities, he nevertheless wrote in the tablet that it was owed to one municipality, but afterward recorded a clause that, if anything must be furnished under the name of tributes or vectigal or indiction, or for the contribution to a road, the buyer ought to give, do, and provide it—then he is liable on the action ex empto, as if he had deceived the buyer: which opinion is true.

Dig. 19.1.13.7

Digest 19.1.13.7

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Sed cum in facto proponeretur tutores hoc idem fecisse, qui rem pupillarem vendebant, quaestionis esse ait, an tutorum dolum pupillus praestare debeat. et si quidem ipsi tutores vendiderunt, ex empto eos teneri nequaquam dubium est: sed si pupillus auctoribus eis vendidit, in tantum tenetur, in quantum locupletior ex eo factus est, tutoribus in residuum perpetuo condemnandis, quia nec transfertur in pupillum post pubertatem hoc, quod dolo tutorum factum est.

But when on the facts it was alleged that the tutors had done this same thing, who were selling the pupil’s property, he says it is a matter for question whether the pupil ought to make good the tutors’ fraud. And if indeed the tutors themselves sold, there is by no means any doubt that they are liable under the action on purchase; but if the pupil sold with them as his auctors (giving their authority), he is liable only to the extent that he was made wealthier thereby, the tutors being condemned for the remainder perpetually, since that which was done through the tutors’ fraud is not transferred onto the pupil after puberty.

Dig. 19.1.13.8

Digest 19.1.13.8

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Offerri pretium ab emptore debet, cum ex empto agitur, et ideo etsi pretii partem offerat, nondum est ex empto actio: venditor enim quasi pignus retinere potest eam rem quam vendidit.

The price ought to be offered by the buyer when there is proceeding ex empto, and therefore even if he offers part of the price, there is not yet an action ex empto: for the vendor can retain, as it were as a pledge, the thing which he has sold.

Dig. 19.1.13.9

Digest 19.1.13.9

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Unde quaeritur, si pars sit pretii soluta et res tradita postea evicta sit, utrum eius rei consequetur pretium integrum ex empto agens an vero quod numeravit? et puto magis id quod numeravit propter doli exceptionem.

Whence the question is raised: if a part of the price has been paid and the thing, after being delivered, is later evicted, whether, suing on the purchase (by the action ex empto), he will recover the full price for that thing, or rather only what he counted out? And I think rather that it is what he counted out, by reason of the defense of fraud.

Dig. 19.1.13.10

Digest. 19.1.13.10

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Si fructibus iam maturis ager distractus sit, etiam fructus emptori cedere, nisi aliud convenit, exploratum est.

If a field has been sold when the fruits are already ripe, the fruits also pass to the buyer, unless otherwise agreed; this is settled.

Dig. 19.1.13.11

Digest 19.1.13.11

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 32 on the Edict.

Si in locatis ager fuit, pensiones utique ei cedent qui locaverat: idem et in praediis urbanis, nisi si quid nominatim convenisse proponatur.

If a field was among the things leased, the rent payments will of course accrue to the one who leased it out: the same in urban properties, unless it is alleged that something was expressly agreed.

Dig. 19.1.13.12

Digest 19.1.13.12

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the edict.

Sed et si quid praeterea rei venditae nocitum est, actio emptori praestanda est, damni forte infecti vel aquae pluviae arcendae vel aquiliae vel interdicti quod vi aut clam.

But also, if anything further has harmed the thing sold, an action is to be afforded to the buyer—perhaps the action for damnum infectum, or for warding off rainwater (aquae pluviae arcendae), or the Aquilian action, or the interdict quod vi aut clam.

Dig. 19.1.13.13

Digest 19.1.13.13

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Item si quid ex operis servorum vel vecturis iumentorum vel navium quaesitum est, emptori praestabitur, et si quid peculio eorum accessit, non tamen si quid ex re venditoris.

Likewise, if anything has been earned from the work of the slaves or from the carriage-freight of beasts of burden or of ships, it shall be rendered to the buyer, and if anything has accrued to their peculium, not, however, if anything is from the seller’s property.

Dig. 19.1.13.14

Digest 19.1.13.14

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian Book 32 on the edict.

Si titius fundum, in quo nonaginta iugera erant, vendiderit et in lege emptionis dictum est in fundo centum esse iugera et antequam modus manifestetur, decem iugera alluvione adcreverint, placet mihi neratii sententia existimantis, ut, si quidem sciens vendidit, ex empto actio competat adversus eum, quamvis decem iugera adcreverint, quia dolo fecit nec dolus purgatur: si vero ignorans vendidit, ex empto actionem non competere.

If titius sold an estate in which there were ninety iugera, and in the term of the purchase it was said that there were one hundred iugera on the estate, and before the measurement was made manifest ten iugera had accrued by alluvion, the opinion of neratius commends itself to me, who considers this: that, if indeed he sold knowingly, an action ex empto lies against him, although ten iugera have accrued, because he acted with dolus (fraud) and dolus is not purged; but if he sold in ignorance, an action ex empto does not lie.

Dig. 19.1.13.15

Digest 19.1.13.15

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Si fundum mihi alienum vendideris et hic ex causa lucrativa meus factus sit, nihilo minus ex empto mihi adversus te actio competit.

If you were to sell me an estate belonging to another, and this has become mine from a lucrative cause, nonetheless an action from purchase accrues to me against you.

Dig. 19.1.13.16

Digest 19.1.13.16

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

In his autem, quae cum re empta praestari solent, non solum dolum, sed et culpam praestandam arbitror: nam et celsus libro octavo digestorum scripsit, cum convenit, ut venditor praeteritam mercedem exigat et emptori praestet, non solum dolum, sed et culpam eum praestare debere.

But in those matters which are accustomed to be warranted along with the purchased thing, I judge that not only deceit but also fault must be made good; for Celsus too wrote in book 8 of the Digest that, when it is agreed that the seller is to exact rent in arrears and make it over to the buyer, he must answer not only for deceit but also for fault.

Dig. 19.1.13.17

Digest 19.1.13.17

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Idem celsus libro eodem scribit: fundi, quem cum titio communem habebas, partem tuam vendidisti et antequam traderes, coactus es communi dividundo iudicium accipere. si socio fundus sit adiudicatus, quantum ob eam rem a titio consecutus es, id tantum emptori praestabis. quod si tibi fundus totus adiudicatus est, totum, inquit, eum emptori trades, sed ita, ut ille solvat, quod ob eam rem titio condemnatus es. sed ob eam quidem partem, quam vendidisti, pro evictione cavere debes, ob alteram autem tantum de dolo malo repromittere: aequum est enim eandem esse condicionem emptoris, quae futura esset, si cum ipso actum esset communi dividundo.

The same Celsus writes in the same book: you sold your share of a farm which you held in common with Titius, and before you delivered it you were compelled to submit to an action for division of common property. If the farm was adjudicated to your partner, you will make good to the buyer just as much as you have obtained from Titius on that account. But if the whole farm has been adjudicated to you, you will, he says, deliver it all to the buyer, but on the condition that he pays what, on that account, you have been condemned to pay to Titius. Yet for that part which you sold you must warrant for eviction, whereas for the other part you need only promise against bad faith; for it is equitable that the buyer’s condition be the same as it would be if the action for division of common property had been conducted with him himself.

sed si certis regionibus fundum inter te et titium iudex divisit, sine dubio partem, quae adiudicata est, emptori tradere debes.

but if the judge divided the estate between you and Titius by definite regions, without doubt you must deliver to the buyer the part that has been adjudicated.

Dig. 19.1.13.18

Digest 19.1.13.18

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 On the Edict.

Si quid servo distracto venditor donavit ante traditionem, hoc quoque restitui debet: hereditates quoque per servum adquisitae et legata omnia, nec distinguendum, cuius respectu ista sint relicta. item quod ex operis servus praestitit venditori, emptori restituendum est, nisi ideo dies traditionis ex pacto prorogatus est, ut ad venditorem operae pertinerent.

If, with the slave having been sold, the vendor donated anything to him before delivery, this too must be restored: likewise inheritances acquired through the slave and all legacies, and no distinction is to be made as to with reference to whom these were left. Likewise, what from his services the slave rendered to the vendor must be restored to the purchaser, unless for this reason the day of delivery was by pact prorogated, so that the services might pertain to the vendor.

Dig. 19.1.13.19

Digest 19.1.13.19

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Ex vendito actio venditori competit ad ea consequenda, quae ei ab emptore praestari oportet.

The action from sale belongs to the seller for obtaining those things which ought to be rendered to him by the buyer.

Dig. 19.1.13.20

Digest 19.1.13.20

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Veniunt autem in hoc iudicium infra scripta. in primis pretium, quanti res venit. item usurae pretii post diem traditionis: nam cum re emptor fruatur, aequissimum est eum usuras pretii pendere.

They come, moreover, into this judgment the things written below. in the first place, the price, for how much the thing was sold. likewise the interest of the price after the day of delivery: for since the buyer enjoys the thing, it is most equitable that he pay the interest of the price.

Dig. 19.1.13.21

Digest 19.1.13.21

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian book 32 on the Edict.

Possessionem autem traditam accipere debemus et si precaria sit possessio: hoc enim solum spectare debemus, an habeat facultatem fructus percipiendi.

But we ought to accept possession as delivered even if the possession is precarious: for this alone we ought to look to, whether he has the faculty of taking the fruits.

Dig. 19.1.13.22

Digest 19.1.13.22

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the edict.

Praeterea ex vendito agendo consequetur etiam sumptus, qui facti sunt in re distracta, ut puta si quid in aedificia distracta erogatum est: scribit enim labeo et trebatius esse ex vendito hoc nomine actionem. idem et si in aegri servi curationem impensum est ante traditionem aut si quid in disciplinas, quas verisimile erat etiam emptorem velle impendi. hoc amplius labeo ait et si quid in funus mortui servi impensum sit, ex vendito consequi oportere, si modo sine culpa venditoris mortem obierit.

Moreover, by bringing the ex vendito action he will also obtain the expenses that were incurred upon the thing sold, as, for instance, if anything was disbursed on the buildings that were sold: for Labeo and Trebatius write that there is an action ex vendito under this head. The same holds if expenditure was made on the cure of a sick slave before delivery, or if anything was spent on disciplines (training), which it was likely that the buyer too would wish to be expended. Further, Labeo says that if anything was expended on the funeral of a slave who has died, it ought to be recovered ex vendito, provided only that he met his death without the seller’s fault.

Dig. 19.1.13.23

Digest 19.1.13.23

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Item si convenerit, cum res veniret, ut locuples ab emptore reus detur, ex vendito agi posse, ut id fiat.

Likewise, if it was agreed, when the thing came up for sale, that a solvent surety be furnished by the buyer, it is possible to sue ex vendito so that this be done.

Dig. 19.1.13.24

Digest 19.1.13.24

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict

Si inter emptorem praediorum et venditorem convenisset, ut, si ea praedia emptor heresve eius pluris vendidisset, eius partem dimidiam venditori praestaret et heres emptoris pluris ea praedia vendidisset, venditorem ex vendito agendo partem eius, quo pluris vendidisset, consecuturum.

If it had been agreed between the purchaser of the estates and the vendor that, if the purchaser or his heir sold those estates for a higher price, he should render to the vendor a half share of it; then, if the purchaser’s heir sold those estates for more, the vendor, by suing ex vendito, would obtain a share of that amount by which they were sold for more.

Dig. 19.1.13.25

Digest 19.1.13.25

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Si procurator vendiderit et caverit emptori, quaeritur, an domino vel adversus dominum actio dari debeat. et papinianus libro tertio responsorum putat cum domino ex empto agi posse utili actione ad exemplum institoriae actionis, si modo rem vendendam mandavit: ergo et per contrarium dicendum est utilem ex empto actionem domino competere.

If a procurator has sold and has given security to the purchaser, the question arises whether an action ought to be granted to the owner or against the owner. And Papinian, in the third book of the Responsa, thinks that it is possible to proceed against the owner on purchase by a useful action, on the model of the institorial action, provided only that he had mandated the thing to be sold: therefore, conversely, it must also be said that a useful action on purchase belongs to the owner.

Dig. 19.1.13.26

Digest 19.1.13.26

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the edict.

Ibidem papinianus respondisse se refert, si convenerit, ut ad diem pretio non soluto venditori duplum praestaretur, in fraudem constitutionum videri adiectum, quod usuram legitimam excedit: diversamque causam commissoriae esse ait, cum ea specie, inquit, non faenus illicitum contrahatur, sed lex contractui non improbata dicatur.

In the same place Papinian relates that he himself answered that, if it has been agreed that, on the due date, the price not being paid, double should be rendered to the seller, what has been added appears to be in fraud of the constitutions, because it exceeds lawful interest; and he says that the case of a commissory clause is different, since by that form, he says, no illicit usury is contracted, but a term not disapproved is said to be attached to the contract.

Dig. 19.1.13.27

Digest 19.1.13.27

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the edict.

Si quis colludente procuratore meo ab eo emerit, an possit agere ex empto? et puto hactenus, ut aut stetur emptioni aut discedatur.

If someone, my procurator colluding, has bought from him, can he bring an action on the purchase? And I think only to this extent: that either one stands by the purchase or withdraws.

Dig. 19.1.13.28

Digest 19.1.13.28

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the edict.

Sed et si quis minorem viginti quinque annis circumvenerit, et huic hactenus dabimus actionem ex empto, ut diximus in superiore casu.

But also, if anyone has circumvented one under twenty-five years, we will grant to him, thus far, an action ex empto, as we said in the preceding case.

Dig. 19.1.13.29

Digest 19.1.13.29

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the edict.

Si quis a pupillo sine tutoris auctoritate emerit, ex uno latere constat contractus: nam qui emit, obligatus est pupillo, pupillum sibi non obligat.

If anyone has bought from a pupil without the tutor’s authority, the contract stands from one side: for he who buys is bound to the pupil; he does not bind the pupil to himself.

Dig. 19.1.13.30

Digest 19.1.13.30

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Si venditor habitationem exceperit, ut inquilino liceat habitare, vel colono ut perfrui liceat ad certum tempus, magis esse servius putabat ex vendito esse actionem: denique tubero ait, si iste colonus damnum dederit, emptorem ex empto agentem cogere posse venditorem, ut ex locato cum colono experiatur, ut quidquid fuerit consecutus, emptori reddat.

If the seller has excepted a right of habitation, so that it may be permitted to the inquiline (tenant) to dwell, or to the colonus to enjoy it for a fixed time, servius thought rather that the action lies ex vendito: and, indeed, tubero says that, if this colonus has caused damage, the buyer, proceeding ex empto, can compel the seller to proceed ex locato against the colonus, so that whatever he has recovered he shall pay back to the buyer.

Dig. 19.1.13.31

Digest 19.1.13.31

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Aedibus distractis vel legatis ea esse aedium solemus dicere, quae quasi pars aedium vel propter aedes habentur, ut puta putealia.

We are accustomed to say that, when houses are sold or bequeathed, those things belong to the house which are regarded as, so to speak, a part of the house or are held on account of the house, for instance well-curbs.

Dig. 19.1.14

Digest 19.1.14

Pomponius 31 ad q. muc.

Pomponius 31 on q. muc.

( id est quo puteum operitur),

( that is, by which a well is covered),

Dig. 19.1.15

Digest 19.1.15

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the edict.

Lines et labra, salientes. fistulae quoque, quae salientibus iunguntur, quamvis longe excurrant extra aedificium, aedium sunt: item canales: pisces autem qui sunt in piscina non sunt aedium nec fundi,

Lines and basins, the spouting fountains. The fistulae (pipes) too, which are joined to the spouting fountains, although they run far out beyond the building, are of the house: likewise the canales (canals): but the fishes that are in the piscina are not of the house nor of the estate,

Dig. 19.1.16

Digest 19.1.16

Pomponius 31 ad q. muc.

Pomponius 31 on Q. Mucius.

Non magis quam pulli aut cetera animalia, quae in fundo sunt.

No more than pullets or the other animals which are on the farm.

Dig. 19.1.17pr.

Digest 19.1.17, beginning.

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Fundi nihil est, nisi quod terra se tenet: aedium autem multa esse, quae aedibus adfixa non sunt, ignorari non oportet, ut puta seras claves claustra: multa etiam defossa esse neque tamen fundi aut villae haberi, ut puta vasa vinaria torcularia, quoniam haec instrumenti magis sunt, etiamsi aedificio cohaerent.

Nothing belongs to the estate except what is held by the land itself: but it must not be ignored that many things pertain to a house which are not affixed to the house, for instance bolts, keys, bars; many things also are buried and yet are not considered to belong to the estate or the villa, for example wine-vessels and presses, since these are rather instruments/equipment, even if they cohere with the edifice.

Dig. 19.1.17.1

Digest 19.1.17.1

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Sed et vinum et fructus perceptos villae non esse constat.

But it is established that both the wine and the fruits, once collected, are not of the villa.

Dig. 19.1.17.2

Digest 19.1.17.2

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Fundo vendito vel legato sterculinum et stramenta emptoris et legatarii sunt, ligna autem venditoris vel heredis, quia non sunt fundi, tametsi ad eam rem comparata sunt. in sterculino autem distinctio trebatii probanda est, ut, si quidem stercorandi agri causa comparatum sit, emptorem sequatur. si vendendi, venditorem, nisi si aliud actum est: nec interest, in stabulo iaceat an acervus sit.

When a farm has been sold or bequeathed, the dung-heap and the straw are the purchaser’s and the legatee’s, but the wood is the seller’s or the heir’s, because they are not part of the farm, although they were procured for that purpose. But in regard to the dung-heap, the distinction of Trebatius is to be approved: namely, if it has been acquired for the purpose of manuring the field, it follows the purchaser; if for selling, the seller, unless something else has been agreed: nor does it matter whether it lies in a stable or is a heap.

Dig. 19.1.17.3

Digest 19.1.17.3

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Quae tabulae pictae pro tectorio includuntur itemque crustae marmoreae aedium sunt.

Painted panels which are set in as a wall-plastering, and likewise marble veneers, belong to the house.

Dig. 19.1.17.4

Digest 19.1.17.4

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Reticuli circa columnas, plutei circa parietes, item cilicia vela aedium non sunt.

Nettings around columns, screens around walls, likewise Cilician-cloths, are not the awnings of buildings.

Dig. 19.1.17.5

Digest 19.1.17.5

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the edict.

Item quod insulae causa paratum est, si nondum perfectum est, quamvis positum in aedificio sit, non tamen videtur aedium esse.

Likewise, what has been prepared for the sake of the tenement, if it is not yet perfected, although it has been set in the edifice, is nevertheless not considered to belong to the house.

Dig. 19.1.17.6

Digest 19.1.17.6

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Si ruta et caesa excipiantur in venditione, ea placuit esse ruta, quae eruta sunt, ut harena creta et similia: caesa ea esse, ut arbores caesas et carbones et his similia. gallus autem aquilius, cuius mela refert opinionem, recte ait frustra in lege venditionis de rutis et caesis contineri, quia, si non specialiter venierunt, ad exhibendum de his agi potest neque enim magis de materia caesa aut de caementis aut de harena cavendum est venditori quam de ceteris quae sunt pretiosiora.

If “dug and cut” are excepted in a sale, it has been decided that “dug” are those things which have been dug up, such as sand, chalk, and the like; “cut” are such things as felled trees, charcoal, and the like. But Gallus Aquilius, whose opinion Mela reports, rightly says it is pointless for the law (terms) of the sale to contain a provision about the dug and the cut, because, if they were not sold specifically, one can proceed by the action ad exhibendum concerning them; for the seller ought not to be more on his guard about cut timber or rubble-stones or sand than about other things which are more precious.

Dig. 19.1.17.7

Digest 19.1.17.7

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Labeo generaliter scribit ea, quae perpetui usus causa in aedificiis sunt, aedificii esse, quae vero ad praesens, non esse aedificii, ut puta fistulae temporis quidem causa positae non sunt aedium, verum tamen si perpetuo fuerint positae, aedium sunt.

Labeo generally writes that those things which are for the sake of perpetual use in buildings belong to the building, but those which are for the present do not belong to the building; as, for instance, pipes placed for a temporary purpose are not of the house, yet nevertheless if they have been placed permanently, they are of the house.

Dig. 19.1.17.8

Digest 19.1.17.8

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Castella plumbea, putea, opercula puteorum, epitonia fistulis adplumbata ( aut quae terra continentur, quamvis non sint adfixa) aedium esse constat.

Leaden cisterns, wells, well-covers, stopcocks lead-soldered to pipes (or those which are contained by the earth, although they are not affixed) are established to belong to the house.

Dig. 19.1.17.9

Digest 19.1.17.9

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Item constat sigilla, columnas quoque et personas, ex quorum rostris aqua salire solet, villae esse.

Likewise it is established that statuettes, and also columns and personae, from whose beaks the water is wont to spring, belong to the villa.

Dig. 19.1.17.10

Digest 19.1.17.10

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Ea, quae ex aedificio detracta sunt ut reponantur, aedificii sunt: at quae parata sunt ut imponantur, non sunt aedificii.

Those things which have been taken from the edifice so that they may be replaced are of the edifice; but those which are prepared to be set upon it are not of the edifice.

Dig. 19.1.17.11

Digest 19.1.17.11

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Pali, qui vineae causa parati sunt, antequam collocentur, fundi non sunt, sed qui exempti sunt hac mente ut collocentur, fundi sunt.

Stakes, which have been prepared for the sake of a vineyard, before they are set in place, are not of the estate; but those which have been set apart with this intention, that they be set in place, are of the estate.

Dig. 19.1.18pr.

Digest 19.1.18 pr.

Iavolenus 7 ex cass.

Iavolenus 7 from Cassius.

Granaria, quae ex tabulis fieri solent, ita aedium sunt, si stipites eorum in terra defossi sunt: quod si supra terram sunt, rutis et caesis cedunt.

Granaries, which are wont to be made out of boards, are part of the building if their posts are sunk in the ground; but if they are above ground, they are treated as things dug up and cut down (rubble and felled timber).

Dig. 19.1.18.1

Digest 19.1.18.1

Iavolenus 7 ex cass.

Iavolenus 7 from Cassius.

Tegulae, quae nondum aedificiis impositae sunt, quamvis tegendi gratia allatae sunt, in rutis et caesis habentur: aliud iuris est in his, quae detractae sunt ut reponerentur: aedibus enim accedunt.

Tiles which have not yet been set upon buildings, although they were brought for the sake of roofing, are regarded among things uprooted and cut; the law is different as to those which have been taken off to be replaced: for they accede to the house.

Dig. 19.1.19

Digest 19.1.19

Gaius ad ed. pu. de publicanis.

Gaius on the edict of the urban praetor, concerning the publicans.

Veteres in emptione venditioneque appellationibus promiscue utebantur.

The ancients used appellations promiscuously in purchase and sale.

Dig. 19.1.20

Digest 19.1.20

Gaius 21 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 21 on the provincial edict.

Idem est et in locatione et conductione.

It is the same both in letting and in hiring.

Dig. 19.1.21pr.

Digest 19.1.21, preface.

Paulus 33 ad ed.

Paulus 33 on the edict.

Si sterilis ancilla sit, cuius partus venit, vel maior annis quinquaginta, cum id emptor ignoraverit, ex empto tenetur venditor.

If the handmaid be sterile, whose offspring was included in the sale, or if she is older than fifty years, when the purchaser was unaware of this, the vendor is liable under the purchase.

Dig. 19.1.21.1

Digest 19.1.21.1

Paulus 33 ad ed.

Paulus 33 on the edict.

Si praedii venditor non dicat de tributo sciens, tenetur ex empto: quod si ignorans non praedixerit, quod forte hereditarium praedium erat, non tenetur.

If the seller of the estate, knowing, does not mention the tribute (tax), he is liable under the action on purchase: but if, being ignorant, he did not give prior notice—because perhaps the estate was hereditary—he is not liable.

Dig. 19.1.21.2

Digest 19.1.21.2

Paulus 33 ad ed.

Paulus 33 on the Edict.

Quamvis supra diximus, cum in corpore consentiamus, de qualitate autem dissentiamus, emptionem esse, tamen venditor teneri debet, quanti interest non esse deceptum, etsi venditor quoque nesciet: veluti si mensas quasi citreas emat, quae non sunt.

Although we have said above that, when we agree as to the corpus but disagree as to the quality, there is a purchase, nevertheless the seller ought to be held liable to the amount of the interest in not being deceived, even if the seller also did not know: for example, if one buys tables as if of citrus-wood, which they are not.

Dig. 19.1.21.3

Digest 19.1.21.3

Paulus 33 ad ed.

Paul Book 33 on the Edict.

Cum per venditorem steterit, quo minus rem tradat, omnis utilitas emptoris in aestimationem venit, quae modo circa ipsam rem consistit: neque enim si potuit ex vino puta negotiari et lucrum facere, id aestimandum est, non magis quam si triticum emerit et ob eam rem, quod non sit traditum, familia eius fame laboraverit: nam pretium tritici, non servorum fame necatorum consequitur. nec maior fit obligatio, quod tardius agitur, quamvis crescat, si vinum hodie pluris sit, merito, quia sive datum esset, haberem emptor, sive non, quoniam saltem hodie dandum est quod iam olim dari oportuit.

When it is through the seller that he does not deliver the thing, all the utility of the buyer comes into estimation, provided only that it consists about the thing itself: for neither, if he could, for example, have negotiated in the wine and made lucre, is that to be assessed, any more than if he bought wheat and, for that reason, because it was not delivered, his family suffered hunger: for he recovers the price of the wheat, not the loss of slaves killed by famine. Nor is the obligation made greater because suit is brought later, although it rises, if the wine is worth more today, rightly so, because whether it had been given, the buyer would have it, or if it has not, at least today there must be given what ought long ago to have been given.

Dig. 19.1.21.4

Digest 19.1.21.4

Paulus 33 ad ed.

Paulus 33 on the Edict.

Si tibi fundum vendidero, ut eum conductum certa summa haberem, ex vendito eo nomine mihi actio est, quasi in partem pretii ea res sit.

If I should sell you an estate, so that I might have it as leased for a fixed sum, I have an action from the sale on that account, as though that matter were part of the price.

Dig. 19.1.21.5

Digest 19.1.21.5

Paulus 33 ad ed.

Paulus 33 on the Edict.

Sed et si ita fundum tibi vendidero, ut nulli alii eum quam mihi venderes, actio eo nomine ex vendito est, si alii vendideris.

But also, if I have sold you an estate on the condition that you sell it to no one other than me, an action ex vendito lies on that account, if you have sold it to someone else.

Dig. 19.1.21.6

Digest 19.1.21.6

Paulus 33 ad ed.

Paulus 33 on the edict.

Qui domum vendebat, excepit sibi habitationem, donec viveret, aut in singulos annos decem: emptor primo anno maluit decem praestare, secundo anno habitationem praestare. trebatius ait mutandae voluntatis potestatem eum habere singulisque annis alterutrum praestare posse et quamdiu paratus sit alterutrum praestare, petitionem non esse.

He who was selling a house reserved to himself habitation, for as long as he should live, or ten in each several year: the buyer in the first year preferred to provide ten, in the second year to provide habitation. trebatius says that he has the power of changing his will and can each year provide either one, and that so long as he is prepared to provide either one, there is no claim.

Dig. 19.1.22

Digest 19.1.22

Iulianus 7 Dig.

Julianus 7 Digest.

Si in qualitate fundi venditor mentitus sit, non in modo eius, tamen tenetur emptori: pone enim dixisse eum quinquaginta iugera esse vineae et quinquaginta prati et in prato plus inveniri, esse tamen omnia centum iugera.

If, in regard to the quality of the estate, the seller has lied, not in regard to its measure, nevertheless he is liable to the buyer: for suppose he said that there were fifty iugera of vineyard and fifty of meadow, and that in the meadow more is found, yet that all are one hundred iugera.

Dig. 19.1.23

Digest 19.1.23

Iulianus 13 Dig.

Julianus 13 Digest.

Si quis servum, quem cum peculio vendiderat, manumiserit, non solum peculii nomine, quod servus habuit tempore quo manumittebatur, sed et eorum, quae postea adquirit, tenetur et praeterea cavere debet, quidquid ex hereditate liberti ad eum pervenerit, restitutu iri. Marcellus notat: illa praestare venditor ex empto debet, quae haberet emptor, si homo manumissus non esset: non continebuntur igitur, quae, si manumissus non fuit, adquisiturus non esset.

If someone manumits a slave whom he had sold together with his peculium, he is liable not only for the peculium which the slave had at the time when he was being manumitted, but also for those things which he thereafter acquires; and moreover he ought to give security that whatever from the inheritance of the freedman comes to him is to be restored. Marcellus notes: the seller must provide under the action on purchase (ex empto) those things which the buyer would have had if the man had not been manumitted; therefore there will not be included those things which, if he had not been manumitted, he would not have been going to acquire.

Dig. 19.1.24pr.

Digest 19.1.24pr.

Iulianus 15 Dig.

Julian 15 Dig.

Si servus, in quo usus fructus tuus erat, fundum emerit et antequam pecunia numeraretur, capite minutus fueris, quamvis pretium solveris, actionem ex empto non habebis propter talem capitis deminutionem, sed indebiti actionem adversus venditorem habebis. ante capitis autem minutionem nihil interest, tu solvas an servus ex eo peculio quod ad te pertinet: nam utroque casu actionem ex empto habebis.

If a slave, in whom your usufruct was, should buy a farm, and before the money was counted out you suffered capitis deminution, although you have paid the price, you will not have the action ex empto on account of such capitis deminution, but you will have an action for the not‑owed (indebiti) against the seller. But before the capitis deminution it makes no difference whether you pay, or the slave pays from that peculium which pertains to you: for in either case you will have the action ex empto.

Dig. 19.1.24.1

Digest 19.1.24.1

Iulianus 15 Dig.

Julian 15 Digest.

Servum tuum imprudens a fure bona fide emi: is ex peculio quod ad te pertinebat hominem paravit, qui mihi traditus est. posse te eum hominem mihi condicere sabinus dixit, sed si quid mihi abesset ex negotio quod is gessisset, invicem me tecum acturum de peculio. cassius veram opinionem sabini rettulit, in qua ego quoque sum.

Unwittingly I bought in good faith your slave from a thief: he, out of the peculium which pertained to you, procured a slave, who was delivered to me. sabinus said that you can demand that slave from me by condictio, but if anything were lacking to me from the transaction which he had carried on, in turn I would proceed with you by an action de peculio. cassius reported the opinion of sabinus as true, in which I also am.

Dig. 19.1.24.2

Digest 19.1.24.2

Iulianus 15 Dig.

Julian 15 Digest.

Servo vendente hominem fideiussor venditionis omnia praestare debet, in quae obligaretur, si pro libero fideiussisset: nam et in dominum actio sic datur, ut emptor eadem consequatur, quae libero vendente consequi debuisset, sed ultra peculii taxationem dominus non condemnatur.

When a slave sells a person, the surety of the sale must furnish everything to which he would be obligated, if he had stood surety for a free person: for an action is likewise granted against the master, so that the buyer may obtain the same things which he ought to have obtained with a free man selling; but the master is not condemned beyond the assessment of the peculium.

Dig. 19.1.25

Digest 19.1.25

Iulianus 54 Dig.

Julianus 54 Digest.

Qui pendentem vindemiam emit, si uvam legere prohibeatur a venditore, adversus eum petentem pretium exceptione uti poterit " si ea pecunia, qua de agitur, non pro ea re petitur, quae venit neque tradita est. " ceterum post traditionem sive lectam uvam calcare sive mustum evehere prohibeatur, ad exhibendum vel iniuriarum agere poterit, quemadmodum si aliam quamlibet rem suam tollere prohibeatur.

He who buys a hanging vintage, if he is prohibited by the seller from picking the grape, may, against him who seeks the price, make use of an exception: "that the money at issue is not being demanded for a thing which was sold and has not been delivered." Moreover, after delivery, if he is forbidden either to tread the grape when picked or to carry out the must, he will be able to sue ad exhibendum or for injuries, just as if he were forbidden to remove any other thing of his own.

Dig. 19.1.26

Digest 19.1.26

Alfenus 2 Dig.

Alfenus 2 Digest.

Si quis, cum fundum venderet, dolia centum, quae in fundo esse adfirmabat, accessura dixisset, quamvis ibi nullum dolium fuisset, tamen dolia emptori debebit.

If someone, when selling an estate, said that one hundred dolia, which he affirmed were on the estate, would be included as accessions, although there was not a single dolium there, nevertheless he will owe the dolia to the buyer.

Dig. 19.1.27

Digest 19.1.27

Paulus 3 epit. alf.

Paul 3 epit. alf.

Quidquid venditor accessurum dixerit, id integrum ac sanum tradi oportet: veluti si fundo dolia accessura dixisset, non quassa, sed integra dare debet.

Whatever the seller has said will be accessory, that must be delivered intact and sound: for example, if he had said that casks would be accessory to the estate, he must give them not cracked, but intact.

Dig. 19.1.28

Digest 19.1.28

Iulianus 3 ad urs. ferocem.

Julian 3 to urs. ferox.

Praedia mihi vendidisti et convenit, ut aliquid facerem: quod si non fecissem, poenam promisi. respondit: venditor antequam poenam ex stipulatu petat, ex vendito agere potest: si consecutus fuerit, quantum poenae nomine stipulatus esset, agentem ex stipulatu doli mali exceptio summovebit: si ex stipulatu poenam consecutus fueris, ipso iure ex vendito agere non poteris nisi in id, quod pluris eius interfuerit id fieri.

You sold me estates, and it was agreed that I should do something; and if I did not do it, I promised a penalty. He replied: before the vendor seeks the penalty on the stipulation, he can bring an action ex vendito; if he has obtained as much as he had stipulated by way of penalty, the defense of dolus malus will bar one suing ex stipulatu; if you have obtained the penalty ex stipulatu, by the law itself you will not be able to sue ex vendito, except up to the amount by which it was of greater interest to him that this be done.

Dig. 19.1.29

Digest 19.1.29

Iulianus 4 ex minic.

Julian 4 from Minicius.

Cui res sub condicione legata erat, is eam imprudens ab herede emit: actione ex empto poterit consequi emptor pretium, quia non ex causa legati rem habet.

He to whom a thing had been bequeathed under a condition, having unwittingly bought it from the heir: by the action ex empto the buyer will be able to recover the price, because he does not have the thing by reason of the legacy.

Dig. 19.1.30pr.

Digest 19.1.30, beginning.

Africanus 8 quaest.

Africanus 8 Questions.

Servus, quem de me cum peculio emisti, priusquam tibi traderetur, furtum mihi fecit. quamvis ea res quam subripuit interierit, nihilo minus retentionem eo nomine ex peculio me habiturum ait, id est ipso iure ob id factum minutum esse peculium, eo scilicet, quod debitor meus ex causa condictionis sit factus. nam licet, si iam traditus furtum mihi fecisset, aut omnino condictionem eo nomine de peculio non haberem aut eatenus haberem, quatenus ex re furtiva auctum peculium fuisset, tamen in proposito et retentionem me habiturum et, si omne peculium penes te sit, vel quasi plus debito solverim posse me condicere.

A slave, whom you bought from me together with his peculium, before he was delivered to you, committed theft against me. Although the thing which he filched has perished, nevertheless he says that I will have retention on that account out of the peculium, that is, by the law itself the peculium has been diminished on account of that deed, specifically because a debtor to me has been made ex causa condictionis. For although, if after delivery he had committed theft against me, either I would not have a condiction at all on that ground against the peculium, or I would have it only to the extent that the peculium had been augmented from the stolen thing, nevertheless in the case proposed I will both have retention and, if the whole peculium is in your possession, I can bring a condiction as if I had paid more than was due.

secundum quae dicendum: si nummos, quos servus iste mihi subripuerat, tu ignorans furtivos esse quasi peculiares ademeris et consumpseris, condictio eo nomine mihi adversus te competet, quasi res mea ad te sine causa pervenerit.

according to which it must be said: if the coins which that slave had filched from me you, not knowing them to be stolen, have taken away as though items of the peculium and have consumed, a condictio on that account will lie for me against you, as if my property had come to you without cause.

Dig. 19.1.30.1

Digest 19.1.30.1

Africanus 8 quaest.

Africanus 8 questions.

Si sciens alienam rem ignoranti mihi vendideris, etiam priusquam evincatur utiliter me ex empto acturum putavit in id, quanti mea intersit meam esse factam: quamvis enim alioquin verum sit venditorem hactenus teneri, ut rem emptori habere liceat, non etiam ut eius faciat, quia tamen dolum malum abesse praestare debeat, teneri eum, qui sciens alienam, non suam ignoranti vendidit: id est maxime, si manumissuro vel pignori daturo vendiderit.

If, knowing the thing to be another’s, you have sold it to me while I am ignorant, even before eviction he thought I could usefully proceed by the action ex empto for as much as my interest is that it have been made mine: for although otherwise it is true that the seller is bound only thus far, that it be permitted to the buyer to have the thing, not also to make it his, nevertheless, since he ought to warrant that fraud (dolus malus) be absent, he is liable who, knowing it to be another’s and not his own, sold to one who was ignorant: that is especially if he sold to one about to manumit or to give it in pledge.

Dig. 19.1.31pr.

Digest 19.1.31, preface.

Nerva 3 membr.

Nerva 3 membranes.

Si ea res, quam ex empto praestare debebam, vi mihi adempta fuerit: quamvis eam custodire debuerim, tamen propius est, ut nihil amplius quam actiones persequendae eius praestari a me emptori oporteat, quia custodia adversus vim parum proficit. actiones autem eas non solum arbitrio, sed etiam periculo tuo tibi praestare debebo, ut omne lucrum ac dispendium te sequatur.

If the thing which I had to furnish under the purchase has been taken from me by force: although I ought to have kept it in custody, nevertheless it is more proper that nothing more than the actions for pursuing it should be furnished by me to the buyer, because custody profits little against force. And I shall have to furnish to you those actions not only at your discretion, but also at your peril, so that all lucre and loss may follow you.

Dig. 19.1.31.1

Digest 19.1.31.1

Nerva 3 membr.

Nerva 3 membranes.

Et non solum quod ipse per eum adquisii praestare debeo, sed et id, quod emptor iam tunc sibi tradito servo adquisiturus fuisset.

And I must make good not only what I myself acquired through him, but also that which the purchaser would already then have acquired for himself, if the slave had been delivered to him.

Dig. 19.1.31.2

Digest 19.1.31.2

Nerva 3 membr.

Nerva 3 membranes.

Uterque nostrum eandem rem emit a non domino, cum emptio venditioque sine dolo malo fieret, traditaque est: sive ab eodem emimus sive ab alio atque alio, is ex nobis tuendus est, qui prior ius eius adprehendit, hoc est, cui primum tradita est. si alter ex nobis a domino emisset, is omnimodo tuendus est.

Each of us bought the same thing from a non-owner, the purchase and sale having been conducted without dolus malus (fraud), and it was delivered: whether we bought from the same person or from different persons, he among us is to be protected who first apprehended the right in it, that is, to whom it was first delivered. If one of us had bought from the owner, he is in every way to be protected.

Dig. 19.1.32

Digest 19.1.32

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the edict.

Si quis a me oleum quod emisset adhibitis iniquis ponderibus accepisset, ut in modo me falleret, vel emptor circumscriptus sit a venditore ponderibus minoribus, pomponius ait posse dici venditorem sibi dare oportere quod plus est petere: quod habet rationem: ergo et emptor ex empto habebit actionem, qua contentus esse possit.

If someone had received from me the oil which he had bought, employing unjust weights so as to deceive me in the measure; or if the purchaser has been overreached by the vendor by means of smaller weights, Pomponius says it can be said that the vendor, by suing under the formula “that it must be given to him” (sibi dare oportere), is seeking what is in excess: which has reason. Therefore the purchaser too will have an action ex empto, with which he can be satisfied.

Dig. 19.1.33

Digest 19.1.33

Ulpianus 23 ad ed.

Ulpian, 23 on the Edict.

Et si uno pretio plures res emptae sint, de singulis ex empto et vendito agi potest.

And even if several things have been bought for one price, with respect to each of them an action can be brought from purchase and from sale.

Dig. 19.1.34

Digest 19.1.34

Ulpianus 18 ad ed.

Ulpian 18 on the Edict.

Si fundo vendito in qualitate iugerum captio est, ex empto erit actio.

If, in a sold estate, there is a deficiency in the iugera measurement, an action ex empto will lie.

Dig. 19.1.35

Digest 19.1.35

Ulpianus 70 ad ed.

Ulpian, 70 on the Edict.

Si quis fundum emerit, quasi per eum fundum eundi agendi ius non esset, et interdicto de itinere actuque victus sit, ex empto habebit actionem: licet enim stipulatio de evictione non committatur, quia non est de iure servitutis in rem actione pronuntiatum, tamen dicendum est ex empto actionem competere.

If someone should buy an estate, as though there were no right of going and of driving through that estate, and he has been defeated under the interdict concerning way and drive, he will have an action ex empto from the purchase: for although the stipulation concerning eviction is not incurred, because there has not been a pronouncement by an in rem action about the right of servitude, nevertheless it must be said that an action ex empto is available.

Dig. 19.1.36

Digest 19.1.36

Paulus 7 ad plaut.

Paulus 7 to Plautius.

Venditor domus antequam eam tradat, damni infecti stipulationem interponere debet, quia, antequam vacuam possessionem tradat, custodiam et diligentiam praestare debet et pars est custodiae diligentiaeque hanc interponere stipulationem: et ideo si id neglexerit, tenebitur emptori.

The seller of a house, before he delivers it, ought to interpose a stipulation for damnum infectum, because before he delivers vacant possession he ought to furnish custody and diligence, and it is part of custody and diligence to interpose this stipulation; and therefore, if he has neglected this, he will be liable to the buyer.

Dig. 19.1.37

Digest 19.1.37

Paulus 14 ad plaut.

Paulus 14 on Plautius.

Sicut aequum est bonae fidei emptori alterius dolum non nocere, ita non est aequum eidem personae venditoris sui dolum prodesse.

Just as it is equitable that the fraud of another not harm a good‑faith buyer, so it is not equitable that the fraud of his own seller should benefit that same person.

Dig. 19.1.38pr.

Digest 19.1.38, preface.

Celsus 8 Dig.

Celsus 8 Digest.

Si venditor hominis dixit peculium eum habere decem nec quemquam adempturum, et si plus habet, totum praestet, nisi hoc actum est, ut dumtaxat decem praestaret, si minus est, praestet esse decem et talem servum esse, ut tantum peculii habeat.

If the seller of a slave has said that he has a peculium of 10 and that no one will take anything from it, then if he has more, he must provide the whole, unless it was agreed that he should provide only 10; if it is less, he must make it 10 and [warrant] that the slave is such as to have so much peculium.

Dig. 19.1.38.1

Digest 19.1.38.1

Celsus 8 Dig.

Celsus 8 Digest.

Si per emptorem steterit, quo minus ei mancipium traderetur, pro cibariis per arbitrium indemnitatem posse servari sextus aelius, drusus dixerunt, quorum et mihi iustissima videtur esse sententia.

If it is on the buyer’s side that the slave was not delivered to him, Sextus Aelius and Drusus said that, for the rations, indemnity can be reserved by arbitration; and their opinion seems to me most just.

Dig. 19.1.38.2

Digest 19.1.38.2

Celsus 8 Dig.

Celsus Digest 8.

Firmus a proculo quaesiit, si de plumbeo castello fistulae sub terram missae aquam ducerent in aenum lateribus circumstructum, an hae aedium essent, an ut ruta caesa vincta fixaque quae aedium non essent. ille rescripsit referre, quid acti esset. quid ergo si nihil de ea re neque emptor neque venditor cogitaverunt, ut plerumque in eiusmodi rebus evenisse solet, nonne propius est, ut inserta et inclusa aedificio partem eius esse existimemus?

Firmus asked Proculus whether, if pipes sent under the ground from a lead castellum carried water into a bronze cauldron walled around with bricks, these were of the house, or, like things grubbed up, cut down, bound and fastened, were not of the house. He wrote back that it depended on what had been transacted. What then, if neither buyer nor seller thought about that matter, as for the most part is wont to have happened in such affairs, is it not nearer to think that things inserted and enclosed in the building are a part of it?

Dig. 19.1.39

Digest 19.1.39

Modestinus 5 resp.

Modestinus 5 responses.

Quaero, si quis ita fundum vendiderit, ut id venum datum esse videatur, quod intra terminos ipse possedit, sciens tamen aliquam partem certam se non possidere non certioraverit emptorem, an ex empto iudicio teneatur, cum haec generalis adiectio ad ea, quae specialiter novit qui vendidit nec excepit, pertinere non debeat, ne alioquin emptor capiatur, qui fortasse, si hoc cognovisset, vel empturus non esset vel minoris empturus esset, si certioratus de loco certo fuisset: cum hoc et apud veteres sit relatum in eius persona, qui sic exceperat: " servitutes si quae debentur, debebuntur": etenim iuris auctores responderunt, si certus venditor quibusdam personis certas servitutes debere non admonuisset emptorem, ex empto eum teneri debere, quando haec generalis exceptio non ad ea pertinere debeat, quae venditor novit quaeque specialiter excipere et potuit et debuit, sed ad ea, quae ignoravit et de quibus emptorem certiorare nequivit. herennius modestinus respondit, si quid circumveniendi emptoris causa venditor in specie de qua quaeritur fecit, ex empto actione conveniri posse.

I ask, if someone has sold an estate in such a way that he appears to have put up for sale that which he himself possessed within the boundaries, yet, though knowing that he did not possess some definite part, did not inform the buyer, whether he is held by the action ex empto; since this general addition ought not to pertain to those things which the seller specially knew and did not except, lest otherwise the buyer be taken in, who perhaps, if he had learned this, either would not have bought or would have bought for a lesser price, if he had been made certain about the particular place: since this too has been reported among the ancients in the case of one who had excepted thus: " servitudes, if any are owed, will be owed": for the authorities of the law replied that, if the seller, being bound to certain persons for certain servitudes, had not warned the buyer, he ought to be held on the action ex empto, inasmuch as this general exception ought not to pertain to those things which the seller knew and which he both could and ought specially to have excepted, but to those things which he did not know and about which he was not able to make the buyer certain. herennius modestinus answered that, if the seller, for the purpose of circumventing the buyer, did anything in the specific matter in question, he can be proceeded against by the action ex empto.

Dig. 19.1.40

Digest 19.1.40

Pomponius 31 ad q. muc.

Pomponius 31 to Q. Mucius

Quintus mucius scribit: dominus fundi de praedio arbores stantes vendiderat et pro his rebus pecuniam accepit et tradere nolebat: emptor quaerebat, quid se facere oporteret, et verebatur, ne hae arbores eius non viderentur factae. pomponius: arborum, quae in fundo continentur, non est separatum corpus a fundo et ideo ut dominus suas specialiter arbores vindicare emptor non poterit: sed ex empto habet actionem.

Quintus mucius writes: the owner of the farm had sold standing trees from the praedium and had received money for these items and was unwilling to deliver; the buyer asked what he ought to do, and feared lest these trees might not be deemed to have become his. pomponius: the trees that are contained on the fundus are not a separate corpus from the fundus, and therefore the buyer will not be able, as owner, to vindicate his trees specifically; but he has an action ex empto.

Dig. 19.1.41

Digest 19.1.41

Papinianus 3 resp.

Papinian, 3 Responses

In venditione super annua pensitatione pro aquae ductu infra domum romae constitutum nihil commemoratum est. deceptus ob eam rem ex empto actionem habebit: itaque, si conveniatur ob pretium ex vendito, ratio improvisi oneris habetur.

In the sale, nothing was mentioned about the annual pensitation for the water conduit installed within a house at Rome. Deceived on that account, he will have an action ex empto; and so, if he is sued for the price by an action ex vendito, allowance is made for the unforeseen burden.

Dig. 19.1.42

Digest 19.1.42

Paulus 2 quaest.

Paulus 2 questions.

Si duorum fundorum venditor separatim de modo cuiusque pronuntiaverit et ita utrumque uno pretio tradiderit, et alteri aliquid desit, quamvis in altero exsuperet, forte si dixit unum centum iugera, alterum ducenta habere, non proderit ei, quod in altero ducenta decem inveniuntur, si in altero decem desint. et de his ita apud labeonem relatum est. sed an exceptio doli mali venditori profutura sit, potest dubitari, utique si exiguus modus silvae desit et plus in vineis habeat, quam repromissum est.

If a seller of two estates has separately declared the measure of each and thus has delivered both for one price, and one lacks something, although in the other it exceeds—say he said the one has one hundred iugera, the other two hundred—it will not profit him that two hundred ten are found in the one, if ten are lacking in the other. And about these matters it is thus reported by Labeo. But whether the exceptio doli mali will benefit the seller can be doubted, especially if a small measure of woodland is lacking and he has more in the vineyards than was promised.

an non facit dolo, qui iure perpetuo utitur? nec enim hic quod amplius in modo invenitur, quam alioquin dictum est, ad compendium venditoris, sed ad emptoris pertinet: et tunc tenetur venditor, cum minor modus invenitur. videamus tamen, ne nulla querella sit emptoris in eodem fundo, si plus inveniat in vinea quam in prato, cum universus modus constat.

Or does he act by fraud, who makes use of a perpetual right? For here, what is found in the measure to be more than was otherwise stated does not pertain to the seller’s saving, but to the buyer; and the seller is liable when a lesser measure is found. Yet let us consider, lest there be any complaint of the buyer in the same estate, if he finds more in the vineyard than in the meadow, since the total measure stands.

similis quaestio esse potest ei, quae in duobus fundis agitata est, et si quis duobus statuliberos uno pretio vendat et dicat unum decem dare iussum, qui quindecim dare debebat: nam et hic tenebitur ex empto actione, quamvis emptor a duobus viginti accepturus sit. sed rectius est in omnibus supra scriptis casibus lucrum cum damno compensari et si quid deest emptori sive pro modo sive pro qualitate loci, hoc ei resarciri.

A similar question can arise to that which was agitated in the case of the two farms, namely if someone sells two statulibers for one price and says that one is ordered to give ten who in fact ought to give fifteen: for here too he will be liable by the action ex empto, although the buyer is going to receive twenty from the two. But it is more correct in all the above-written cases that profit be compensated with loss, and that if anything is lacking to the buyer, whether in respect of the measure or of the quality of the place, this be made good to him.

Dig. 19.1.43

Digest 19.1.43

Paulus 5 quaest.

Paulus 5 questions.

Titius cum decederet, seiae stichum pamphilum arescusam per fideicommissum reliquit eiusque fidei commisit, ut omnes ad libertatem post annum perduceret. cum legataria fideicommissum ad se pertinere noluisset nec tamen heredem a sua petitione liberasset, heres eadem mancipia sempronio vendidit nulla commemoratione fideicommissae libertatis facta: emptor cum pluribus annis mancipia supra scripta sibi servissent, arescusam manumisit, et cum ceteri quoque servi cognita voluntate defuncti fideicommissam libertatem petissent et heredem ad praetorem perduxissent, iussu praetoris ab herede sunt manumissi. arescusa quoque nolle se emptorem patronum habere responderat.

When Titius was dying, he left to Seia, by fideicommissum, Stichus, Pamphilus, and Arescusa, and entrusted to her good faith that she would bring them all to liberty after a year. When the legatee was unwilling that the fideicommissum pertain to her, and yet had not released the heir from her claim, the heir sold the same slaves to Sempronius, with no mention made of the fideicommissary liberty: after the aforesaid slaves had served the purchaser for several years, he manumitted Arescusa; and when the other slaves also, the will of the deceased having become known, sought the fideicommissary liberty and brought the heir before the praetor, by order of the praetor they were manumitted by the heir. Arescusa also had replied that she was unwilling to have the purchaser as patron.

cum emptor pretium a venditore empti iudicio arescusae quoque nomine repeteret, lectum est responsum domitii ulpiani, quo continebatur arescusam pertinere ad rescriptum sacrarum constitutionum, si nollet emptorem patronum habere: emptorem tamen nihil posse post manumissionem a venditore consequi. ego cum meminissem et iulianum in ea sententia esse, ut existimaret post manumissionem quoque empti actionem durare, quaero, quae sententia vera est. illud etiam in eadem cognitione nomine emptoris desiderabatur, ut sumptus, quos in unum ex his quem erudierat fecerat, ei restituerentur.

when the buyer, by the action on purchase, was reclaiming the price from the seller, also in respect of Arescusa, there was read a responsum of Domitius Ulpianus, which contained that Arescusa fell under the rescript of the sacred constitutions, if she should not wish to have the buyer as patron: nevertheless that the buyer could obtain nothing from the seller after the manumission. I, since I remembered that Julian, too, is in that opinion, namely that he thought that even after manumission the action on purchase endures, ask which opinion is true. It was also demanded in the same inquiry, in the buyer’s name, that the expenses which he had made upon one of these whom he had educated be restored to him.

idem quaero, arescusa, quae recusavit emptorem patronum habere, cuius sit liberta constituta? an possit vel legatariam quae non liberavit vel heredem patronum habere? nam ceteri duo ab herede manumissi sunt.

I ask the same: arescusa, who refused to have the buyer as patron, of whom has she been constituted a freedwoman? Or can she have either the legatee who did not liberate her, or the heir, as patron? For the other two were manumitted by the heir.

respondi: semper probavi iuliani sententiam putantis manumissione non amittitur eo modo. de sumptibus vero, quos in erudiendum hominem emptor fecit, videndum est: nam empti iudicium ad eam quoque speciem sufficere existimo: non enim pretium continet tantum, sed omne quod interest emptoris servum non evinci. plane si in tantum pretium excedisse proponas, ut non sit cogitatum a venditore de tanta summa ( veluti si ponas agitatorem postea factum vel pantomimum evictum esse eum, qui minimo veniit pretio), iniquum videtur in magnam quantitatem obligari venditorem,

I replied: I have always approved Julian’s opinion, thinking that by manumission it is not lost in that way. But as to the expenses which the buyer incurred for educating the person, this must be considered: for I reckon that the action of purchase (empti) suffices also for that case; for it contains not only the price, but everything that is in the buyer’s interest that the slave not be evicted. Clearly, if you propose that the price has been exceeded to such an extent that the seller did not have in mind so great a sum ( veluti if you posit that the one who was sold for a very small price was afterwards made a charioteer or a pantomime and was evicted), it seems unjust that the seller be bound to a great amount,

Dig. 19.1.44

Digest 19.1.44

Africanus 8 quaest.

Africanus Book 8 of the Questions.

( cum et forte idem mediocrium facultatium sit: et non ultra duplum periculum subire eum oportet)

( since also perhaps he himself is of moderate means: and he ought not to undergo peril beyond double)

Dig. 19.1.45pr.

Digest 19.1.45, preface.

Paulus 5 quaest.

Paulus Questions 5.

Idque et iulianum agitasse africanus refert: quod iustum est: sicut minuitur praestatio, si servus deterior apud emptorem effectus sit, cum evincitur.

And Africanus reports that Julian also considered this: which is just: just as the prestation is diminished, if the slave has become worse while with the purchaser, when he is evicted.

Dig. 19.1.45.1

Digest 19.1.45.1

Paulus 5 quaest.

Paulus 5 Questions.

Illud expeditius videbatur, si mihi alienam aream vendideris et in eam ego aedificavero atque ita eam dominus evincit: nam quia possim petentem dominum, nisi impensam aedificiorum solvat, doli mali exceptione summovere, magis est, ut ea res ad periculum venditoris non pertineat. quod et in servo dicendum est, si in servitutem, non in libertatem evinceretur, ut dominus mercedes et impensas praestare debeat. quod si emptor non possideat aedificium vel servum, ex empto habebit actionem.

That seemed more expedient, if you have sold me another’s lot (area) and I have built upon it, and then the owner evicts it; for since I can ward off the owner who sues, unless he pays the expense of the buildings, by the exceptio doli mali (defense of fraud), it is rather the case that this matter does not pertain to the seller’s risk. The same must be said in the case of a slave, if he were evicted into servitude, not into freedom, so that the owner ought to provide wages and expenses. But if the buyer does not possess the building or the slave, he will have an action ex empto.

in omnibus tamen his casibus, si sciens quis alienum vendiderit, omnimodo teneri debet.

in all these cases, however, if someone knowingly has sold another’s (alien) property, he ought to be held liable in every way.

Dig. 19.1.45.2

Digest 19.1.45.2

Paulus 5 quaest.

Paul 5 Questions.

Superest tertia deliberatio, cuius debet esse liberta arescusa, quae recusat emptorem. et non sine ratione dicetur eius debere effici libertam, a quo vendita est, id est heredis, quia et ipse ex empto actione tenetur: sed hoc ita, si non arescusa elegerit emptoris patronatum: tunc etenim et illius remanet liberta et ille ex empto actionem non habet, quia nihil eius interest, cum eam libertam habet.

There remains the third deliberation, whose freedwoman the arescusa ought to be, who refuses the purchaser. And not without reason it will be said that she ought to be made the freedwoman of him by whom she was sold, that is, of the heir, because he too is held by the action ex empto: but this is so, if the arescusa has not chosen the patronage of the purchaser; for then she also remains his freedwoman, and he does not have the action ex empto, because nothing concerns his interest, since he has her as a freedwoman.

Dig. 19.1.46

Digest 19.1.46

Paulus 24 quaest.

Paulus 24 questions.

Si quis alienam rem vendiderit et medio tempore heres domino rei exstiterit, cogetur implere venditionem.

If someone has sold another’s property and in the meantime has become heir to the owner of the property, he will be compelled to fulfill the sale.

Dig. 19.1.47

Digest 19.1.47

Paulus 6 resp.

Paulus 6 responses.

Lucius titius accepta pecunia ad materias vendendas sub poena certa, ita ut, si non integras repraestaverit intra statuta tempora, poena conveniatur, partim datis materiis decessit: cum igitur testator in poenam commiserit neque heres eius reliquam materiam exhibuerit, an et in poenam et in usuras conveniri possit, praesertim cum emptor mutuatus pecuniam usuras gravissimas expendit? paulus respondit ex contractu, de quo quaeritur, etiam heredem venditoris in poenam conveniri posse. in actione quoque ex empto officio iudicis post moram intercedentem usurarum pretii rationem haberi oportere.

Lucius titius, having received money for selling materials under a fixed penalty, on the terms that, if he should not have delivered them entire within the appointed times, he should be proceeded against for the penalty, departed after having given part of the materials: therefore, since the testator incurred the penalty and his heir did not produce the remaining material, can he be sued both for the penalty and for interest, especially since the buyer, having borrowed the money, has paid out very heavy interest? paulus responded that, from the contract about which inquiry is made, even the seller’s heir can be sued for the penalty. In the action ex empto as well, by the duty of the judge, after delay has intervened, account ought to be taken of interest on the price.

Dig. 19.1.48

Digest 19.1.48

Scaevola 2 resp.

Scaevola book 2 of Responses.

Titius heres sempronii fundum septicio vendidit ita: " fundus sempronianus, quidquid sempronii iuris fuit, erit tibi emptus tot nummis" vacuamque possessionem tradidit neque fines eius demonstravit: quaeritur, an empti iudicio cogendus sit ostendere ex instrumentis hereditariis, quid iuris defunctus habuerit et fines ostendere. respondi id ex ea scriptura praestandum, quod sensisse intelleguntur: quod si non appareat, debere venditorem et instrumenta fundi et fines ostendere: hoc etenim contractui bonae fidei consonat.

Titius, the heir of Sempronius, sold the farm to Septicius thus: "the Sempronian farm, whatever right of Sempronius there was, shall be bought by you for so many coins," and he delivered vacant possession and did not point out its boundaries: the question is asked whether, by the action on purchase, he should be compelled to show from the hereditary instruments what right the deceased had and to show the boundaries. I answered that performance is to be made according to that writing, in accordance with what they are understood to have intended; but if this does not appear, the seller ought to show both the instruments of the farm and the boundaries: for this is consonant with a contract of good faith.

Dig. 19.1.49pr.

Digest 19.1.49pr.

Hermogenianus 2 iuris epit.

Hermogenianus 2 of the Epitome of Law.

Qui per collusionem imaginarium colonum circumveniendi emptoris causa subposuit, ex empto tenetur nec defenditur, si, quo facilius excogitata fraus occultetur, colonum et quinquennii pensiones in fidem suam recipiat.

Whoever, by collusion, has put forward a fictitious tenant farmer for the purpose of overreaching the buyer, is held under the purchase and is not afforded a defense, if, so that the contrived fraud may be more easily concealed, he takes the tenant and the five years’ rents into his own guarantee.

Dig. 19.1.49.1

Digest 19.1.49.1

Hermogenianus 2 iuris epit.

Hermogenianus 2 Epitome of Law.

Pretii, sorte licet post moram soluta, usurae peti non possunt, cum hae non sint in obligatione, sed officio iudicis praestentur.

Interest on the price cannot be claimed, although the principal, albeit paid after default, has been discharged, since these are not in the obligation, but are awarded by the office of the judge.

Dig. 19.1.50

Digest 19.1.50

Labeo 4 post. a iav. epit.

Labeo book 4 of the Posteriors, as epitomized by iavolenus.

Bona fides non patitur, ut, cum emptor alicuius legis beneficio pecuniam rei venditae debere desisset antequam res ei tradatur, venditor tradere compelletur et re sua careret. possessione autem tradita futurum est, ut rem venditor aeque amitteret, utpote cum petenti eam rem petitor ei neque vendidisset neque tradidisset.

Good faith does not permit that, when the buyer, by the benefit of some law, has ceased to owe the money (price) of the thing sold before the thing is delivered to him, the vendor be compelled to deliver and be without his own property. But with possession delivered, it will come about that the vendor likewise loses the thing, inasmuch as to the one suing for that thing—the claimant—he had neither sold nor delivered it.

Dig. 19.1.51pr.

Digest 19.1.51, beginning.

Labeo 5 post. a iav. epit.

Labeo 5 of the Posteriors, epitomized by Javolenus.

Si et per emptorem et venditorem mora fuisset, quo minus vinum praeberetur et traderetur, perinde esse ait, quasi si per emptorem solum stetisset: non enim potest videri mora per venditorem emptori facta esse ipso moram faciente emptore.

If delay had occurred both through the buyer and the seller, preventing the wine from being provided and delivered, he says it is the same as if it had depended on the buyer alone: for it cannot be deemed that delay by the seller was done to the buyer, when the buyer himself is causing the delay.

Dig. 19.1.51.1

Digest 19.1.51.1

Labeo 5 post. a iav. epit.

Labeo, 5 of the Posteriora, epitomized by iavolenus.

Quod si fundum emisti ea lege, uti des pecuniam kalendis iuliis, et si ipsis calendis per venditorem esset factum, quo minus pecunia ei solveretur, deinde per te staret quo minus solveres, uti posse adversus te lege sua venditorem dixi, quia in vendendo hoc ageretur, ut, quandoque per emptorem factum sit, quo minus pecuniam solvat, legis poenam patiatur. hoc ita verum puto, nisi si quid in ea re venditor dolo fecit.

But if you bought an estate on this condition, that you pay the money on the Kalends of July, and if on that very Kalends it had been brought about by the seller that the money was not paid to him, and thereafter it stood by your doing that you did not pay, I have said that the seller can proceed against you under his law, because in the sale it is arranged thus: that whenever it is by the buyer’s act that he does not pay the money, he is to suffer the penalty of the law. I think this is true, unless the seller did something fraudulent in that matter.

Dig. 19.1.52pr.

Digest 19.1.52, preface.

Scaevola 7 Dig.

Scaevola 7 Digest.

Creditor fundum sibi obligatum, cuius chirographa tributorum a debitore retro solutorum apud se deposita habebat, vendidit maevio ea lege, ut, si quid tributorum nomine debitum esset, emptor solveret: idem fundus ob causam eorum tributorum, quae iam soluta erant, a conductore saltus, in quo idem fundus est, venit eumque idem maevius emit et pretium solvit: quaesitum est, an empti iudicio vel aliqua actione emptor a venditore consequi possit, ut solutionum supra scriptarum chirographa ei dentur. respondit posse emptorem empti iudicio consequi, ut instrumenta de quibus quaereretur exhibeantur.

A creditor, having a piece of land pledged to him, and having in his keeping chirographs (receipts) of taxes previously paid by the debtor deposited with him, sold it to Maevius on this condition: that, if anything were owed under the name of taxes, the buyer should pay it. The same land, on account of those very taxes which had already been paid, was put up for sale by the lessee of the saltus in which the same land lies, and the same Maevius bought it and paid the price. The question was asked whether, by the action on purchase or by some action, the buyer could obtain from the seller that the chirographs of the aforesaid payments be given to him. He answered that the buyer can by the action on purchase obtain that the instruments in question be produced.

Dig. 19.1.52.1

Digest 19.1.52.1

Scaevola 7 Dig.

Scaevola 7 Digest.

Praedium aestimatum in dotem a patre filiae suae nomine datum obligatum creditori deprehenditur: quaesitum est, an filius, qui hereditatem patris retinet, cum ab ea se filia abstinuisset dote contenta, actione ex empto teneatur, ut a creditore lueret et marito liberum praestaret. respondit teneri.

An estate appraised and given into dowry by a father in his daughter’s name is found to be encumbered to a creditor: it was asked whether the son, who retains the father’s inheritance, since the daughter had abstained from it, content with the dowry, is held by an action ex empto, so that he should redeem it from the creditor and provide it free to the husband. He responded that he is liable.

Dig. 19.1.52.2

Digest 19.1.52.2

Scaevola 7 Dig.

Scaevola 7 Digest.

Inter venditorem et emptorem militiae ita convenit, ut salarium, quod debeatur ab illa persona, emptori cederet: quaesitum est, emptor militiae quam quantitatem a quo exigere debet et quid ex eiusmodi pacto venditor emptori praestare debeat. respondit venditorem actiones extraordinarias eo nomine quas haberet praestare debere.

Between the seller and the buyer of the militia it was agreed thus, that the salary, which is owed by that person, should be ceded to the buyer: it was asked what amount the buyer of the militia ought to exact, from whom, and what from an agreement of this kind the seller ought to furnish to the buyer. He answered that the seller ought to provide the extraordinary actions which he had under that head.

Dig. 19.1.52.3

Digest 19.1.52.3

Scaevola 7 Dig.

Scaevola 7 Digest.

Ante domum mari iunctam molibus iactis ripam constituit et uti ab eo possessa domus fuit, gaio seio vendidit: quaero, an ripa, quae ab auctore domui coniuncta erat, ad emptorem quoque iure emptionis pertineat. respondit eodem iure fore venditam domum, quo fuisset priusquam veniret.

Before the house, which was joined to the sea, he established a shore by throwing up moles, and, as the house had been possessed by him, he sold it to Gaius Seius: I ask whether the shore, which had been joined to the house by the seller, also pertains to the buyer by right of the purchase. He answered that the house would be deemed sold under the same right under which it had been before it was conveyed.

Dig. 19.1.53pr.

Digest 19.1.53pr.

Labeo 1 pith.

Labeo 1 Pithana.

Si mercedem insulae accessuram esse emptori dictum est, quanti insula locata est, tantum emptori praestetur. paulus: immo si insulam totam uno nomine locaveris et amplioris conductor locaverit et in vendenda insula mercedem emptori cessuram esse dixeris, id accedet, quod tibi totius insulae conductor debebit.

If it has been stated that the rent of the insula (tenement) will accrue to the buyer, let as much be made good to the buyer as the amount for which the insula was leased. paulus: rather, if you have leased the entire insula under a single name, and the lessee has let it out for a higher rent, and, in selling the insula, you have said that the rent will pass to the buyer, there will accrue that which the lessee of the whole insula will owe to you.

Dig. 19.1.53.1

Digest 19.1.53.1

Labeo 1 pith.

Labeo 1 Persuasive.

Si eum fundum vendidisti, in quo sepulcrum habuisti, nec nominatim tibi sepulchrum excepisti, parum habes eo nomine cautum. paulus: minime, si modo in sepulchrum iter publicum transit.

If you sold that farm on which you had a sepulchre, and did not by name reserve the sepulchre to yourself, you have made little provision for yourself on that score. paulus: Not at all, provided only that a public right of way goes to the sepulchre.

Dig. 19.1.53.2

Digest 19.1.53.2

Labeo 1 pith.

Labeo 1 Pithanon.

Si habitatoribus habitatio lege venditionis recepta est, omnibus in ea habitantibus praeter dominum recte recepta habitatio est. paulus: immo si cui in ea insula, quam vendideris, gratis habitationem dederis et sic receperis: " habitatoribus aut quam quisque diem conductum habet", parum caveris ( nominatim enim de his recipi oportuit) itaque eos habitatores emptor insulae habitatione impune prohibebit.

If for the inhabitants a habitation has been reserved by the law (terms) of the sale, the habitation has been rightly reserved for all dwelling in it except the owner. paulus: rather, if to someone in that tenement (insula) which you have sold you have given a free habitation and thus have reserved: " habitatoribus aut quam quisque diem conductum habet", you have taken too little precaution ( for it ought to have been reserved by name concerning these); and so the purchaser of the insula will with impunity prohibit those inhabitants from habitation.

Dig. 19.1.54pr.

Digest 19.1.54, preface.

Labeo 2 pith.

Labeo 2 pithanon.

Si servus quem vendideras iussu tuo aliquid fecit et ex eo crus fregit, ita demum ea res tuo periculo non est, si id imperasti, quod solebat ante venditionem facere, et si id imperasti, quod etiam non vendito servo imperaturus eras. paulus: minime: nam si periculosam rem ante venditionem facere solitus est, culpa tua id factum esse videbitur: puta enim eum fuisse servum, qui per catadromum descendere aut in cloacam demitti solitus esset. idem iuris erit, si eam rem imperare solitus fueris, quam prudens et diligens pater familias imperaturus ei servo non fuerit.

If a slave whom you had sold did something by your order and from that broke a leg, only then is the matter not at your risk, if you ordered that which he was accustomed to do before the sale, and if you ordered that which you would also have ordered even with the slave not sold. paulus: by no means: for if he was accustomed before the sale to do a dangerous thing, it will be seen to have been done by your fault: suppose, for instance, he was a slave who was accustomed to descend by a catadromus (rope-slide) or to be lowered into a sewer. The same law will be, if you were accustomed to order a thing which a prudent and diligent paterfamilias would not have ordered that slave.

quid si hoc exceptum fuerit? tamen potest ei servo novam rem imperare, quam imperaturus non fuisset, si non venisset: veluti si ei imperasti, ut ad emptorem iret, qui peregre esset: nam certe ea res tuo periculo esse non debet. itaque tota ea res ad dolum malum dumtaxat et culpam venditoris dirigenda est.

What if this has been excepted? Nevertheless, he can order that slave to do something new, which he would not have ordered if the sale had not come about: for instance, if you ordered him to go to the buyer who was abroad; for surely that matter ought not to be at your risk. And so the whole matter must be referred only to the seller’s dolus malus and culpa.

Dig. 19.1.54.1

Digest 19.1.54.1

Labeo 2 pith.

Labeo, Pithanon, book 2.

Si dolia octoginta accedere fundo, quae infossa essent, dictum erit, et plura erunt quam ad eum numerum, dabit emptori ex omnibus quae vult, dum integra det: si sola octoginta sunt, qualiacumque emptorem sequentur nec pro non integris quicquam ei venditor praestabit.

If it has been stipulated that eighty casks, which were sunk/embedded, are to be appended to the estate, and there are more than that number, he shall give the buyer whichever of them he wishes, provided he give them intact; if there are only eighty, they will follow the buyer whatever their condition, and the seller shall not warrant him anything on account of their not being intact.

Dig. 19.1.55

Digest 19.1.55

Pomponius 10 epist.

Pomponius 10 letters.

Si servus, qui emeretur vel promitteretur, in hostium potestate sit, octavenus magis putabat valere emptionem et stipulationem, quia inter ementem et vendentem esset commercium: potius enim difficultatem in praestando eo inesse, quam in natura, etiamsi officio iudicis sustinenda esset eius praestatio, donec praestari possit.

If a slave, who was being bought or was being promised, were in the power of the enemy, Octavenus thought rather that the purchase and the stipulation were valid, because there was commercium between the buyer and the seller: for there was a difficulty in performance rather than in the nature [of the obligation], even if by the office of the judge its performance ought to be held in abeyance until it can be performed.

Dig. 19.2.0. Locati conducti.

Dig. 19.2.0. Letting and Hiring.

Dig. 19.2.1

Digest 19.2.1

Paulus 34 ad ed.

Paulus 34 on the Edict.

Locatio et conductio cum naturalis sit et omnium gentium, non verbis, sed consensu contrahitur, sicut emptio et venditio.

Letting and hiring, since it is natural and of all peoples, is contracted not by words but by consent, just as purchase and sale.

Dig. 19.2.2pr.

Digest 19.2.2 pr.

Gaius 2 rer. cott.

Gaius Book 2 of Everyday Matters.

Locatio et conductio proxima est emptioni et venditioni isdemque iuris regulis constitit: nam ut emptio et venditio ita contrahitur, si de pretio convenerit, sic et locatio et conductio contrahi intellegitur, si de mercede convenerit.

Letting and hiring is next to purchase and sale and is constituted by the same rules of law: for just as purchase and sale is contracted if there has been agreement about the price, so too letting and hiring is understood to be contracted if there has been agreement about the hire (rent).

Dig. 19.2.2.1

Digest 19.2.2.1

Gaius 2 rer. cott.

Gaius 2 Quotidian Matters.

Adeo autem familiaritatem aliquam habere videntur emptio et venditio, item locatio et conductio, ut in quibusdam quaeri soleat, utrum emptio et venditio sit an locatio et conductio. ut ecce si cum aurifice mihi convenerit, ut is ex auro suo anulos mihi faceret certi ponderis certaeque formae et acceperit verbi gratia trecenta, utrum emptio et venditio sit an locatio et conductio? sed placet unum esse negotium et magis emptionem et venditionem esse.

Moreover, purchase and sale, and likewise letting and hiring, seem to have a certain kinship to such a degree that in some cases the question is regularly raised whether it is purchase and sale or letting and hiring. For example, if I have agreed with a goldsmith that he is to make me rings from his own gold of a certain weight and a certain form, and he has received, for instance, three hundred, is it purchase and sale or letting and hiring? But it is held to be a single transaction, and rather to be purchase and sale.

quod si ego aurum dedero mercede pro opera constituta, dubium non est, quin locatio et conductio sit.

but if I give the gold, with compensation fixed for the work, there is no doubt that it is letting and hiring.

Dig. 19.2.3

Digest 19.2.3

Pomponius 9 ad sab.

Pomponius 9 on Sabinus.

Cum fundus locetur, et aestimatum insturumentum colonus accipiat, proculus ait id agi, ut instrumentum emptum habeat colonus, sicuti fieret, cum quid aestimatum in dotem daretur.

When a farm is leased, and the colonus receives equipment taken at an appraised value, Proculus says that the point is that the colonus is to have the equipment as purchased, just as would occur when something appraised is given in dowry.

Dig. 19.2.4

Digest 19.2.4

Pomponius 16 ad sab.

Pomponius 16 on Sabinus.

Locatio precariive rogatio ita facta, quoad is, qui eam locasset dedissetve, vellet, morte eius qui locavit tollitur.

A lease or a request for a precarium, made on the footing that it should last so long as the one who had leased it or granted it wished, is extinguished by the death of the lessor.

Dig. 19.2.5

Digest 19.2.5

Ulpianus 28 ad ed.

Ulpian, 28 on the Edict.

Si tibi habitationem locavero, mox pensionem remittam, ex locato et conducto agendum erit.

If I lease to you a habitation, and soon remit the rent, there will have to be an action from letting and hiring.

Dig. 19.2.6

Digest 19.2.6

Gaius 10 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 10 on the Provincial Edict

Is qui rem conduxerit non cogitur restituere id quod rei nomine furti actione consecutus est.

He who has hired a thing is not compelled to restitute that which, in the thing’s name, he has obtained by the action for theft.

Dig. 19.2.7

Digest 19.2.7

Paulus 32 ad ed.

Paulus 32 on the Edict.

Si tibi alienam insulam locavero quinquaginta tuque eandem sexaginta titio locaveris et titius a domino prohibitus fuerit habitare, agentem te ex conducto sexaginta consequi debere placet, quia ipse titio tenearis in sexaginta.

If I have leased to you another’s tenement for fifty, and you have leased the same to titius for sixty, and titius has been prohibited by the owner from dwelling, it is held that you, suing ex conducto, ought to obtain sixty, because you yourself are held to titius for sixty.

Dig. 19.2.8

Digest 19.2.8

Tryphonus 9 disp.

Tryphonus 9 disputations.

Nos videamus, ne non sexaginta praestanda nec quinquaginta sint, sed quanti interest perfrui conductione, tantundemque consequatur medius, quantum praestare debeat ei, qui a se conduxit, quoniam emolumentum conductionis ad comparationem uberioris mercedis computatum maiorem efficit condemnationem. et tamen primus locator reputationem habebit quinquaginta, quae ab illo perciperet, si dominus insulae habitare novissimum conductorem non vetuisset: quo iure utimur.

Let us consider, that not 60 are to be rendered nor 50, but so much as it is in the interest to enjoy the lease; and let the intermediary likewise obtain just so much as he ought to render to him from whom he leased, since the emolument of the lease, computed by comparison with the more abundant rent, produces a greater condemnation. And yet the first lessor will have an accounting for 50, which he would receive from him, if the owner of the insula had not forbidden the latest lessee to dwell: which rule we employ.

Dig. 19.2.9pr.

Digest 19.2.9pr.

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Si quis domum bona fide emptam vel fundum locaverit mihi isque sit evictus sine dolo malo culpaque eius, pomponius ait nihilo minus eum teneri ex conducto ei qui conduxit, ut ei praestetur frui quod conduxit licere. plane si dominus non patitur et locator paratus sit aliam habitationem non minus commodam praestare, aequissimum esse ait absolvi locatorem.

If someone leases to me a house or a farm that was bought in good faith, and it is evicted without his fraud or fault, Pomponius says that nonetheless he is liable on the action ex conducto to the one who hired, so that it be made good that he is allowed to enjoy what he hired. Clearly, if the owner does not allow it, and the lessor is prepared to provide another habitation no less convenient, he says it is most equitable that the lessor be absolved.

Dig. 19.2.9.1

Digest 19.2.9.1

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Hic subiungi potest, quod Marcellus libro sexto digestorum scripsit: si fructuarius locaverit fundum in quinquennium et decesserit, heredem eius non teneri, ut frui praestet, non magis quam insula exusta teneretur locator conductori. sed an ex locato teneatur conductor, ut pro rata temporis quo fruitus est pensionem praestet, Marcellus quaerit, quemadmodum praestaret, si fructuarii servi operas conduxisset vel habitationem? et magis admittit teneri eum: et est aequissimum.

Here there can be subjoined what Marcellus wrote in the sixth book of the Digest: if a fructuary has leased the estate for five years and has died, his heir is not held to ensure enjoyment is provided, no more than a lessor (locator) would be held to a lessee (conductor) if a tenement (insula) had been burned down. But whether the lessee is held ex locato, to render rent (pensio) pro rata temporis for the time during which he enjoyed, Marcellus asks—just as he would render it if he had hired the services of the fructuary’s slave or a lodging? And he rather admits that he is held: and it is most equitable.

idem quaerit, si sumptus fecit in fundum quasi quinquennio fruiturus, an recipiat? et ait non recepturum, quia hoc evenire posse prospicere debuit. quid tamen si non quasi fructuarius ei locavit, sed si quasi fundi dominus?

he asks the same: if he has incurred expenses on the estate as though he would be enjoying the usufruct for five years, whether he may recover? and he says he will not recover, because he ought to have foreseen that this could happen. what, however, if he leased it to him not as if a usufructuary, but as if the owner of the estate?

videlicet tenebitur: decepit enim conductorem: et ita imperator antoninus cum divo severo rescripsit. in exustis quoque aedibus eius temporis, quo aedificium stetit, mercedem praestandam rescripserunt.

Manifestly he will be held: for he deceived the lessee: and thus Emperor Antoninus, together with the deified Severus, issued a rescript. They also rescripted that, in houses burned down, the rent is to be rendered for that time during which the building stood.

Dig. 19.2.9.2

Digest 19.2.9.2

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Iulianus libro quinto decimo digestorum dicit, si quis fundum locaverit, ut etiam si quid vi maiori accidisset, hoc ei praestaretur, pacto standum esse.

Julian, in the 15th book of the Digest, says that if someone has leased a fundus, on the understanding that even if something should happen by force majeure, this would be made good to him, the pact must stand.

Dig. 19.2.9.3

Digest 19.2.9.3

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 32 on the Edict.

Si colonis praediorum lege locationis, ut innocentem ignem habeant, denuntiatum sit, si quidem fortuitus casus incendii causam intulerit, non praestabit periculum locator: si vero culpa locatoris, quam praestare necesse est, damnum fecerit, tenebitur.

If, by the law of the lease, it has been notified to the tenant-farmers of the estates that they are to have “innocent” fire, then, if indeed a fortuitous chance has brought about the cause of a fire, the lessor will not have to bear the risk; but if, by the fault of the lessor—which he is bound to answer for—it has caused damage, he will be held liable.

Dig. 19.2.9.4

Digest 19.2.9.4

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the edict.

Imperator antoninus cum patre, cum grex esset abactus quem quis conduxerat, ita rescripsit: " si capras latrones citra tuam fraudem abegisse probari potest iudicio locati, casum praestare non cogeris atque temporis quod insecutum est mercedes ut indebitas reciperabis. "

The emperor Antoninus with his father, when a herd had been driven off which someone had hired, thus rescripted: " if it can be proved in the action on letting (iudicium locati) that robbers drove off the goats without your fraud, you will not be compelled to answer for casus (fortuitous loss), and you will recover the rent for the time that followed as not due. "

Dig. 19.2.9.5

Digest 19.2.9.5

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the edict.

Celsus etiam imperitiam culpae adnumerandam libro octavo digestorum scripsit: si quis vitulos pascendos vel sarciendum quid poliendumve conduxit, culpam eum praestare debere et quod imperitia peccavit, culpam esse: quippe ut artifex, inquit, conduxit.

Celsus also wrote in the eighth book of the Digesta that inexperience is to be numbered under fault: if someone has undertaken by contract calves to be pastured or something to be mended or polished, he ought to be liable for fault, and that what he did amiss through inexperience is fault; for, he says, he contracted as an artificer.

Dig. 19.2.9.6

Digest 19.2.9.6

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Si alienam domum mihi locaveris eaque mihi legata vel donata sit, non teneri me tibi ex locato ob pensionem: sed de tempore praeterito videamus, si quid ante legati diem pensionis debetur: et puto solvendum:

If you have leased to me a house belonging to another, and it has been bequeathed to me by legacy or given to me as a gift, I am not held to you under the lease on account of the rent: but as to the time already past, let us consider whether any rent is owed before the day of the legacy: and I think it ought to be paid:

Dig. 19.2.10

Digest 19.2.10

Iulianus libro ad ferocem.

Julian in the book addressed to Ferox.

Et ego ex conducto recte agam vel in hoc, ut me liberes.

And I too may properly bring an action on the contract of hire, even for this, that you free me.

Dig. 19.2.11pr.

Digest 19.2.11 preface.

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Videamus, an et servorum culpam et quoscumque induxerit praestare conductor debeat? et quatenus praestat, utrum ut servos noxae dedat an vero suo nomine teneatur? et adversus eos quos induxerit utrum praestabit tantum actiones an quasi ob propriam culpam tenebitur?

Let us see whether the lessee ought to answer for the fault of slaves and of whomever he has introduced; and how far he answers—whether so as to surrender the slaves by noxal delivery, or rather to be held in his own name; and as against those whom he has introduced, whether he will provide only the actions, or be held as though for his own fault?

mihi ita placet, ut culpam etiam eorum quos induxit praestet suo nomine, etsi nihil convenit, si tamen culpam in inducendis admittit, quod tales habuerit vel suos vel hospites: et ita pomponius libro sexagesimo tertio ad edictum probat.

It thus pleases me, that he be liable in his own name even for the culpa of those whom he has brought in, even if nothing was agreed, provided, however, that he incurs culpa in introducing them, because he has had such persons, whether his own or guests; and so Pomponius approves this in the 63rd book on the edict.

Dig. 19.2.11.1

Digest 19.2.11.1

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Si hoc in locatione convenit " ignem ne habeto" et habuit, tenebitur etiam si fortuitus casus admisit incendium, quia non debuit ignem habere. aliud est enim ignem innocentem habere: permittit enim habere, sed innoxium, ignem.

If this is agreed in the letting, " do not have fire," and he did have it, he will be held liable even if a fortuitous accident admitted a conflagration, because he ought not to have had fire. for it is another matter to have innocent fire: for it permits one to have fire, but innoxious fire.

Dig. 19.2.11.2

Digest 19.2.11.2

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the edict.

Item prospicere debet conductor, ne aliquo vel ius rei vel corpus deterius faciat vel fieri patiatur.

Likewise the lessee ought to see to it, that he does not in any way make, or allow to be made, either the right in the thing or its body worse.

Dig. 19.2.11.3

Digest 19.2.11.3

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 On the Edict.

Qui vinum de campania transportandum conduxisset, deinde mota a quodam controversia signatum suo et alterius sigillo in apothecam deposuisset, ex locato tenetur, ut locatori possessionem vini sine controversia reddat, nisi culpa conductor careret.

He who had hired to transport wine from Campania, and then, a dispute having been raised by someone, had deposited it sealed with his own and another’s seal in a warehouse, is liable ex locato to render to the locator the possession of the wine without controversy, unless the conductor were free of fault.

Dig. 19.2.11.4

Digest 19.2.11.4

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the edict

Inter conductorem et locatorem convenerat, ne in villa urbana faenum componeretur: composuit: deinde servus igne illato succendit. ait labeo teneri conductorem ex locato, quia ipse causam praebuit inferendo contra conductionem.

Between the lessee and the lessor it had been agreed that hay was not to be piled up in the town house: he piled it up: then a slave, fire having been brought in, set it ablaze. Labeo says the lessee is held liable under the action on lease, because he himself supplied the cause by bringing it in contrary to the lease.

Dig. 19.2.12

Digest 19.2.12

Hermogenianus 2 iuris epit.

Hermogenianus 2, Epitome of Law.

Sed etsi quilibet extraneus ignem iniecerit, damni locati iudicio habebitur ratio.

But even if any outsider has thrown in fire, account will be taken, in the action of letting (locati), of the damage.

Dig. 19.2.13pr.

Digest 19.2.13, preface.

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Item quaeritur, si cisiarius, id est carucharius, dum ceteros transire contendit, cisium evertit et servum quassavit vel occidit. puto ex locato esse in eum actionem: temperare enim debuit: sed et utilis aquiliae dabitur.

Likewise it is asked, if a cisiarius, that is, a carucharius, while striving to pass the others, overturns the cisium and bruises or kills a slave. I think an action ex locato lies against him; for he ought to have exercised restraint; but a useful Aquilian action will also be given.

Dig. 19.2.13.1

Digest 19.2.13.1

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Si navicularius onus minturnas vehendum conduxerit et, cum flumen minturnense navis ea subire non posset, in aliam navem merces transtulerit eaque navis in ostio fluminis perierit, tenetur primus navicularius? labeo, si culpa caret, non teneri ait: ceterum si vel invito domino fecit vel quo non debuit tempore aut si minus idoneae navi, tunc ex locato agendum.

If a shipmaster has contracted to carry a cargo to Minturnae, and, since that ship could not enter the Minturnian river, he transferred the merchandise into another ship, and that ship perished at the mouth of the river, is the first shipmaster liable? labeo says that, if he is free from fault, he is not to be held; but if he did it either against the owner’s will, or at a time when he ought not, or if to a less suitable ship, then one must proceed by an action ex locato.

Dig. 19.2.13.2

Digest 19.2.13.2

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Si magister navis sine gubernatore in flumen navem immiserit et tempestate orta temperare non potuerit et navem perdiderit, vectores habebunt adversus eum ex locato actionem.

If the master of a ship, without a helmsman, has sent the ship into a river, and with a storm having arisen was not able to keep control and lost the ship, the passengers will have an action ex locato against him.

Dig. 19.2.13.3

Digest 19.2.13.3

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the edict.

Si quis servum docendum conduxerit eumque duxerit peregre et aut ab hostibus captus sit aut perierit, ex locato esse actionem placuit, si modo non sic conduxit, ut et peregre duceret.

If someone has hired a slave to be taught and has taken him abroad, and he has either been captured by enemies or has perished, it has been decided that an action ex locato lies—provided only that he did not hire on such terms as also to take him abroad.

Dig. 19.2.13.4

Digest 19.2.13.4

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Item iulianus libro octagensimo sexto digestorum scripsit, si sutor puero parum bene facienti forma calcei tam vehementer cervicem percusserit, ut ei oculus effunderetur, ex locato esse actionem patri eius: quamvis enim magistris levis castigatio concessa sit, tamen hunc modum non tenuisse: sed et de aquilia supra diximus. iniuriarum autem actionem competere iulianus negat, quia non iniuriae faciendae causa hoc fecerit, sed praecipiendi.

Likewise Julian, in the eighty-sixth book of the Digest, wrote that, if a shoemaker struck a boy, who was doing not very well, with the shoe-form (forma calcei) so violently on the neck that his eye was put out, an action ex locato lies for his father: for although a light castigation is conceded to masters, nevertheless he did not keep this measure; and we have spoken above also concerning the Aquilian [action]. But Julian denies that an action for iniuriae is competent, because he did this not for the sake of doing an iniuria, but for instructing.

Dig. 19.2.13.5

Digest 19.2.13.5

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the edict.

Si gemma includenda aut insculpenda data sit eaque fracta sit, si quidem vitio materiae fractum sit, non erit ex locato actio, si imperitia facientis, erit. huic sententiae addendum est, nisi periculum quoque in se artifex receperat: tunc enim etsi vitio materiae id evenit, erit ex locato actio.

If a gem has been given to be set or engraved and it has been broken, if indeed it was broken by a defect of the material, there will not be an action ex locato; if by the inexperience of the maker, there will be. To this opinion it must be added, unless the artisan had also taken the risk upon himself: for then even if it happened by a defect of the material, there will be an action ex locato.

Dig. 19.2.13.6

Digest 19.2.13.6

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Si fullo vestimenta polienda acceperit eaque mures roserint, ex locato tenetur, quia debuit ab hac re cavere. et si pallium fullo permutaverit et alii alterius dederit, ex locato actione tenebitur, etiamsi ignarus fecerit.

If a fuller has received garments to be polished and mice have gnawed them, he is liable ex locato, because he ought to have guarded against this. And if the fuller has exchanged a cloak and given to one person another’s, he will be held by an action ex locato, even if he did it unwittingly.

Dig. 19.2.13.7

Digest 19.2.13.7

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Exercitu veniente migravit conductor, dein de hospitio milites fenestras et cetera sustulerunt. si domino non denuntiavit et migravit, ex locato tenebitur: labeo autem, si resistere potuit et non resistit, teneri ait, quae sententia vera est. sed et si denuntiare non potuit, non puto eum teneri.

When the army was coming, the lessee moved out; then, on account of the billeting, soldiers carried off the windows and other things. If he did not give notice to the owner and moved out, he will be held liable under the lease; but Labeo says that, if he could have resisted and did not, he is liable—which opinion is true. Yet if he could not give notice, I do not think he is liable.

Dig. 19.2.13.8

Digest 19.2.13.8

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Si quis mensuras conduxerit easque magistratus frangi iusserit, si quidem iniquae fuerunt, sabinus distinguit, utrum scit conductor an non: si scit, esse ex locato actionem, si minus, non. quod si aeque sunt, ita demum eum teneri, si culpa eius id fecit aedilis. et ita labeo et mela scribunt.

If someone has hired measures and the magistrate has ordered them to be broken, if indeed they were not true, Sabinus distinguishes whether the lessee knew or not: if he knew, there is an action ex locato; if not, there is not. But if they are true, then he is held only if it was through his fault that the aedile did this. And thus Labeo and Mela write.

Dig. 19.2.13.9

Digest 19.2.13.9

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Duo rei locationis in solidum esse possunt.

Two parties to a letting can be liable in solidum.

Dig. 19.2.13.10

Digest 19.2.13.10

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Si lege operis locandi comprehensum esset, ut, si ad diem effectum non esset, relocare id liceret, non alias prior conductor ex locato tenebitur, quam si eadem lege relocatum esset: nec ante relocari id potest, quam dies efficiendi praeterisset.

If by the terms of the hiring of a piece of work it had been included that, if it were not completed by the day, it would be permitted to relet it, the prior contractor will be held liable ex locato only if it has been relet under the same terms; nor can it be relet before the day for completion has passed.

Dig. 19.2.13.11

Digest 19.2.13.11

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Qui impleto tempore conductionis remansit in conductione, non solum reconduxisse videbitur, sed etiam pignora videntur durare obligata. sed hoc ita verum est, si non alius pro eo in priore conductione res obligaverat: huius enim novus consensus erit necessarius. eadem causa erit et si rei publicae praedia locata fuerint.

He who, the term of the lease having been completed, has remained in the lease will be seen not only to have renewed it, but also the pledges are deemed to continue bound. But this is true thus, if someone else had not, on his behalf, obligated the things in the prior lease: for the new consent of that person will be necessary. The same cause will obtain also if the estates of the State have been leased.

quod autem diximus taciturnitate utriusque partis colonum reconduxisse videri, ita accipiendum est, ut in ipso anno, quo tacuerunt, videantur eandem locationem renovasse, non etiam in sequentibus annis, etsi lustrum forte ab initio fuerat conductioni praestitutum. sed et si secundo quoque anno post finitum lustrum nihil fuerit contrarium actum, eandem videri locationem in illo anno permansisse: hoc enim ipso, quo tacuerunt, consensisse videntur. et hoc deinceps in unoquoque anno observandum est.

However, as to what we said—that by the silence of both parties the tenant is seen to have renewed the lease—this is to be taken thus: that in the very year in which they were silent, they are deemed to have renewed the same lease, not also in the subsequent years, even if from the beginning a lustrum had perhaps been appointed for the lease. But even if in the second year as well, after the lustrum has ended, nothing has been done to the contrary, the same lease is seen to have remained in that year: for by this very fact, that they were silent, they seem to have consented. And this thereafter is to be observed in each several year.

in urbanis autem praediis alio iure utimur, ut, prout quisque habitaverit, ita et obligetur, nisi in scriptis certum tempus conductioni comprehensum est.

but in urban estates we use a different law, such that, according as each has resided, so too he is obligated, unless a fixed term for the lease has been included in writing.

Dig. 19.2.14

Digest 19.2.14

Ulpianus 71 ad ed.

Ulpian 71 On the Edict.

Qui ad certum tempus conducit, finito quoque tempore colonus est: intellegitur enim dominus, cum patitur colonum in fundo esse, ex integro locare, et huiusmodi contractus neque verba neque scripturam utique desiderant, sed nudo consensu convalescunt: et ideo si interim dominus furere coeperit vel decesserit, fieri non posse Marcellus ait, ut locatio redintegretur, et est hoc verum.

He who leases for a fixed time, when the time has also finished, remains a colonus (tenant): for it is understood that the owner, since he allows the colonus to be on the estate, is letting it afresh; and contracts of this kind require neither words nor writing, but are validated by bare consent: and therefore, if in the meantime the owner has begun to be insane or has died, Marcellus says that the letting cannot be renewed, and this is true.

Dig. 19.2.15pr.

Digest 19.2.15pr.

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Ex conducto actio conductori datur.

The action ex conducto is given to the conductor.

Dig. 19.2.15.1

Digest 19.2.15.1

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Competit autem ex his causis fere: ut puta si re quam conduxit frui ei non liceat ( forte quia possessio ei aut totius agri aut partis non praestatur, aut villa non reficitur vel stabulum vel ubi greges eius stare oporteat) vel si quid in lege conductionis convenit, si hoc non praestatur, ex conducto agetur.

However, it generally lies on these grounds: for example, if it is not permitted to him to enjoy the thing which he leased (perhaps because possession of either the whole field or of a part is not furnished to him, or the villa is not repaired, or the stable, or the place where his herds ought to stand), or if anything was agreed in the law of the lease, if this is not furnished, an action ex conducto will be brought.

Dig. 19.2.15.2

Digest 19.2.15.2

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 On the Edict.

Si vis tempestatis calamitosae contigerit, an locator conductori aliquid praestare debeat, videamus. servius omnem vim, cui resisti non potest, dominum colono praestare debere ait, ut puta fluminum graculorum sturnorum et si quid simile acciderit, aut si incursus hostium fiat: si qua tamen vitia ex ipsa re oriantur, haec damno coloni esse, veluti si vinum coacuerit, si raucis aut herbis segetes corruptae sint. sed et si labes facta sit omnemque fructum tulerit, damnum coloni non esse, ne supra damnum seminis amissi mercedes agri praestare cogatur.

If a calamitous force of weather should occur, let us see whether the lessor ought to make anything good to the lessee. Servius says that the owner ought to make good to the tenant-farmer (colonus) every force which cannot be resisted, as, for instance, that of rivers, of jackdaws, of starlings, and if anything similar should happen, or if an incursion of enemies takes place; but if any defects arise from the thing itself, these are to be at the colonus’s loss, as if the wine has curdled, or if the crops have been ruined by blights or by weeds. But also, if a landslip has occurred and has carried off all the produce, the loss is not the colonus’s, lest he be compelled, beyond the loss of the seed that has been lost, to pay the rent of the field.

sed et si uredo fructum oleae corruperit aut solis fervore non adsueto id acciderit, damnum domini futurum: si vero nihil extra consuetudinem acciderit, damnum coloni esse. idemque dicendum, si exercitus praeteriens per lasciviam aliquid abstulit. sed et si ager terrae motu ita corruerit, ut nusquam sit, damno domini esse: oportere enim agrum praestari conductori, ut frui possit.

but also if blight has spoiled the olive’s fruit, or if by an unaccustomed fervor of the sun that has happened, the loss will be the owner’s: if indeed nothing beyond what is customary has occurred, the loss is the tenant’s. the same is to be said if an army, passing by, has taken something through wantonness. but also if the field has collapsed by an earthquake so that it is nowhere, the loss is the owner’s: for the field ought to be provided to the lessee, that he may be able to enjoy it.

Dig. 19.2.15.3

Digest 19.2.15.3

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the edict.

Cum quidam incendium fundi allegaret et remissionem desideraret, ita ei rescriptum est: " si praedium coluisti, propter casum incendii repentini non immerito subveniendum tibi est. "

When a certain person alleged a fire of the estate and desired a remission, thus it was rescripted to him: " if you have cultivated the estate, on account of the accident of a sudden conflagration, it is not without merit that assistance should be afforded to you. "

Dig. 19.2.15.4

Digest 19.2.15.4

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the edict.

Papinianus libro quarto responsorum ait, si uno anno remissionem quis colono dederit ob sterilitatem, deinde sequentibus annis contigit uberitas, nihil obesse domino remissionem, sed integram pensionem etiam eius anni quo remisit exigendam. hoc idem et in vectigalis damno respondit. sed et si verbo donationis dominus ob sterilitatem anni remiserit, idem erit dicendum, quasi non sit donatio, sed transactio.

Papinian, in the fourth book of his Responses, says that if in one year a remission has been given to a tenant farmer on account of barrenness, and then in the following years abundance occurs, the remission does not prejudice the owner, but the full rent, even of that year in which he remitted, is to be demanded. He gave the same reply also in the case of loss of the vectigal. And even if under the term donation the owner has remitted on account of the year’s barrenness, the same must be said, as though it were not a donation but a settlement.

quid tamen, si novissimus erat annus sterilis, in quo ei remiserit? verius dicetur et si superiores uberes fuerunt et scit locator, non debere eum ad computationem vocari.

What, however, if the most recent year was barren, in which he granted him a remission? The truer view will be that, even if the earlier years were abundant and the lessor knows it, he ought not to be called to an accounting.

Dig. 19.2.15.5

Digest 19.2.15.5

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 On the Edict.

Cum quidam de fructuum exiguitate quereretur, non esse rationem eius habendam rescripto divi antonini continetur. item alio rescripto ita continetur: " novam rem desideras, ut propter vetustatem vinearum remissio tibi detur. "

When someone complained about the scantiness of the fruits, it is contained in a rescript of the deified Antoninus that there is to be no consideration of it. Likewise, in another rescript it is contained thus: " you desire a novel thing, that, on account of the age of the vineyards, a remission be given to you. "

Dig. 19.2.15.6

Digest 19.2.15.6

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Item cum quidam nave amissa vecturam, quam pro mutua acceperat, repeteretur, rescriptum est ab antonino augusto non immerito procuratorem caesaris ab eo vecturam repetere, cum munere vehendi functus non sit: quod in omnibus personis similiter observandum est.

Likewise, when, the ship having been lost, a certain person was being pressed to repay the freight which he had received as a mutuum, it was rescripted by Antoninus Augustus that not undeservedly the procurator of Caesar reclaims the freight from him, since he has not discharged the duty of carrying: which is to be observed similarly in all persons.

Dig. 19.2.15.7

Digest 19.2.15.7

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Ubicumque tamen remissionis ratio habetur ex causis supra relatis, non id quod sua interest conductor consequitur, sed mercedis exonerationem pro rata: supra denique damnum seminis ad colonum pertinere declaratur.

Wherever, however, account of remission is had on the causes set forth above, the lessee does not obtain what is his “interest,” but a discharge of the rent pro rata: above, finally, it is declared that the loss of the seed pertains to the colonus.

Dig. 19.2.15.8

Digest 19.2.15.8

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Plane si forte dominus frui non patiatur, vel cum ipse locasset vel cum alius alienum vel quasi procurator vel quasi suum, quod interest praestabitur: et ita proculus in procuratore respondit.

Clearly, if by chance the owner does not allow enjoyment, whether when he himself had leased it out, or when another had leased another’s—either as if a procurator or as if it were his own—what the interest amounts to will be awarded; and thus Proculus responded in the case of a procurator.

Dig. 19.2.15.9

Digest 19.2.15.9

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Interdum ad hoc ex locato agetur, ut quis locatione liberetur, iulianus libro quinto decimo digestorum scripsit. ut puta titio fundum locavi isque pupillo herede instituto decessit et, cum tutor constituisset abstinere pupillum hereditate, ego fundum pluris locavi: deinde pupillus restitutus est in bona paterna. ex conducto nihil amplius eum consecuturum, quam ut locatione liberetur: mihi enim iusta causa fuit locandi,

at times action ex locato will be brought for this purpose, that someone be freed from the lease, Julian in the fifteenth book of the Digest wrote. for example, I let a fund (estate) to Titius and he died with a pupil (ward) instituted as heir, and, when the tutor had determined that the pupil should abstain from the inheritance, I let the fund for a higher price: then the pupil was restored into his paternal goods. from ex conducto he will obtain nothing more than that he be freed from the lease: for I had a just cause for letting,

Dig. 19.2.16

Digest 19.2.16

Iulianus 15 Dig.

Julianus 15 Digest

Cum eo tempore in pupillum actiones nullae darentur.

Since at that time no actions were granted against a ward.

Dig. 19.2.17

Digest 19.2.17

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Tutelae tamen cum tutore iudicio, inquit, aget, si abstinere non debuit:

Nevertheless, he says, he will sue by the action of tutela against the tutor, if he ought not to have abstained:

Dig. 19.2.18

Digest 19.2.18

Iulianus 15 Dig.

Julian 15 Dig.

In quo inerit etiam hoc, quod ex conductione fundi lucrum facere potuit.

In which there will also be included this, that from the leasing of the estate he could make lucre.

Dig. 19.2.19pr.

Digest 19.2.19pr.

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 to the Edict.

Sed addes hoc iuliani sententiae, ut, si collusi ego cum tutore, ex conducto tenear in id quod pupilli interfuit.

But you will add this to the opinion of Julianus: that, if I have colluded with the tutor, I am liable ex conducto to the extent of what was in the ward’s interest.

Dig. 19.2.19.1

Digest 19.2.19.1

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Si quis dolia vitiosa ignarus locaverit, deinde vinum effluxerit, tenebitur in id quod interest nec ignorantia eius erit excusata: et ita cassius scripsit. aliter atque si saltum pascuum locasti, in quo herba mala nascebatur: hic enim si pecora vel demortua sunt vel etiam deteriora facta, quod interest praestabitur, si scisti, si ignorasti, pensionem non petes, et ita servio labeoni sabino placuit.

if someone, unaware, has leased out defective casks, and then the wine has flowed out, he will be held to the extent of what it interests, nor will his ignorance be excused: and so cassius wrote. otherwise than if you leased a grazing pasture, in which harmful herbage was growing: for here, if the cattle have either died or even become worse, what it interests will be made good, if you knew; if you were ignorant, you will not claim the rent, and thus it pleased servius, labeo, and sabinus.

Dig. 19.2.19.2

Digest 19.2.19.2

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the edict.

Illud nobis videndum est, si quis fundum locaverit, quae soleat instrumenti nomine conductori praestare, quaeque si non praestet, ex locato tenetur. et est epistula neratii ad aristonem dolia utique colono esse praestanda et praelum et trapetum instructa funibus, si minus, dominum instruere ea debere: sed et praelum vitiatum dominum reficere debere. quod si culpa coloni quid eorum corruptum sit, ex locato eum teneri.

We must consider this: if someone has leased out a farm, what he is accustomed to provide to the lessee under the name of equipment, and for the failure to provide which he is liable on the letting (ex locato). And there is a letter of Neratius to Aristo stating that jars (dolia) are in any case to be furnished to the tenant-farmer (colonus), and the press (praelum) and the trapetum equipped with ropes; otherwise, the owner ought to equip them: and the owner ought also to repair a defective press. But if through the fault of the tenant-farmer anything of these has been damaged, he is liable on the letting (ex locato).

fiscos autem, quibus ad premendam oleam utimur, colonum sibi parare debere neratius scripsit: quod si regulis olea prematur, et praelum et suculam et regulas et tympanum et cocleas quibus relevatur praelum dominum parare oportere. item aenum, in quo olea calda aqua lavatur, ut cetera vasa olearia dominum praestare oportere, sicuti dolia vinaria, quae ad praesentem usum colonum picare oportebit. haec omnia sic sunt accipienda, nisi si quid aliud specialiter actum sit.

Moreover, Neratius wrote that the baskets which we use for pressing olives ought to be procured by the tenant for himself; but if the olives are pressed by means of bars, it is proper that the owner provide both the press and the windlass and the bars and the drum and the screws by which the press is raised. Likewise, the cauldron in which the olives are washed with warm water, as also the other oil-vessels, the owner ought to furnish, just as the wine-jars, which for present use it will be proper for the farmer to pitch. All these things are to be understood thus, unless something else has been specially agreed.

Dig. 19.2.19.3

Digest 19.2.19.3

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict

Si dominus exceperit in locatione, ut frumenti certum modum certo pretio acciperet, et dominus nolit frumentum accipere neque pecuniam ex mercede deducere, potest quidem totam summam ex locato petere, sed utique consequens est existimare officio iudicis hoc convenire, haberi rationem, quanto conductoris intererat in frumento potius quam in pecunia solvere pensionis exceptam portionem. simili modo et si ex conducto agatur, idem erit dicendum.

If the owner has excepted in the lease that he would receive a certain measure of grain at a fixed price, and the owner is unwilling to accept the grain or to deduct the money from the hire-price, he can indeed claim the whole sum by the action ex locato; but it is certainly consequent to think this accords with the duty of the judge: that account be taken of how much it was in the lessee’s (conductor’s) interest to pay in grain rather than in money the excepted portion of the rent. In a similar way, if the matter is brought ex conducto, the same is to be said.

Dig. 19.2.19.4

Digest 19.2.19.4

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Si inquilinus ostium vel quaedam alia aedificio adiecerit, quae actio locum habeat? et est verius labeo scripsit competere ex conducto actionem, ut ei tollere liceat, sic tamen, ut damni infecti caveat, ne in aliquo dum aufert deteriorem causam aedium faciat, sed ut pristinam faciem aedibus reddat.

If a tenant has added a door or certain other things to the building, what action has a place? And the truer view, as Labeo wrote, is that the action ex conducto is available, so that it be permitted to him to remove them, yet on this condition: that he give security for damnum infectum, lest in any respect, while he removes them, he make the condition of the house worse, but that he restore to the building its former appearance.

Dig. 19.2.19.5

Digest 19.2.19.5

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Si inquilinus arcam aeratam in aedes contulerit et aedium aditum coangustaverit dominus, verius est ex conducto eum teneri et ad exhibendum actione, sive scit sive ignoraverit: officio enim iudicis continetur, ut cogat eum aditum et facultatem inquilino praestare ad arcam tollendam sumptibus scilicet locatoris.

If a tenant has brought a bronze‑bound chest into the premises and the owner has narrowed the entrance of the premises, the truer view is that he is liable on the action ex conducto and on the action ad exhibendum, whether he knew it or did not know it: for it is within the judge’s duty to compel him to provide the tenant with access and the ability to remove the chest, at the lessor’s expense, of course.

Dig. 19.2.19.6

Digest 19.2.19.6

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian book 32 On the Edict.

Si quis, cum in annum habitationem conduxisset, pensionem totius anni dederit, deinde insula post sex menses ruerit vel incendio consumpta sit, pensionem residui temporis rectissime mela scripsit ex conducto actione repetiturum, non quasi indebitum condicturum: non enim per errorem dedit plus, sed ut sibi in causam conductionis proficeret. aliter atque si quis, cum decem conduxisset, quindecim solverit: hic enim si per errorem solvit, dum putat se quindecim conduxisse, actionem ex conducto non habebit, sed solam condictionem. nam inter eum, qui per errorem solvit, et eum, qui pensionem integram prorogavit, multum interest.

If someone, when he had leased a dwelling for a year, has paid the rent of the whole year, then the tenement after six months has collapsed or has been consumed by fire, Mela most correctly wrote that he will recover by the action ex conducto the rent for the remaining time, and not bring a condictio as for something not owed: for he did not give more by mistake, but so that it might avail him for the purpose of the lease. Otherwise than if someone, when he had hired for ten, paid fifteen: for here, if he paid by mistake, supposing that he had hired for fifteen, he will not have the action ex conducto, but only the condictio. For there is much difference between him who paid by mistake and him who prepaid the entire rent.

Dig. 19.2.19.7

Digest 19.2.19.7

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Si quis mulierem vehendam navi conduxisset, deinde in nave infans natus fuisset, probandum est pro infante nihil deberi, cum neque vectura eius magna sit neque his omnibus utatur, quae ad navigantium usum parantur.

If someone had chartered a ship for conveying a woman, and then an infant were born on the ship, it is to be approved that nothing is owed for the infant, since neither is his freightage great nor does he use all those things which are prepared for the use of voyagers.

Dig. 19.2.19.8

Digest 19.2.19.8

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 On the Edict.

Ex conducto actionem etiam ad heredem transire palam est.

It is clear that the action ex conducto also passes to the heir.

Dig. 19.2.19.9

Digest 19.2.19.9

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the edict.

Cum quidam exceptor operas suas locasset, deinde is qui eas conduxerat decessisset, imperator antoninus cum divo severo rescripsit ad libellum exceptoris in haec verba: " cum per te non stetisse proponas, quo minus locatas operas antonio aquilae solveres, si eodem anno mercedes ab alio non accepisti, fidem contractus impleri aequum est. "

When a certain exceptor had let out his services, and then the one who had contracted them had died, Emperor Antoninus, together with the deified Severus, wrote back to the libellus of the exceptor in these words: "Since you allege that it was not through you that you failed to render the hired services to Antonius Aquila, if in the same year you did not receive wages from another, it is equitable that the good faith of the contract be fulfilled."

Dig. 19.2.19.10

Digest 19.2.19.10

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Papinianus quoque libro quarto responsorum scripsit diem functo legato caesaris salarium comitibus residui temporis praestandum, modo si non postea comites cum aliis eodem tempore fuerunt.

Papinian also wrote in the fourth book of the Responses that, when the Caesar’s legate had died, the salary for the remaining time must be provided to the companions, provided that the companions were not afterward with others during the same period.

Dig. 19.2.20pr.

Digest 19.2.20 pr.

Paulus 34 ad ed.

Paulus 34 on the edict.

Sicut emptio ita et locatio sub condicione fieri potest:

Just as a sale, so too a lease may be made under a condition:

Dig. 19.2.20.1

Digest 19.2.20.1

Paulus 34 ad ed.

Paulus 34 on the Edict.

Sed donationis causa contrahi non potest.

But a contract cannot be concluded for the purpose of donation.

Dig. 19.2.20.2

Digest 19.2.20.2

Paulus 34 ad ed.

Paulus 34 on the Edict.

Interdum locator non obligatur, conductor obligatur, veluti cum emptor fundum conducit, donec pretium ei solvat.

Sometimes the lessor is not bound, the lessee is bound, as when the buyer leases the estate, until he pays the price.

Dig. 19.2.21

Digest 19.2.21

Iavolenus 11 epist.

Javolenus 11 letters.

Cum venderem fundum, convenit, ut, donec pecunia omnis persolveretur, certa mercede emptor fundum conductum haberet: an soluta pecunia merces accepta fieri debeat? respondit: bona fides exigit, ut quod convenit fiat: sed non amplius praestat is venditori, quam pro portione eius temporis, quo pecunia numerata non esset.

When I was selling a farm, it was agreed that, until all the money was paid in full, the buyer should have the farm as hired for a fixed rent: when the money has been paid, ought the rent to be deemed accepted? He answered: good faith requires that what was agreed be done; but he renders no more to the seller than in proportion to that period during which the money had not been counted out.

Dig. 19.2.22pr.

Digest 19.2.22pr.

Paulus 34 ad ed.

Paulus book 34 on the Edict.

Item si pretio non soluto inempta res facta sit, tunc ex locato erit actio.

Likewise, if, with the price unpaid, the thing has been made unbought, then the action will lie ex locato.

Dig. 19.2.22.1

Digest 19.2.22.1

Paulus 34 ad ed.

Paulus 34 on the Edict.

Quotiens autem faciendum aliquid datur, locatio est.

But whenever something is given to be done, it is a letting (locatio).

Dig. 19.2.22.2

Digest 19.2.22.2

Paulus 34 ad ed.

Paulus 34 on the Edict.

Cum insulam aedificandam loco, ut sua impensa conductor omnia faciat, proprietatem quidem eorum ad me transfert et tamen locatio est: locat enim artifex operam suam, id est faciendi necessitatem.

When I lease out a site for an insula to be built, so that the conductor at his own expense does everything, the ownership of those things is indeed transferred to me, and yet it is a letting: for the artificer leases his labor, that is, the necessity of doing.

Dig. 19.2.22.3

Digest 19.2.22.3

Paulus 34 ad ed.

Paulus, 34 on the Edict.

Quemadmodum in emendo et vendendo naturaliter concessum est quod pluris sit minoris emere, quod minoris sit pluris vendere et ita invicem se circumscribere, ita in locationibus quoque et conductionibus iuris est:

Just as in buying and selling it is naturally permitted to buy for less what is worth more, to sell for more what is worth less, and thus to overreach one another in turn, so also in lettings and hirings the law is the same:

Dig. 19.2.23

Digest 19.2.23

Hermogenianus 2 iuris epit.

Hermogenianus 2 of the epitome of law.

Et ideo praetextu minoris pensionis, locatione facta, si nullus dolus adversarii probari possit, rescindi locatio non potest.

And therefore, under the pretext of a lesser rent, once the lease has been made, if no fraud of the adversary can be proven, the lease cannot be rescinded.

Dig. 19.2.24pr.

Digest 19.2.24pr.

Paulus 34 ad ed.

Paulus 34 on the Edict.

Si in lege locationis comprehensum sit, ut arbitratu domini opus adprobetur, perinde habetur, ac si viri boni arbitrium comprehensum fuisset, idemque servatur, si alterius cuiuslibet arbitrium comprehensum sit: nam fides bona exigit, ut arbitrium tale praestetur, quale viro bono convenit. idque arbitrium ad qualitatem operis, non ad prorogandum tempus, quod lege finitum sit, pertinet, nisi id ipsum lege comprehensum sit. quibus consequens est, ut irrita sit adprobatio dolo conductoris facta, ut ex locato agi possit.

If in the terms of the letting it is included that the work is to be approved at the discretion of the owner, it is held the same as if the judgment of a good man had been included; and the same is observed if the judgment of any other person has been included: for good faith requires that such a judgment be rendered as befits a good man. And that judgment pertains to the quality of the work, not to the extension of the time that has been fixed by the terms, unless that very thing is included in the terms. From which it follows that an approval made by the fraud of the contractor (conductor) is void, so that an action from letting (ex locato) can be brought.

Dig. 19.2.24.1

Digest 19.2.24.1

Paulus 34 ad ed.

Paulus 34 on the Edict.

Si colonus locaverit fundum, res posterioris conductoris domino non obligantur: sed fructus in causa pignoris manent, quemadmodum essent, si primus colonus eos percepisset.

If a colonus has leased the estate, the goods of the later lessee are not bound to the owner; but the fruits remain in the status of a pledge, just as they would be if the first colonus had collected them.

Dig. 19.2.24.2

Digest 19.2.24.2

Paulus 34 ad ed.

Paulus 34 on the Edict.

Si domus vel fundus in quinquennium pensionibus locatus sit, potest dominus, si deseruerit habitationem vel fundi culturam colonus vel inquilinus, cum eis statim agere.

If a house or estate has been leased on rents for a quinquennium, the owner can, if the tenant-farmer or lodger has deserted the habitation or the cultivation of the estate, proceed against them at once.

Dig. 19.2.24.3

Digest 19.2.24.3

Paulus 34 ad ed.

Paul 34 on the Edict.

Sed et de his, quae praesenti die praestare debuerunt, velut opus aliquod efficerent, propagationes facerent, agere similiter potest.

But also concerning those things which they ought to have rendered on the present day—just as if they were effectuating some work, making propagations—he can similarly bring an action.

Dig. 19.2.24.4

Digest 19.2.24.4

Paulus 34 ad ed.

Paulus 34 on the edict.

Colonus, si ei frui non liceat, totius quinquennii nomine statim recte aget, etsi reliquis annis dominus fundi frui patiatur: nec enim semper liberabitur dominus eo quod secundo vel tertio anno patietur fundo frui. nam et qui expulsus a conductione in aliam se coloniam contulit, non suffecturus duabus neque ipse pensionum nomine obligatus erit et quantum per singulos annos compendii facturus erat, consequetur: sera est enim patientia fruendi, quae offertur eo tempore, quo frui colonus aliis rebus illigatus non potest. quod si paucis diebus prohibuit, deinde paenitentiam agit omniaque colono in integro sunt, nihil ex obligatione paucorum dierum mora minuet.

The colonus, if it is not permitted him to enjoy, will at once rightly sue in the name of the whole five-year term, even if in the remaining years the owner of the estate allows enjoyment: for the owner will not always be released by the fact that in the second or third year he suffers the farm to be enjoyed. For even he who, expelled from the lease, has transferred himself into another colony, not being able to suffice for two, will neither himself be bound under the name of rents, and he will recover as much profit as he was going to make in each year: for late is the sufferance of enjoyment which is offered at the time when the tenant, tied to other affairs, cannot enjoy. But if he prohibited for a few days, then repents and everything remains intact for the tenant, nothing of the obligation will the delay of a few days diminish.

item utiliter ex conducto agit is, cui secundum conventionem non praestantur quae convenerant, sive prohibeatur frui a domino vel ab extraneo quem dominus prohibere potest.

Likewise, he proceeds effectively by the action ex conducto to whom the things agreed are not furnished according to the convention, whether he is prevented from enjoyment by the owner or by an outsider whom the owner can restrain.

Dig. 19.2.24.5

Digest 19.2.24.5

Paulus 34 ad ed.

Paulus 34 on the Edict.

Qui in plures annos fundum locaverat, testamento suo damnavit heredem, ut conductorem liberaret. si non patiatur heres eum reliquo tempore frui, est ex conducto actio: quod si patiatur nec mercedes remittat, ex testamento tenetur.

He who had leased out a farm for several years, by his testament bound his heir to release the lessee. If the heir does not allow him to enjoy it for the remaining time, there is an action ex conducto; but if he does allow it and does not remit the rents, he is liable under the testament.

Dig. 19.2.25pr.

Digest 19.2.25pr.

Gaius 10 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 10 on the provincial edict.

Si merces promissa sit generaliter alieno arbitrio, locatio et conductio contrahi non videtur: sin autem quanti titius aestimaverit, sub hac condicione stare locationem, ut, si quidem ipse qui nominatus est mercedem definierit, omnimodo secundum eius aestimationem et mercedem persolvi oporteat et conductionem ad effectum pervenire: sin autem ille vel noluerit vel non potuerit mercedem definire, tunc pro nihilo esse conductionem quasi nulla mercede statuta.

If the hire-price has been promised generally to another’s arbitrament, a letting and hiring does not appear to be contracted; but if [it is promised] “for as much as Titius shall appraise,” then let the lease stand under this condition: namely, that if the very person who has been named shall define the hire-price, in every way the price ought to be paid according to his estimation and the hiring should come to effect; but if that person either is unwilling or has not been able to define the hire-price, then the hiring is to be counted as nothing, as though no hire-price had been stipulated.

Dig. 19.2.25.1

Digest 19.2.25.1

Gaius 10 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 10 on the Provincial Edict

Qui fundum fruendum vel habitationem alicui locavit, si aliqua ex causa fundum vel aedes vendat, curare debet, ut apud emptorem quoque eadem pactione et colono frui et inquilino habitare liceat: alioquin prohibitus is aget cum eo ex conducto.

He who has let a farm for enjoyment (to take the fruits) or a habitation to someone, if for any cause he sells the farm or the house(s), ought to take care that with the purchaser also, under the same pact, it is permitted both for the colonus to enjoy and for the inquilinus to inhabit; otherwise, if he is prohibited, he will bring an action against him ex conducto (on the lease).

Dig. 19.2.25.2

Digest 19.2.25.2

Gaius 10 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 10 on the provincial edict.

Si vicino aedificante obscurentur lumina cenaculi, teneri locatorem inquilino: certe quin liceat colono vel inquilino relinquere conductionem, nulla dubitatio est. de mercedibus quoque si cum eo agatur, repudiationis ratio habenda est. eadem intellegemus, si ostia fenestrasve nimium corruptas locator non restituat.

If, while a neighbor is building, the lights of the upper story are obscured, the lessor is held liable to the tenant: certainly there is no doubt that it is permitted for the colonus or the tenant to relinquish the lease. With respect to the rents also, if suit is brought against him, account must be taken of the repudiation. We shall understand the same, if the lessor does not restore doors or windows too greatly damaged.

Dig. 19.2.25.3

Digest 19.2.25.3

Gaius 10 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 10 on the Provincial Edict.

Conductor omnia secundum legem conductionis facere debet. et ante omnia colonus curare debet, ut opera rustica suo quoque tempore faciat, ne intempestiva cultura deteriorem fundum faceret. praeterea villarum curam agere debet, ut eas incorruptas habeat.

the lessee ought to do everything according to the law of the lease. and before all, the tenant-farmer ought to take care that he also perform the rural works at their proper time, lest untimely cultivation make the estate worse. moreover, he ought to take care of the villas, so that he keep them uncorrupted (intact).

Dig. 19.2.25.4

Digest 19.2.25.4

Gaius 10 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 10 on the provincial edict.

Culpae autem ipsius et illud adnumeratur, si propter inimicitias eius vicinus arbores exciderit.

Moreover, even this is counted toward his own fault, if, on account of his enmities, a neighbor has felled trees.

Dig. 19.2.25.5

Digest 19.2.25.5

Gaius 10 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 10 on the provincial edict.

Ipse quoque si exciderit, non solum ex locato tenetur, sed etiam lege aquilia et ex lege duodecim tabularum arborum furtim caesarum et interdicto quod vi aut clam: sed utique iudicis, qui ex locato iudicat, officio continetur, ut ceteras actiones locator omittat.

He himself also, if he has cut them down, is held liable not only ex locato, but also by the Lex Aquilia and by the Law of the Twelve Tables concerning trees furtively felled, and by the interdict quod vi aut clam; but at any rate it is contained within the duty of the judge who adjudicates ex locato, that the lessor omit the other actions.

Dig. 19.2.25.6

Digest 19.2.25.6

Gaius 10 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 10 on the provincial edict.

Vis maior, quam graeci veou bian appellant, non debet conductori damnosa esse, si plus, quam tolerabile est, laesi fuerint fructus: alioquin modicum damnum aequo animo ferre debet colonus, cui immodicum lucrum non aufertur. apparet autem de eo nos colono dicere, qui ad pecuniam numeratam conduxit: alioquin partiarius colonus quasi societatis iure et damnum et lucrum cum domino fundi partitur.

Force majeure, which the Greeks call "theou bian" (the violence of God), ought not to be damaging to the lessee, if the fruits have been injured beyond what is tolerable; otherwise the colonus ought to bear a moderate loss with equanimity, since an immoderate profit is not taken away from him. It is apparent, moreover, that we are speaking of that colonus who has leased for money paid down; otherwise the partiary colonus, as by the right of partnership, shares both loss and profit with the owner of the farm.

Dig. 19.2.25.7

Digest 19.2.25.7

Gaius 10 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 10 on the provincial edict.

Qui columnam transportandam conduxit, si ea, dum tollitur aut portatur aut reponitur, fracta sit, ita id periculum praestat, si qua ipsius eorumque, quorum opera uteretur, culpa acciderit: culpa autem abest, si omnia facta sunt, quae diligentissimus quisque observaturus fuisset. idem scilicet intellegemus et si dolia vel tignum transportandum aliquis conduxerit: idemque etiam ad ceteras res transferri potest.

He who has undertaken to transport a column, if it has been broken while it is being lifted or carried or set down, thus bears that risk, if it happened through the fault of himself or of those whose services he made use of: but fault is absent if everything was done which any most diligent person would have observed. We will, of course, understand the same also if someone has undertaken to transport casks or a beam: and the same can also be transferred to other things.

Dig. 19.2.25.8

Digest 19.2.25.8

Gaius 10 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius Book 10 on the Provincial Edict.

Si fullo aut sarcinator vestimenta perdiderit eoque nomine domino satisfecerit, necesse est domino vindicationem eorum et condictionem cedere.

If a fuller or a mender has lost the garments and has satisfied the owner on that account, it is necessary that the vindication of them and the condiction be ceded to the owner.

Dig. 19.2.26

Digest 19.2.26

Ulpianus 2 disp.

Ulpian 2 Disputations.

In operis duobus simul locatis convenit priori conductori ante satisfieri.

In the case of two works let out at the same time, it is agreed that the prior contractor be satisfied first.

Dig. 19.2.27pr.

Digest 19.2.27, beginning.

Alfenus 2 Dig.

Alfenus 2 Digest.

Habitatores non, si paulo minus commode aliqua parte caenaculi uterentur, statim deductionem ex mercede facere oportet: ea enim condicione habitatorem esse, ut, si quid transversarium incidisset, quamobrem dominum aliquid demoliri oporteret, aliquam partem parvulam incommodi sustineret: non ita tamen, ut eam partem caenaculi dominus aperuisset, in quam magnam partem usus habitator haberet.

Tenants ought not, if they used some part of the upper-story apartment a little less conveniently, immediately to make a deduction from the rent: for a tenant is on this condition, that, if something untoward occurred on account of which the owner had to demolish something, he should bear some small portion of inconvenience; not, however, to such an extent that the owner had opened up that part of the apartment in which the tenant had the greater part of his use.

Dig. 19.2.27.1

Digest 19.2.27.1

Alfenus 2 Dig.

Alfenus 2 Digest.

Iterum interrogatus est, si quis timoris causa emigrasset, deberet mercedem necne. respondit, si causa fuisset, cur periculum timeret, quamvis periculum vere non fuisset, tamen non debere mercedem: sed si causa timoris iusta non fuisset, nihilo minus debere.

Again he was asked whether, if someone had moved out because of fear, he ought to owe the rent or not. he answered that, if there had been a cause why he feared danger, although the danger had not truly existed, nevertheless he ought not to owe the rent: but if the cause of fear had not been just, he should owe it none the less.

Dig. 19.2.28pr.

Digest 19.2.28pr.

Labeo 4 post. epit. a iav.

Labeo 4 from the later epitome by Iavolenus.

Quod si domi habitatione conductor aeque usus fuisset,

But if the lessee had likewise made use of habitation at home,

Dig. 19.2.28.1

Digest 19.2.28.1

Labeo 4 post. epit. a iav.

Labeo book 4 of the Later Books, epitomized by Javolenus.

Praestaturum etiam eius domus mercedem, quae vitium fecisset, deberi putat.

He thinks that it is owed that he will also make good the rent of that house which had caused the defect.

Dig. 19.2.28.2

Digest 19.2.28.2

Labeo 4 post. epit. a iav.

Labeo book 4 of the Later Books, epitomized by Javolenus.

Idem iuris esse, si potestatem conducendi habebat, uti pretium conductionis praestaret. sed si locator conductori potestatem conducendae domus non fecisset et is in qua habitaret conduxisset, tantum ei praestandum putat, quantum sine dolo malo praestitisset. ceterum si gratuitam habitationem habuisset, pro portione temporis ex locatione domus deducendum esse.

The same is the law, if he had the authority to hire, namely that he should pay the price of the hiring. But if the lessor had not given the lessee authority to hire a house, and he hired one in which he lived, he (Labeo) thinks that only so much must be made good to him as he would have expended without bad faith. Moreover, if he had gratuitous lodging, it is to be deducted, in proportion to the time, from the rent of the house.

Dig. 19.2.29

Digest 19.2.29

Alfenus 7 Dig.

Alfenus 7 Digest

In lege locationis scriptum erat: " redemptor silvam ne caedito neve cingito neve deurito neve quem cingere caedere urere sinito". quaerebatur, utrum redemptor, si quem quid earum rerum facere vidisset, prohibere deberet an etiam ita silvam custodire, ne quis id facere possit. respondi verbum sinere utramque habere significationem, sed locatorem potius id videri voluisse, ut redemptor non solum, si quem casu vidisset silvam caedere, prohiberet, sed uti curaret et daret operam, ne quis caederet.

In the law of the letting it was written: " the contractor, let him not cut the forest, nor girdle it, nor burn it, nor let anyone girdle, cut, or burn." It was inquired whether the contractor, if he had seen someone doing any of those things, ought to prohibit, or even to guard the forest in such a way that no one could do it. I responded that the verb "to allow" has both significations, but that the lessor seems rather to have wished this: that the contractor not only, if he had by chance seen someone cutting the forest, should prohibit, but that he should also take care and give effort, that no one cut.

Dig. 19.2.30pr.

Digest 19.2.30pr.

Alfenus 3 Dig. a paulo epit.

Alfenus Book 3 of the Digest epitomized by Paul.

Qui insulam triginta conduxerat, singula caenacula ita conduxit, ut quadraginta ex omnibus colligerentur: dominus insulae, quia aedificia vitium facere diceret, demolierat eam: quaesitum est, quanti lis aestimari deberet, si is qui totam conduxerat ex conducto ageret. respondit, si vitiatum aedificium necessario demolitus esset, pro portione, quanti dominus praediorum locasset, quod eius temporis habitatores habitare non potuissent, rationem duci et tanti litem aestimari: sin autem non fuisset necesse demoliri, sed quia melius aedificare vellet, id fecisset, quanti conductoris interesset, habitatores ne migrarent, tanti condemnari oportere.

He who had leased an insula (apartment-building) for 30, leased the several upper rooms in such a way that 40 were collected from all: the owner of the insula, because he said the buildings were developing a defect, had demolished it. It was asked at how much the suit ought to be assessed, if the one who had leased the whole were to sue ex conducto. He answered: if he had of necessity demolished the defective building, an account should be taken proportionally, by how much the owner would have rented out the premises, for the time during which the inhabitants could not inhabit, and the suit be assessed at that amount; but if it had not been necessary to demolish, and he did it because he wished to build better, he ought to be condemned in as much as it was in the lessee’s interest that the inhabitants not migrate.

Dig. 19.2.30.1

Digest 19.2.30.1

Alfenus 3 Dig. a paulo epit.

Alfenus 3 Dig. epitomized by Paul.

Aedilis in municipio balneas conduxerat, ut eo anno municipes gratis lavarentur: post tres menses incendio facto respondit posse agi cum balneatore ex conducto, ut pro portione temporis, quo lavationem non praestitisset, pecuniae contributio fieret.

The aedile in a municipality had leased the baths, so that in that year the municipal citizens might be bathed gratis; after three months, a fire having occurred, he replied that an action could be brought against the bathkeeper on the lease (ex conducto), so that, in proportion to the time during which he had not provided the bathing, a contribution of money should be made.

Dig. 19.2.30.2

Digest 19.2.30.2

Alfenus 3 Dig. a paulo epit.

Alfenus 3 Digest. epitomized by paul.

Qui mulas ad certum pondus oneris locaret, cum maiore onere conductor eas rupisset, consulebat de actione. respondit vel lege aquilia vel ex locato recte eum agere, sed lege aquilia tantum cum eo agi posse, qui tum mulas agitasset, ex locato etiam si alius eas rupisset, cum conductore recte agi.

One who leased out mules for a fixed weight of burden, when the conductor (hirer) had broken them by a greater load, consulted about the action. He responded that he rightly could proceed either under the Lex Aquilia or ex locato; but under the Lex Aquilia one could proceed only against the one who at that time had driven the mules, whereas ex locato, even if another had broken them, one could rightly proceed against the conductor.

Dig. 19.2.30.3

Digest 19.2.30.3

Alfenus 3 Dig. a paulo epit.

Alfenus Digest Book 3 epitomized by Paul.

Qui aedem faciendam locaverat, in lege dixerat: " quoad in opus lapidis opus erit, pro lapide et manupretio dominus redemptori in pedes singulos septem dabit": quaesitum est, utrum factum opus an etiam imperfectum metiri oporteret. respondit etiam imperfectum.

he who had contracted for a building to be made had said in the contract: " as long as there will be need of stone for the work, for the stone and the hand‑price (wages) the owner will give the contractor seven for each foot": the question was raised whether the work done, or even the incomplete, ought to be measured. he answered: even the incomplete.

Dig. 19.2.30.4

Digest 19.2.30.4

Alfenus 3 Dig. a paulo epit.

Alfenus 3 Digest. epitomized by Paul.

Colonus villam hac lege acceperat, ut in incorruptam redderet praeter vim et vetustatem: coloni servus villam incendit non fortuito casu. non videri eam vim exceptam respondit nec id pactum esse, ut, si aliquis domesticus eam incendisset, ne praestaret, sed extrariam vim utrosque excipere voluisse.

The tenant-farmer had received the villa on this condition, that he would return it unimpaired, except for force and age; the tenant’s slave set the villa on fire, not by a fortuitous accident. He replied that such force did not seem to be excepted, nor that it had been agreed that, if some domestic had set it on fire, he need not make good; but that both had intended to except extraneous force.

Dig. 19.2.31

Digest 19.2.31

Alfenus 5 Dig. a paulo epit.

Alfenus book 5 of the Digest from Paulus’s epitome.

In navem saufeii cum complures frumentum confuderant, saufeius uni ex his frumentum reddiderat de communi et navis perierat: quaesitum est, an ceteri pro sua parte frumenti cum nauta agere possunt oneris aversi actione. respondit rerum locatarum duo genera esse, ut aut idem redderetur ( sicuti cum vestimenta fulloni curanda locarentur) aut eiusdem generis redderetur ( veluti cum argentum pusulatum fabro daretur, ut vasa fierent, aut aurum, ut anuli): ex superiore causa rem domini manere, ex posteriore in creditum iri. idem iuris esse in deposito: nam si quis pecuniam numeratam ita deposuisset, ut neque clusam neque obsignatam traderet, sed adnumeraret, nihil alius eum debere apud quem deposita esset, nisi tantundem pecuniae solveret.

When several had mixed grain together on Saufeius’s ship, Saufeius had given back to one of them grain from the common stock, and the ship had perished: the question was asked whether the others, for their own share of the grain, can proceed against the sailor by the action for misappropriated cargo. He responded that there are two kinds of things let out on hire: either the selfsame thing is to be returned (as when clothes are let to a fuller to be cared for) or a thing of the same kind is to be returned (as when smelted silver is given to a smith, that vessels may be made, or gold, that rings may be made). From the former case the thing remains the owner’s; from the latter it goes into a credit (loan). The same law holds in deposit: for if someone had deposited counted-out money in such a way that he delivered it neither shut nor sealed, but counted over, the one with whom it was deposited would owe nothing else, except to pay the same amount of money.

secundum quae videri triticum factum saufeii et recte datum. quod si separatim tabulis aut heronibus aut in alia cupa clusum uniuscuiusque triticum fuisset, ita ut internosci posset quid cuiusque esset, non potuisse nos permutationem facere, sed tum posse eum cuius fuisset triticum quod nauta solvisset vindicare. et ideo se improbare actiones oneris aversi: quia sive eius generis essent merces, quae nautae traderentur, ut continuo eius fierent et mercator in creditum iret, non videretur onus esse aversum, quippe quod nautae fuisset: sive eadem res, quae tradita esset, reddi deberet, furti esse actionem locatori et ideo supervacuum esse iudicium oneris aversi.

according to which it seemed that the wheat had become Saufeius’s and had been rightly given. But if each person’s wheat had been separately enclosed by planks or by compartments or in another cask, such that it could be distinguished what belonged to whom, we could not have made a permutation (exchange), but then the one to whom belonged the wheat which the sailor had paid out could vindicate it. And for that reason he disapproved of the actions for jettison (oneris aversi): because if the goods delivered to the sailor were of that kind that they immediately became his and the merchant went into credit, it would not seem that the burden was jettisoned, inasmuch as it belonged to the sailor; or, if the same thing which had been delivered ought to be returned, there is an action for theft for the lessor, and therefore the judgment for jettison (oneris aversi) is superfluous.

sed si ita datum esset, ut in simili re solvi possit, conductorem culpam dumtaxat debere ( nam in re, quae utriusque causa contraheretur, culpam deberi) neque omnimodo culpam esse, quod uni reddidisset ex frumento, quoniam alicui primum reddere eum necesse fuisset, tametsi meliorem eius condicionem faceret quam ceterorum.

but if it had been given on such terms that the obligation could be discharged in a similar thing, the conductor (the lessee) would owe fault only (for in a matter contracted for the sake of both, fault is owed), and it is not in every respect a fault that he paid out to one person from the grain, since he had to pay someone first, although he thereby made his condition better than that of the others.

Dig. 19.2.32

Digest 19.2.32

Iulianus 4 ex minic.

Julian 4 from Minicius.

Qui fundum colendum in plures annos locaverat, decessit et eum fundum legavit. cassius negavit posse cogi colonum, ut eum fundum coleret, quia nihil heredis interesset. quod si colonus vellet colere et ab eo, cui legatus esset fundus, prohiberetur, cum herede actionem colonum habere: et hoc detrimentum ad heredem pertinere: sicuti si quis rem, quam vendidisset nec dum tradidisset, alii legasset, heres eius emptori et legatario esset obligatus.

He who had leased a farm to be cultivated for several years died and bequeathed that farm. cassius denied that the tenant could be compelled to cultivate that farm, because nothing was of the heir’s interest. But if the tenant wished to cultivate and were prohibited by the one to whom the farm had been bequeathed, the tenant would have an action against the heir; and this loss pertains to the heir: just as if someone had bequeathed to another a thing which he had sold but not yet delivered, his heir would be obligated to the buyer and to the legatee.

Dig. 19.2.33

Digest 19.2.33

Africanus 8 quaest.

Africanus 8 Questions.

Si fundus quem mihi locaveris publicatus sit, teneri te actione ex conducto, ut mihi frui liceat, quamvis per te non stet, quominus id praestes: quemadmodum, inquit, si insulam aedificandam locasses et solum corruisset, nihilo minus teneberis. nam et si vendideris mihi fundum isque priusquam vacuus traderetur publicatus fuerit, tenearis ex empto: quod hactenus verum erit, ut pretium restituas, non ut etiam id praestes, si quid pluris mea intersit eum vacuum mihi tradi. similiter igitur et circa conductionem servandum puto, ut mercedem quam praestiterim restituas, eius scilicet temporis, quo fruitus non fuerim, nec ultra actione ex conducto praestare cogeris. nam et si colonus tuus fundo frui a te aut ab eo prohibetur, quem tu prohibere ne id faciat possis, tantum ei praestabis, quanti eius interfuerit frui, in quo etiam lucrum eius continebitur: sin vero ab eo interpellabitur, quem tu prohibere propter vim maiorem aut potentiam eius non poteris, nihil amplius ei quam mercedem remittere aut reddere debebis,

If the estate which you have leased to me is publicated (confiscated), you are liable by the action on hire, so that it be permitted to me to enjoy it, although it does not lie with you to ensure that performance; just as, he says, if you had contracted out an apartment-building to be constructed and the soil had collapsed, nonetheless you would be liable. For also if you have sold me an estate and it was publicated before it was delivered vacant, you are liable on the purchase: which will be true only to this extent, that you restore the price, not that you also make good any further sum for how much more it is in my interest that it be delivered to me vacant. Similarly therefore I think the same must be observed in regard to letting, that you restore the rent which I have paid, namely for that time during which I have not had the fruits, nor are you compelled under the action on hire to make any further provision. For also if your tenant is prevented from enjoying the estate by you or by one whom you are able to prevent from doing this, you will pay him only as much as it was in his interest to enjoy, in which his profit will also be included; but if on the other hand he is interfered with by someone whom you cannot prevent because of superior force or his power, you will owe him nothing more than to remit or return the rent,

Dig. 19.2.34

Digest 19.2.34

Gaius 10 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 10 on the Provincial Edict.

Perinde ac latronum incursu id acciderit.

Just as if that had happened by an incursion of robbers.

Dig. 19.2.35pr.

Digest 19.2.35pr.

Africanus 8 quaest.

Africanus 8 Questions.

Et haec distinctio convenit illi, quae a servio introducta et ab omnibus fere probata est, ut, si aversione insulam locatam dominus reficiendo, ne ea conductor frui possit, effecerit, animadvertatur, necessario necne id opus demolitus est: quid enim interest, utrum locator insulae propter vetustatem cogatur eam reficere an locator fundi cogatur ferre iniuriam eius, quem prohibere non possit? intellegendum est autem nos hac distinctione uti de eo, qui et suum praedium fruendum locaverit et bona fide negotium contraxerit, non de eo, qui alienum praedium per fraudem locaverit nec resistere domino possit, quominus is colonum frui prohibeat.

And this distinction accords with that which was introduced by Servius and approved by almost all, namely, that if, by an alteration, the owner, in repairing the leased tenement (insula), has brought it about that the lessee (conductor) cannot enjoy it, let it be observed whether he demolished that work of necessity or not: for what difference is there whether the lessor of a tenement is compelled to repair it because of age, or the lessor of a farm (fundus) is compelled to bear the injury done by one whom he cannot prevent? It must, however, be understood that we employ this distinction with respect to one who both has leased his own estate (praedium) for enjoyment and has contracted in good faith, not with respect to one who has leased another’s estate through fraud and cannot withstand the owner (dominus) so as to prevent him from forbidding the tenant (colonus) to enjoy.

Dig. 19.2.35.1

Digest 19.2.35.1

Africanus 8 quaest.

Africanus 8 Questions.

Cum fundum communem habuimus et inter nos convenit, ut alternis annis certo pretio eum conductum haberemus, tu, cum tuus annus exiturus esset, consulto fructum insequentis anni corrupisti. agam tecum duabus actionibus, una ex conducto, altera ex locato: locati enim iudicio mea pars propria, conducti autem actione tua dumtaxat propria in iudicium venient. deinde ita notat: nonne quod ad meam partem attinebit, communi dividundo praestabitur a te mihi damnum?

When we had an estate in common and it was agreed between us that in alternate years we should have it on hire at a fixed price, you, when your year was about to expire, intentionally spoiled the produce of the following year. I will proceed against you with two actions, one on hiring (ex conducto), the other on letting (ex locato): for by the judgment in the locati action my own separate share will come into issue, but by the conducti action only your own separate share will come into issue. Then he notes thus: will not, as far as it pertains to my share, the damage be made good to me by you by the action for division of common property (communi dividundo)?

recte quidem notat, sed tamen etiam servi sententiam veram esse puto, cum eo scilicet, ut, cum alterutra actione rem servaverim, altera perematur. quod ipsum simplicius ita quaeremus, si proponatur inter duos, qui singulos proprios fundos haberent, convenisse, ut alter alterius ita conductum haberent, ut fructus mercedis nomine pensaretur.

He indeed notes correctly; but nevertheless I also think the opinion of Servius to be true, with this proviso: that when I have preserved the matter by either one of the actions, the other is extinguished. We will inquire into this same point more simply as follows, if it be proposed that between two persons, each of whom had his own separate estate, it was agreed that each should so have the other’s by lease, that the fruits should be paid—i.e., set off—under the name of rent.

Dig. 19.2.36

Digest 19.2.36

Florus 7 inst.

Florus 7 Institutes.

Opus quod aversione locatum est donec adprobetur, conductoris periculum est: quod vero ita conductum sit, ut in pedes mensurasve praestetur, eatenus conductoris periculo est, quatenus admensum non sit: et in utraque causa nociturum locatori, si per eum steterit, quo minus opus adprobetur vel admetiatur. si tamen vi maiore opus prius interciderit quam adprobaretur, locatoris periculo est, nisi si aliud actum sit: non enim amplius praestari locatori oporteat, quam quod sua cura atque opera consecutus esset.

Work which has been let out in gross (for a lump sum) is at the contractor’s risk until it is approved; but if it has been contracted so that it is to be rendered by the foot or by measures, it is at the contractor’s risk to that extent, so far as it has not been admeasured; and in either case it will be to the employer’s detriment if it was due to him that the work was not approved or admeasured. If, however, by a greater force (force majeure) the work has perished before it was approved, the risk is the employer’s, unless something else was agreed: for it ought not to be made good to the employer beyond what he would have achieved by his own care and effort.

Dig. 19.2.37

Digest 19.2.37

Iavolenus 8 ex cass.

Iavolenus 8 from Cassius.

Si, priusquam locatori opus probaretur, vi aliqua consumptum est, detrimentum ad locatorem ita pertinet, si tale opus fuit, ut probari deberet.

If, before the work was approved by the lessor, it was consumed by some force, the detriment pertains to the lessor, if the work was of such a sort as ought to be approved.

Dig. 19.2.38pr.

Digest 19.2.38pr.

Paulus l.S. reg.

Paul in the single book of the Rules.

Qui operas suas locavit, totius temporis mercedem accipere debet, si per eum non stetit, quo minus operas praestet.

He who has hired out his services ought to receive the wage for the whole time, if it was not through him that he was prevented from rendering the services.

Dig. 19.2.38.1

Digest 19.2.38.1

Paulus l.S. reg.

Paulus in the single book of Rules.

Advocati quoque, si per eos non steterit, quo minus causam agant, honoraria reddere non debent.

Advocates also, if it is not through them that they are prevented from pleading the case, are not obliged to return the honoraria.

Dig. 19.2.39

Digest 19.2.39

Ulpianus 2 ad ed.

Ulpian, 2 on the Edict.

Non solet locatio dominium mutare.

Letting does not usually change dominion.

Dig. 19.2.40

Digest 19.2.40

Gaius 5 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 5 on the provincial edict.

Qui mercedem accipit pro custodia alicuius rei, is huius periculum custodiae praestat.

He who receives a fee for the custody of another’s property is answerable for the risk attendant upon that custody.

Dig. 19.2.41

Digest 19.2.41

Ulpianus 5 ad ed.

Ulpian, 5 on the edict.

Sed de damno ab alio dato agi cum eo non posse iulianus ait: qua enim custodia consequi potuit, ne damnum iniuria ab alio dari possit? sed Marcellus interdum esse posse ait, sive custodiri potuit, ne damnum daretur, sive ipse custos damnum dedit: quae sententia Marcelli probanda est.

But Julian says that one cannot bring an action against him for damage caused by another: for by what custody could he achieve that damage not be wrongfully caused by another? But Marcellus says that sometimes it can be so, either if it could have been guarded against so that the damage would not be done, or if the custodian himself caused the damage: which opinion of Marcellus is to be approved.

Dig. 19.2.42

Digest 19.2.42

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus 13 on the Edict.

Si locatum tibi servum subripias, utrumque iudicium adversus te est exercendum, locati actionis et furti.

If you steal away a slave hired to you, both actions must be exercised against you, the action locati and the action of theft.

Dig. 19.2.43

Digest 19.2.43

Paulus 21 ad ed.

Paulus 21 on the Edict.

Si vulneraveris servum tibi locatum, eiusdem vulneris nomine legis aquiliae et ex locato actio est, sed alterutra contentus actor esse debet, idque officio iudicis continetur, apud quem ex locato agetur.

If you wound a slave hired to you, on account of the same wound an action under the Lex Aquilia and an action ex locato lie; but the plaintiff ought to be content with one or the other, and this is kept within the duty of the judge, before whom the action ex locato will be prosecuted.

Dig. 19.2.44

Digest 19.2.44

Ulpianus 7 ad ed.

Ulpian, 7 on the Edict.

Locare servitutem nemo potest.

No one can lease out a servitude.

Dig. 19.2.45pr.

Digest 19.2.45 beginning.

Paulus 22 ad ed.

Paulus 22 on the edict.

Si domum tibi locavero et servi mei tibi damnum dederint vel furtum fecerint, non teneor tibi ex conducto, sed noxali actione.

If I have leased you a house and my slaves have caused you damage or have committed theft, I am not liable to you under the action on hire, but by a noxal action.

Dig. 19.2.45.1

Digest 19.2.45.1

Paulus 22 ad ed.

Paulus 22 on the Edict.

Si hominem tibi locavero, ut habeas in taberna, et is furtum fecerit, dubitari potest, utrum ex conducto actio sufficiat, quasi longe sit a bona fide actum, ut quid patiaris detrimenti per eam rem quam conduxisti, an adhuc dicendum sit extra causam conductionis esse furti crimen et in propriam persecutionem cadere hoc delictum: quod magis est.

If I have hired out a man to you, to have him in a shop, and he has committed theft, it can be doubted whether an action ex conducto suffices, as though it were conduct far from good faith, so that you suffer some detriment on account of the matter which you hired; or whether it must still be said that the crime of theft is outside the cause of the letting and that this delict falls into its own prosecution: which is the more correct.

Dig. 19.2.46

Digest 19.2.46

Ulpianus 69 ad ed.

Ulpian 69 on the edict.

Si quis conduxerit nummo uno, conductio nulla est, quia et hoc donationis instar inducit.

If someone has leased for one coin, the lease is null, because this too introduces the likeness of a donation.

Dig. 19.2.47

Digest 19.2.47

Marcellus 6 Dig.

Marcellus 6 Digest.

Cum apparebit emptorem conductoremve pluribus vendentem vel locantem singulorum in solidum intuitum personam, ita demum ad praestationem partis singuli sunt compellendi, si constabit esse omnes solvendo: quamquam fortasse iustius sit etiam, si solvendo omnes erunt, electionem conveniendi quem velit non auferendam actori, si actiones suas adversus ceteros praestare non recuset.

When it will appear that a buyer or lessee, selling or letting to several persons, did so with regard to the person of each, for the whole (in solidum) and in consideration of the person, only then are the individuals to be compelled to the performance of a share, if it is established that all are solvent; although perhaps it is more just, too, that, if all are solvent, the choice of suing whom he wishes should not be taken away from the plaintiff, provided he does not refuse to furnish his actions against the others.

Dig. 19.2.48pr.

Digest 19.2.48pr.

Marcellus 8 Dig.

Marcellus 8 Digest.

Si cui locaverim faciendum quod ego conduxeram, constabit habere me ex locato actionem.

If I have leased out to someone the doing of what I had hired, it will be established that I have an action ex locato.

Dig. 19.2.48.1

Digest 19.2.48.1

Marcellus 8 Dig.

Marcellus Digest 8.

Qui servum conductum vel aliam rem non immobilem non restituit, quanti in litem iuratum fuerit damnabitur.

He who does not restore a hired slave or any other thing not immovable shall be condemned to the amount that shall have been sworn in the action.

Dig. 19.2.49pr.

Digest 19.2.49pr.

Modestinus 6 excus.

Modestinus 6 On Excuses.

Ohi epitropoi genomenoi y kouratores prin ektisai ta tys kydemonias misvwtai kaisaros genesvai kwluontai: kan tis apokruqamenos touto proselvy ty misvwsei twn tou kaisaros xwriwn, hws parapoiysas kolazetai: touto ekeleusen ho autokratwr sebyros.

Guardians who have been appointed, or curators, before settling the accounts of the guardianship, are prevented from becoming lessees of Caesar: and if anyone, concealing this, should apply for the lease of Caesar’s estates, he is punished as having made a wrongful acquisition: this the Emperor Severus ordered.

Dig. 19.2.49.1

Digest 19.2.49.1

Modestinus 6 excus.

Modestinus 6 On Excuses.

Kata tauta de kai ohi xeirizontes epitropas y kouratorias eisin kekwlumenoi misvousvai kai para tou tamieiou xwria.

In accordance with these provisions, moreover, those who manage guardianships or curatorships are prohibited from leasing, even from the treasury, parcels of land.

Dig. 19.2.50

Digest 19.2.50

Modestinus 10 pand.

Modestinus book 10 of the Pandects.

Si ignorans quis militi quasi pagano locaverit, exigere illum posse probandum est: non enim contemnit disciplinam, qui ignoravit militem.

If someone, being ignorant, has leased to a soldier as if to a civilian, it must be proved that he can expel him: for he does not contemn discipline who was ignorant that he was a soldier.

Dig. 19.2.51pr.

Digest 19.2.51pr.

Iavolenus 11 epist.

Javolenus Epistles, book 11.

Ea lege fundum locavi, ut, si non ex lege coleretur, relocare eum mihi liceret et quo minoris locassem, hoc mihi praestaretur, nec convenit, ut, si pluris locassem, hoc tibi praestaretur, et cum nemo fundum colebat, pluris tamen locavi: quaero, an hoc ipsum praestare debeam. respondit: in huiusmodi obligationibus id maxime spectare debemus, quod inter utramque partem convenit: videtur autem in hac specie id silentio convenisse, ne quid praestaretur, si ampliore pecunia fundus esset locatus, id est ut haec conventio pro locatore tantummodo interponeretur.

I leased the estate on this condition, that, if it were not cultivated according to the terms, it should be permitted for me to lease it again, and that by how much less I had leased it, this should be rendered to me; nor was it agreed that, if I had leased it for more, this should be rendered to you; and when no one was cultivating the estate, nevertheless I leased it for more: I ask whether I ought to render this very amount. he answered: in obligations of this kind we must chiefly regard what was agreed between both parties: moreover, in this case it seems to have been agreed by silence that nothing be rendered if the estate were leased for a larger sum, that is, that this agreement was interposed only in favor of the locator (lessor).

Dig. 19.2.51.1

Digest 19.2.51.1

Iavolenus 11 epist.

Javolenus 11 epistles.

Locavi opus faciendum ita, ut pro opere redemptori certam mercedem in dies singulos darem: opus vitiosum factum est: an ex locato agere possim? respondit: si ita opus locasti, ut bonitas eius tibi a conductore adprobaretur, tametsi convenit, ut in singulas operas certa pecunia daretur, praestari tamen tibi a conductore debet, si id opus vitiosum factum est: non enim quicquam interest, utrum uno pretio opus an in singulas operas collocatur, si modo universitas consummationis ad conductorem pertinuit. poterit itaque ex locato cum eo agi, qui vitiosum opus fecerit.

I let out work to be done on these terms, that for the work I would give the contractor a fixed wage for each single day: the work was done defective: can I bring an action ex locato? He answered: if you let out the work on the understanding that its goodness should be approved to you by the contractor, although it was agreed that a certain sum of money should be given for each single day’s work, nevertheless it must be made good to you by the contractor if that work has been done defective: for it makes no difference whether the work is contracted for at a single price or apportioned to single days’ works, provided that the entirety of completion pertained to the contractor. Therefore an action ex locato can be brought against him who has made the work defective.

nisi si ideo in operas singulas merces constituta erit, ut arbitrio domini opus efficeretur: tum enim nihil conductor praestare domino de bonitate operis videtur.

except if for this reason a wage is fixed for the individual days’ labors, namely that the work be carried out at the master’s discretion: for then the contractor seems to owe the master nothing regarding the quality of the work.

Dig. 19.2.52

Digest 19.2.52

Pomponius 31 ad q. muc.

Pomponius 31 on Q. Mucius.

Si decem tibi locem fundum, tu autem existimes quinque te conducere, nihil agitur: sed et si ego minoris me locare sensero, tu pluris te conducere, utique non pluris erit conductio, quam quanti ego putavi.

If I lease to you an estate for ten, but you suppose you are hiring it for five, nothing is effected; but also if I have perceived that I am leasing for a lesser amount, and you that you are hiring for a greater, certainly the hiring will not be for more than the amount I supposed.

Dig. 19.2.53

Digest 19.2.53

Papinianus 11 resp.

Papinian 11 Responses.

Qui fideiussor exstitit apud mancipem pro colono publicorum praediorum, quae manceps ei colono locavit, rei publicae non tenetur: sed fructus in eadem causa pignoris manent.

He who has stood as surety to the contractor on behalf of the tenant-farmer of public estates, which the contractor leased to that tenant, is not liable to the commonwealth; but the fruits remain in the same condition of pledge.

Dig. 19.2.54pr.

Digest 19.2.54, beginning.

Paulus 5 resp.

Paulus 5 responses.

Quaero, an fideiussor conductionis etiam in usuras non illatarum pensionem nomine teneatur nec prosint ei constitutiones, quibus cavetur eos, qui pro aliis pecuniam exsolvunt, sortis solummodo damnum agnoscere oportere. paulus respondit, si in omnem causam conductionis etiam fideiussor se obligavit, eum quoque exemplo coloni tardius illatarum per moram coloni pensionum praestare debere usuras: usurae enim in bonae fidei iudiciis etsi non tam ex obligatione proficiscantur quam ex officio iudicis applicentur, tamen, cum fideiussor in omnem causam se applicuit, aequum videtur ipsum quoque agnoscere onus usurarum, ac si ita fideiussisset: " in quantum illum condemnari ex bona fide oportebit, tantum fide tua esse iubes?" vel ita: " indemnem me praestabis?"

I ask whether the surety for a lease is also held for interest in respect of rents not paid in, and whether the constitutions—which provide that those who pay out money for others ought to acknowledge loss of the principal only—do not benefit him. Paulus answered, if the surety also bound himself for every cause of the lease, he too, after the example of the tenant, ought to pay interest for the rents brought in late through the tenant’s delay: for in actions of good faith interest, even if it proceeds not so much from the obligation as it is applied by the judge’s office, nevertheless, since the surety has attached himself to every cause, it seems equitable that he also acknowledge the burden of interest, as if he had guaranteed thus: " in so far as it will be proper for him to be condemned according to good faith, do you order that amount to be on your faith?" or thus: " will you render me indemnified?"

Dig. 19.2.54.1

Digest 19.2.54.1

Paulus 5 resp.

Paulus 5 response.

Inter locatorem fundi et conductorem convenit, ne intra tempora locationis seius conductor de fundo invitus repelleretur et, si pulsatus esset, poenam decem praestet titius locator seio conductori: vel seius conductor titio, si intra tempora locationis discedere vellet, aeque decem titio locatori praestare vellet: quod invicem de se stipulati sunt. quaero, cum seius conductor biennii continui pensionem non solveret, an sine metu poenae expelli possit. paulus respondit, quamvis nihil expressum sit in stipulatione poenali de solutione pensionum, tamen verisimile esse ita convenisse de non expellendo colono intra tempora praefinita, si pensionibus paruerit et ut oportet coleret: et ideo, si poenam petere coeperit is qui pensionibus satis non fecit, profuturam locatori doli exceptionem.

Between the lessor of a farm and the lessee it was agreed that, within the term of the lease, seius the lessee should not be driven off the farm against his will, and, if he were molested, titius the lessor should pay to seius the lessee a penalty of ten; or that seius the lessee to titius, if he should wish to depart within the term of the lease, likewise should pay ten to titius the lessor: which they mutually stipulated concerning themselves. I ask, since seius the lessee did not pay the rent of a continuous two-year period, whether he can be expelled without fear of the penalty. Paulus replied that, although nothing is expressed in the penal stipulation about the payment of rents, nevertheless it is plausible that the agreement about not expelling the tenant within the fixed times was thus made, if he complied with the rents and cultivated as is proper: and therefore, if he who has not satisfied the rents begins to claim the penalty, the lessor will have the defense of fraud (the exceptio doli) to his advantage.

Dig. 19.2.54.2

Digest 19.2.54.2

Paulus 5 resp.

Paulus 5 Responses.

Paulus respondit servum, qui aestimatus colonae adscriptus est, ad periculum colonae pertinebit et ideo aestimationem huius defuncti ab herede colonae praestari oportere.

Paulus responded that a slave who, having been appraised, has been assigned to the tenant‑farmer will pertain to the tenant‑farmer’s peril, and therefore the valuation of this deceased person ought to be provided by the tenant‑farmer’s heir.

Dig. 19.2.55pr.

Digest 19.2.55, preface.

Paulus 2 sent.

Paulus book 2 of the Sentences.

Dominus horreorum effractis et compilatis horreis non tenetur, nisi custodiam eorum recepit: servi tamen eius cum quo contractum est propter aedificiorum notitiam in quaestionem peti possunt.

The master of the storehouses, the storehouses having been broken open and pillaged, is not held liable unless he has undertaken their custody; however, the slaves of the one with whom the contract was made, on account of their knowledge of the buildings, can be sought for interrogation.

Dig. 19.2.55.1

Digest 19.2.55.1

Paulus 2 sent.

Paulus 2 Sentences.

In conducto fundo si conductor sua opera aliquid necessario vel utiliter auxerit vel aedificaverit vel instituerit, cum id non convenisset, ad recipienda ea quae impendit ex conducto cum domino fundi experiri potest.

In a leased estate, if the lessee by his own labor has augmented something necessary or useful, or has built or instituted something, when this had not been agreed, he can proceed by the action ex conducto against the owner of the estate to recover what he has expended.

Dig. 19.2.55.2

Digest 19.2.55.2

Paulus 2 sent.

Paulus 2 Sentences.

Qui contra legem conductionis fundum ante tempus sine iusta ac probabili causa deseruerit, ad solvendas totius temporis pensiones ex conducto conveniri potest, quatenus locatori in id quod eius interest indemnitas servetur.

He who, contrary to the law of the lease, has deserted the estate before the time without a just and probable cause, can be proceeded against by the action ex conducto for the payment of the rents for the whole term, insofar as indemnity is preserved to the lessor to the extent of his interest.

Dig. 19.2.56

Digest 19.2.56

Paulus l.S. de off. praef. vig.

Paulus in the single book On the Office of the Prefect of the Watch.

Cum domini horreorum insularumque desiderant diu non apparentibus nec eius temporis pensiones exsolventibus conductoribus aperire et ea quae ibi sunt describere, a publicis personis quorum interest audiendi sunt. tempus autem in huiusmodi re biennii debet observari.

When the owners of warehouses and apartment-buildings desire, the lessees having for a long time not appeared nor paid the rents for that period, to open them and to draw up a description of the things that are there, they must be heard by the public officials whose concern it is. But in a matter of this kind a term of two years ought to be observed.

Dig. 19.2.57

Digest 19.2.57

Iavolenus 9 ex post. lab.

Javolenus 9 from the Later Books of Labeo.

Qui domum habebat, aream iniunctam ei domui vicino proximo locaverat: is vicinus cum aedificaret in suo, terram in eam aream amplius quam fundamenta caementicia locatoris erant congessit, et ea terra adsiduis pluviis inundata, ita parieti eius qui locaverat umore praestituto madefacto, aedificia corruerunt. labeo ex locato tantummodo actionem esse ait, quia non ipsa congestio, sed umor ex ea congestione postea damno fuerit, damni autem iniuriae actio ob ea ipsa sit, per quae, non extrinsecus alia causa oblata, damno quis adfectus est: hoc probo.

Someone who had a house had leased to his nearest neighbor an area contiguous to that house; that neighbor, while building on his own property, heaped earth into that area to a height exceeding the lessor’s concrete foundations, and that earth, being inundated by continual rains, so soaked the wall of the one who had leased it out, with the moisture set against it, that the buildings collapsed. Labeo says that there is only an action ex locato, because it was not the piling itself, but the moisture arising from that piling that later caused the loss; but the action for wrongful damage is for those very things through which, without another external cause having been interposed, someone has been affected by damage: this I approve.

Dig. 19.2.58pr.

Digest 19.2.58pr.

Labeo 4 post. a iav. epit.

Labeo book 4 of the Later Writings, epitomized by Iavolenus.

Insulam uno pretio totam locasti et eam vendidisti ita, ut emptori mercedes inquilinorum accederent. quamvis eam conductor maiore pretio locaret, tamen id emptori accedit, quod tibi conductor debeat.

You leased the whole insula for a single price and sold it in such a way that the purchaser would have the rents of the tenants accrue to him. Although the lessee (conductor) might lease it at a higher price, nevertheless that accrues to the purchaser which the lessee owes to you.

Dig. 19.2.58.1

Digest 19.2.58.1

Labeo 4 post. a iav. epit.

Labeo Posteriorum 4, epitomized by Javolenus.

In operis locatione non erat dictum, ante quam diem effici deberet: deinde, si ita factum non esset, quanti locatoris interfuisset, tantam pecuniam conductor promiserat. eatenus eam obligationem contrahi puto, quatenus vir bonus de spatio temporis aestimasset, quia id actum apparet esse, ut eo spatio absolveretur, sine quo fieri non possit.

In the letting of a work, it had not been stated by what day it ought to be completed: then, if it were not so done, the contractor had promised to pay as much money as the lessor’s interest would have amounted to. I think that obligation is contracted only to this extent, in so far as a good man would have estimated the span of time, because it appears to have been agreed that it should be finished within that period without which it cannot be done.

Dig. 19.2.58.2

Digest 19.2.58.2

Labeo 4 post. a iav. epit.

Labeo 4 of the Posteriors, from javolenus’s epitome.

Quidam in municipio balineum praestandum annuis viginti nummis conduxerat et ad refectionem fornacis fistularum similiumque rerum centum nummi ut praestarentur ei, convenerat: conductor centum nummos petebat. ita ei deberi dico, si in earum rerum refectionem eam pecuniam impendi satisdaret.

A certain man in a municipal town had leased the providing of a bath for an annual twenty coins, and it had been agreed that one hundred coins should be furnished to him for the refection of the furnace, the pipes, and similar things: the lessee was claiming the hundred coins. I say they are owed to him thus, if he were to give surety that that money would be expended on the refection of those things.

Dig. 19.2.59

Digest 19.2.59

Iavolenus 5 lab. post.

Iavolenus in the 5th book of the Later Writings of Labeo.

Marcius domum faciendam a flacco conduxerat: deinde operis parte effecta terrae motu concussum erat aedificium. massurius sabinus, si vi naturali, veluti terrae motu hoc acciderit, flacci esse periculum.

Marcius had contracted with Flaccus for a house to be built; then, with part of the work completed, the building was shaken by an earthquake. Massurius Sabinus: if by a natural force, for example by an earthquake, this happened, the risk (peril) is Flaccus’s.

Dig. 19.2.60pr.

Digest 19.2.60, preface.

Labeo 5 post. a iav. epit.

Labeo, book 5 of the Posteriores, from Javolenus’s epitome.

Cum in plures annos domus locata est, praestare locator debet, ut non solum habitare conductor ex calendis illis cuiusque anni, sed etiam locare habitatori si velit suo tempore possit. itaque si ea domus ex kalendis ianuariis fulta in kalendis iuniis permansisset, ita ut nec habitare quisquam nec ostendere alicui posset, nihil locatori conductorem praestaturum, adeo ut nec cogi quidem posset ex kalendis iuliis refecta domu habitare, nisi si paratus fuisset locator commodam domum ei ad habitandum dare.

When a house is leased for several years, the lessor must ensure that the lessee may not only reside from those Kalends of each year, but may also let it to an occupant, if he wishes, in his own time. Therefore, if that house, propped up from the Kalends of January, had remained so at the Kalends of June, such that no one could either live in it or show it to anyone, the lessee will owe the lessor nothing; indeed, he could not even be compelled to reside from the Kalends of July after the house was repaired, unless the lessor had been prepared to give him a suitable house for habitation.

Dig. 19.2.60.1

Digest 19.2.60.1

Labeo 5 post. a iav. epit.

Labeo Book 5 of the Later Books, epitomized by Iavolenus.

Heredem coloni, quamvis colonus non est, nihilo minus domino possidere existimo.

I consider that the heir of a tenant-farmer, although he is not a tenant-farmer, nonetheless possesses on behalf of the owner.

Dig. 19.2.60.2

Digest 19.2.60.2

Labeo 5 post. a iav. epit.

Labeo book 5 of the Posteriors, from Javolenus’s epitome.

Vestimenta tua fullo perdidit et habes unde petas nec repetere vis: agis nihilo minus ex locato cum fullone, sed iudicem aestimaturum, an possis adversus furem magis agere et ab eo tuas res consequi fullonis videlicet sumptibus: sed si hoc tibi impossibile esse perspexerit, tunc fullonem quidem tibi condemnabit, tuas autem actiones te ei praestare compellet.

Your garments have been lost by the fuller, and there is a party from whom you may seek recovery, and you do not wish to pursue recovery: you nonetheless bring an ex locato action against the fuller; but the judge will assess whether you can more effectively proceed against the thief and obtain your property from him, at the fuller’s expense: but if he shall perceive this to be impossible for you, then he will indeed condemn the fuller to you, but will compel you to cede your actions to him.

Dig. 19.2.60.3

Digest 19.2.60.3

Labeo 5 post. a iav. epit.

Labeo book 5 of the Posteriors, epitomized by Javolenus.

Lege dicta domus facienda locata erat ita, ut probatio aut improbatio locatoris aut heredis eius esset: redemptor ex voluntate locatoris quaedam in opere permutaverat. respondi opus quidem ex lege dicta non videri factum, sed quoniam ex voluntate locatoris permutatum esset, redemptorem absolvi debere.

Under a stipulated term, a house-to-be-built had been let on hire such that approval or disapproval should rest with the lessor or his heir: the contractor, with the will of the lessor, had altered certain things in the work. I answered that the work indeed did not seem to have been done according to the stipulated term, but since it had been altered with the will of the lessor, the contractor ought to be absolved.

Dig. 19.2.60.4

Digest 19.2.60.4

Labeo 5 post. a iav. epit.

Labeo book 5 of the Later Books, epitomized by Iavolenus.

Mandavi tibi ut excuteres, quanti villam aedificare velles: renuntiasti mihi ducentorum impensam excutere: certa mercede opus tibi locavi, postea comperi non posse minoris trecentorum eam villam constare: data autem tibi erant centum, ex quibus cum partem impendisses, vetui te opus facere. dixi, si opus facere perseveraveris, ex locato tecum agere, ut pecuniae mihi reliquum restituas.

I mandated you to ascertain for how much you would wish to build a villa: you reported to me that you reckoned the expense at 200: I let the work to you for a fixed fee; afterwards I found out that that villa could not cost less than 300: moreover 100 had been given to you, of which, when you had expended a part, I forbade you to do the work. I said that, if you persisted in doing the work, I would proceed with you ex locato, so that you restore to me the remainder of the money.

Dig. 19.2.60.5

Digest 19.2.60.5

Labeo 5 post. a iav. epit.

Labeo book 5 of the Posteriors, from Javolenus’s epitome.

Messem inspiciente colono, cum alienam esse non ignorares, sustulisti. condicere tibi frumentum dominum posse labeo ait, et ut id faciat, colonum ex conducto cum domino acturum.

While the tenant-farmer was inspecting the harvest, since you were not unaware that it was another’s, you removed it. to bring a condictio for the grain against you the owner can, Labeo says; and, so that he may do this, the tenant-farmer will bring an action ex conducto together with the owner.

Dig. 19.2.60.6

Digest 19.2.60.6

Labeo 5 post. a iav. epit.

Labeo 5 afterwards by Javolenus, in the epitome.

Locator horrei propositum habuit se aurum argentum margaritam non recipere suo periculo: deinde cum sciret has res inferri, passus est. proinde eum futurum tibi obligatum dixi, ac si propositum fuit, remissum videtur.

The lessor of the storehouse had as a posted notice that he would not receive gold, silver, or a pearl at his own peril: then, though he knew these things were being brought in, he allowed it. Accordingly I said that he would be obligated to you, and, even if there was a posted notice, it seems to have been remitted (waived).

Dig. 19.2.60.7

Digest 19.2.60.7

Labeo 5 post. a iav. epit.

Labeo 5 later, from Iavolenus’s epitome.

Servum meum mulionem conduxisti: neglegentia eius mulus tuus perit. si ipse se locasset, ex peculio dumtaxat et in rem versum damnum tibi praestaturum dico: sin autem ipse eum locassem, non ultra me tibi praestaturum, quam dolum malum et culpam meam abesse: quod si sine definitione personae mulionem a me conduxisti et ego eum tibi dedissem, cuius neglegentia iumentum perierit, illam quoque culpam me tibi praestaturum aio, quod eum elegissem, qui eiusmodi damno te adficeret.

You hired my slave as a muleteer: by his negligence your mule perished. If he had hired himself out, I say that the damage would be made good to you only from the peculium and to the extent of what was in rem versum; but if I myself had hired him out, I would not undertake to you more than that there was no dolus malus or fault on my part. However, if you hired a muleteer from me without specification of the person, and I gave you one through whose negligence the beast of burden perished, I say that I will also be liable to you for that fault, because I chose a man who would affect you with damage of that sort.

Dig. 19.2.60.8

Digest 19.2.60.8

Labeo 5 post. a iav. epit.

Labeo, Book 5 of the Posterior Books, epitomized by Iavolenus.

Vehiculum conduxisti, ut onus tuum portaret et secum iter faceret: id cum pontem transiret, redemptor eius pontis portorium ab eo exigebat: quaerebatur, an etiam pro ipsa sola reda portorium daturus fuerit. puto, si mulio non ignoravit ea se transiturum, cum vehiculum locaret, mulionem praestare debere.

You hired a vehicle, so that it might carry your load and make the journey with it: when it was crossing a bridge, the lessee of that bridge was exacting a toll from him: the question was raised whether he would also have to pay a toll for the carriage itself alone. I think that, if the muleteer was not unaware that he would be going to cross them when he let out the vehicle, the muleteer ought to make good (be responsible).

Dig. 19.2.60.9

Digest 19.2.60.9

Labeo 5 post. a iav. epit.

Labeo Book 5 of the Posteriors, epitomized by Javolenus.

Rerum custodiam, quam horrearius conductoribus praestare deberet, locatorem totorum horreorum horreario praestare non debere puto, nisi si in locando aliter convenerit.

I think that the lessor of all the warehouses ought not to have to provide to the warehouse‑keeper the custody of the goods which the warehouse‑keeper ought to provide to the lessees, unless in the letting it has been otherwise agreed.

Dig. 19.2.61pr.

Digest 19.2.61pr.

Scaevola 7 Dig.

Scaevola 7 Digest.

Colonus, cum lege locationis non esset comprehensum, ut vineas poneret, nihilo minus in fundo vineas instituit et propter earum fructum denis amplius aureis annuis ager locari coeperat. quaesitum est, si dominus istum colonum fundi eiectum pensionum debitarum nomine conveniat, an sumptus utiliter factos in vineis instituendis reputare possit opposita doli mali exceptione. respondit vel expensas consecuturum vel nihil amplius praestaturum.

A colonus, although it had not been included in the terms of the lease that he should plant vineyards, nevertheless established vineyards on the estate; and on account of their fruit the field began to be let for ten gold pieces more per year. The question was asked, if the owner should sue this colonus, ejected from the fundus, under the name of rents due, whether he can have the expenses usefully incurred in establishing the vineyards reckoned, the exceptio doli mali being opposed. He answered that the colonus would either recover the expenses or pay nothing further.

Dig. 19.2.61.1

Digest 19.2.61.1

Scaevola 7 Dig.

Scaevola 7 Digest.

Navem conduxit, ut de provincia cyrenensi aquileiam navigaret olei metretis tribus milibus impositis et frumenti modiis octo milibus certa mercede: sed evenit, ut onerata navis in ipsa provincia novem mensibus retineretur et onus impositum commisso tolleretur. quaesitum est, an vecturas quas convenit a conductore secundum locationem exigere navis possit. respondit secundum ea quae proponerentur posse.

He chartered a ship, to sail from the Cyrenaean province to Aquileia with three thousand metretae of oil put aboard and eight thousand modii of grain, for a fixed hire; but it happened that, the ship being loaded, it was detained in that very province for nine months, and the cargo put on board was taken away as forfeited for a contravention. It was asked whether the shipowner could demand from the charterer the freights that were agreed upon, according to the letting. He answered that, according to the matters proposed, he could.

Dig. 19.2.62

Digest 19.2.62

Labeo 1 pith.

Labeo 1 Persuasives.

Si rivum, quem faciendum conduxeras et feceras, antequam eum probares, labes corrumpit, tuum periculum est. paulus: immo si soli vitio id accidit, locatoris erit periculum, si operis vitio accidit, tuum erit detrimentum.

If a channel, which you had contracted to be made and had made, before you approved it, is ruined by a landslip, the risk is yours. Paulus: rather, if this happened by a defect of the soil, the risk will be the employer’s; if it happened by a defect of the work, the loss will be yours.

Dig. 19.3.0. De aestimatoria.

Dig. 19.3.0. On the Estimatory Action.

Dig. 19.3.1pr.

Digest 19.3.1, preface.

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Actio de aestimato proponitur tollendae dubitationis gratia: fuit enim magis dubitatum, cum res aestimata vendenda datur, utrum ex vendito sit actio propter aestimationem, an ex locato, quasi rem vendendam locasse videor, an ex conducto, quasi operas conduxissem, an mandati. melius itaque visum est hanc actionem proponi: quotiens enim de nomine contractus alicuius ambigeretur, conveniret tamen aliquam actionem dari, dandam aestimatoriam praescriptis verbis actionem: est enim negotium civile gestum et quidem bona fide. quare omnia et hic locum habent, quae in bonae fidei iudiciis diximus.

The action de aestimato is proposed for the sake of removing doubt: for there was considerable doubt, when a thing is given on appraisal to be sold, whether an action ex vendito lies on account of the appraisal, or ex locato, as though I appear to have let out the thing to be sold, or ex conducto, as though I had hired services, or the mandati. It therefore seemed better that this action be proposed: whenever there is dispute about the name of some contract, yet it is agreed that some action should be given, the aestimatory action praescriptis verbis is to be given; for it is a civil transaction conducted, and indeed in good faith. Wherefore all the things also have place here which we have said in good‑faith actions.

Dig. 19.3.1.1

Digest 19.3.1.1

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Aestimatio autem periculum facit eius qui suscepit: aut igitur ipsam rem debebit incorruptam reddere aut aestimationem de qua convenit.

The estimation, however, makes the risk that of the one who has undertaken it: accordingly, he must either restore the thing itself uncorrupted or the estimation about which it was agreed.

Dig. 19.3.2

Digest 19.3.2

Paulus 30 ad ed.

Paulus 30 on the Edict.

Haec actio utilis est et si merces intervenit.

This action is available by way of a useful action even if remuneration intervenes.

Dig. 19.4.0. De rerum permutatione.

Digest 19.4.0. On the exchange of things.

Dig. 19.4.1pr.

Digest 19.4.1pr.

Paulus 32 ad ed.

Paulus 32 on the Edict.

Sicut aliud est vendere, aliud emere, alius emptor, alius venditor, ita pretium aliud, aliud merx. at in permutatione discerni non potest, uter emptor vel uter venditor sit, multumque differunt praestationes. emptor enim, nisi nummos accipientis fecerit, tenetur ex vendito, venditori sufficit ob evictionem se obligare possessionem tradere et purgari dolo malo, itaque, si evicta res non sit, nihil debet: in permutatione vero si utrumque pretium est, utriusque rem fieri oportet, si merx, neutrius.

Just as selling is one thing and buying another, and the buyer is one person and the seller another, so the price is one thing, the merchandise another. But in permutation it cannot be discerned which is the buyer or which the seller, and the prestations differ greatly. For the buyer, unless he has made the money the recipient’s, is liable on the sale; for the seller it suffices, on account of eviction, to bind himself, to deliver possession, and to be cleared of malicious fraud; and thus, if the thing is not evicted, he owes nothing. In permutation, however, if each is price, each ought to become the property of the other; if merchandise, of neither.

sed cum debeat et res et pretium esse, non potest permutatio emptio venditio esse, quoniam non potest inveniri, quid eorum merx et quid pretium sit, nec ratio patitur, ut una eademque res et veneat et pretium sit emptionis.

but since there ought to be both a thing and a price, barter cannot be purchase-and-sale, because it cannot be discovered which of them is the merchandise and which the price, nor does reason allow that one and the same thing both be sold and be the price of the purchase.

Dig. 19.4.1.1

Digest 19.4.1.1

Paulus 32 ad ed.

Paulus 32 On the Edict.

Unde si ea res, quam acceperim vel dederim, postea evincatur, in factum dandam actionem respondetur.

Hence, if the thing which I have received or have given is afterwards evicted, it is responded that an action in factum is to be granted.

Dig. 19.4.1.2

Digest 19.4.1.2

Paulus 32 ad ed.

Paulus 32 on the Edict.

Item emptio ac venditio nuda consentientium voluntate contrahitur, permutatio autem ex re tradita initium obligationi praebet: alioquin si res nondum tradita sit, nudo consensu constitui obligationem dicemus, quod in his dumtaxat receptum est, quae nomen suum habent, ut in emptione venditione, conductione, mandato.

Likewise purchase and sale are contracted by the bare will of the consenting parties, whereas exchange gives a beginning to the obligation from the thing delivered; otherwise, if the thing has not yet been delivered, we shall say that an obligation is constituted by bare consent—a rule received only in those cases which have their own name, as in purchase and sale, in letting and hiring, and in mandate.

Dig. 19.4.1.3

Digest 19.4.1.3

Paulus 32 ad ed.

Paulus 32 on the Edict.

Ideoque pedius ait alienam rem dantem nullam contrahere permutationem.

Therefore Pedius says that one who gives another’s thing enters into no exchange.

Dig. 19.4.1.4

Digest 19.4.1.4

Paulus 32 ad ed.

Paulus 32 on the Edict.

Igitur ex altera parte traditione facta si alter rem nolit tradere, non in hoc agemus ut res tradita nobis reddatur, sed in id quod interest nostra illam rem accepisse, de qua convenit: sed ut res contra nobis reddatur, condictioni locus est quasi re non secuta.

Therefore, if, on the other side, delivery has been made and the other is unwilling to deliver the thing, we do not sue for this—that the thing delivered be returned to us—but for as much as it is in our interest that he should have received the thing agreed upon; but, in order that the thing be returned to us contrariwise, there is room for a condiction, as if performance had not followed.

Dig. 19.4.2

Digest 19.4.2

Paulus 5 ad plaut.

Paulus 5 on Plautius.

Aristo ait, quoniam permutatio vicina esset emptioni, sanum quoque furtis noxisque solutum et non esse fugitivum servum praestandum, qui ex causa daretur.

Aristo says that, since exchange (permutation) is neighboring to purchase, it must likewise be warranted that the slave who is given on that account is sound, released from thefts and noxal liabilities, and is not a fugitive.

Dig. 19.5.0. De praescriptis verbis et in factum actionibus.

Digest 19.5.0. On actions with prescribed words and on actions on the facts.

Dig. 19.5.1pr.

Digest 19.5.1, preface.

Papinianus 8 quaest.

Papinian, 8 Questions.

Nonnumquam evenit, ut cessantibus iudiciis proditis et vulgaribus actionibus, cum proprium nomen invenire non possumus, facile descendemus ad eas, quae in factum appellantur. sed ne res exemplis egeat, paucis agam.

Sometimes it happens that, with the established judgments and ordinary actions in abeyance, when we cannot find a proper name, we readily descend to those which are called "in factum." But, lest the matter be in want of examples, I will proceed with a few.

Dig. 19.5.1.1

Digest 19.5.1.1

Papinianus 8 quaest.

Papinian, 8 Questions.

Domino mercium in magistrum navis, si sit incertum, utrum navem conduxerit an merces vehendas locaverit, civilem actionem in factum esse dandam labeo scribit.

Labeo writes that to the owner of the goods, against the master of the ship, if it is uncertain whether he hired the ship or let out the goods to be carried, a civil action in factum is to be granted.

Dig. 19.5.1.2

Digest 19.5.1.2

Papinianus 8 quaest.

Papinian, Questions 8.

Item si quis pretii explorandi gratia rem tradat, neque depositum neque commodatum erit, sed non exhibita fide in factum civilis subicitur actio.

Likewise, if someone delivers a thing for the sake of exploring the price, it will be neither a deposit nor a loan for use, but, if good faith is not exhibited, a civil action in factum is available.

Dig. 19.5.2

Digest 19.5.2

Celsus 8 Dig.

Celsus 8 Digest.

( nam cum deficiant vulgaria atque usitata actionum nomina, praescriptis verbis agendum est)

( for when the common and customary names of actions fail, one must proceed by prescribed words)

Dig. 19.5.3

Digest 19.5.3

Iulianus 14 Dig.

Julianus 14 Digest.

In quam necesse est confugere, quotiens contractus existunt, quorum appellationes nullae iure civili proditae sunt.

To which it is necessary to resort, whenever there exist contracts whose appellations have not been provided by the civil law.

Dig. 19.5.4

Digest 19.5.4

Ulpianus 30 ad sab.

Ulpian 30 on Sabinus.

Natura enim rerum conditum est, ut plura sint negotia quam vocabula.

For by the nature of things it is established that there are more transactions than words.

Dig. 19.5.5pr.

Digest 19.5.5pr.

Paulus 5 quaest.

Paulus 5 Questions.

Naturalis meus filius servit tibi et tuus filius mihi: convenit inter nos, ut et tu meum manumitteres et ego tuum: ego manumisi, tu non manumisisti: qua actione mihi teneris, quaesitum est. in hac quaestione totius ob rem dati tractatus inspici potest. qui in his competit speciebus: aut enim do tibi ut des, aut do ut facias, aut facio ut des, aut facio ut facias: in quibus quaeritur, quae obligatio nascatur.

My natural son serves you and your son serves me: it was agreed between us that both you would manumit mine and I yours: I manumitted, you did not manumit: by what action you are bound to me has been asked. In this inquiry the whole treatment of what is given for the sake of the thing (ob rem dati) can be inspected, which is applicable in these species: for either I give to you so that you may give, or I give so that you may do, or I do so that you may give, or I do so that you may do: in which it is inquired what obligation arises.

Dig. 19.5.5.1

Digest 19.5.5.1

Paulus 5 quaest.

Paulus 5 Questions.

Et si quidem pecuniam dem, ut rem accipiam, emptio et venditio est: sin autem rem do, ut rem accipiam, quia non placet permutationem rerum emptionem esse, dubium non est nasci civilem obligationem, in qua actione id veniet, non ut reddas quod acceperis, sed ut damneris mihi, quanti interest mea illud de quo convenit accipere: vel si meum recipere velim, repetatur quod datum est, quasi ob rem datum re non secuta. sed si scyphos tibi dedi, ut stichum mihi dares, periculo meo stichus erit ac tu dumtaxat culpam praestare debes. explicitus est articulus ille do ut des.

And if indeed I give money so that I may receive a thing, it is purchase and sale; but if I give a thing so that I may receive a thing, since it does not please that the permutation of things be a purchase, there is no doubt that a civil obligation is born, in which action this will come, not that you restore what you have received, but that you be condemned to me for how much it is in my interest to receive that which was agreed upon: or, if I should wish to take back what is mine, let what was given be reclaimed, as though given on account of a thing, the thing not ensuing. But if I gave you cups, so that you might give me Stichus, Stichus will be at my risk, and you are bound to make good fault only. That article “I give so that you may give” is unfolded.

Dig. 19.5.5.2

Digest 19.5.5.2

Paulus 5 quaest.

Paulus 5 questions.

At cum do ut facias, si tale sit factum, quod locari solet, puta ut tabulam pingas, pecunia data locatio erit, sicut superiore casu emptio: si rem do, non erit locatio, sed nascetur vel civilis actio in hoc quod mea interest vel ad repetendum condictio. quod si tale est factum, quod locari non possit, puta ut servum manumittas, sive certum tempus adiectum est, intra quod manumittatur idque, cum potuisset manumitti, vivo servo transierit, sive finitum non fuit et tantum temporis consumptum sit, ut potuerit debueritque manumitti, condici ei potest vel praescriptis verbis agi: quod his quae diximus convenit. sed si dedi tibi servum, ut servum tuum manumitteres, et manumissisti et is quem dedi evictus est, si sciens dedi, de dolo in me dandam actionem iulianus scribit, si ignorans, in factum civilem.

But when it is “I give so that you do,” if the act is of a sort that is customarily the subject of letting (locatio), for instance that you paint a panel, if money is given it will be a letting (locatio), just as in the previous case it was a purchase (emptio): if I give a thing, it will not be a letting, but either a civil action will arise for the amount of my interest, or a condictio for recovery. But if the act is of such a sort that it cannot be let, for instance that you manumit a slave, whether a fixed time is added within which he is to be manumitted and that time, when he could have been manumitted, passes while the slave is alive, or no limit was fixed and so much time has been consumed that he could and ought to have been manumitted, a condictio can be brought against him, or an action praescriptis verbis; which accords with what we have said. But if I gave you a slave, in order that you might manumit your slave, and you did manumit, and the one whom I gave was evicted, if I gave with knowledge, Julian writes that an action for dolus is to be granted against me; if in ignorance, a civil action in factum.

Dig. 19.5.5.3

Digest 19.5.5.3

Paulus 5 quaest.

Paulus 5 questions.

Quod si faciam ut des et posteaquam feci, cessas dare, nulla erit civilis actio, et ideo de dolo dabitur.

But if I should do so that you may give, and after I have done so you cease to give, there will be no civil action, and therefore an action for deceit will be given.

Dig. 19.5.5.4

Digest 19.5.5.4

Paulus 5 quaest.

Paulus 5 questions.

Sed si facio ut facias, haec species tractatus plures recipit. nam si pacti sumus, ut tu a meo debitore carthagine exigas, ego a tuo romae, vel ut tu in meo, ego in tuo solo aedificem, et ego aedificavi et tu cessas, in priorem speciem mandatum quodammodo intervenisse videtur, sine quo exigi pecunia alieno nomine non potest: quamvis enim et impendia sequantur, tamen mutuum officium praestamus et potest mandatum ex pacto etiam naturam suam excedere ( possum enim tibi mandare, ut et custodiam mihi praestes et non plus impendas in exigendo quam decem): et si eandem quantitatem impenderemus, nulla dubitatio est. sin autem alter fecit, ut et hic mandatum intervenisse videatur, quasi refundamus invicem impensas: neque enim de re tua tibi mando.

But if I do so that you may do, this mode of dealing admits several forms. For if we have made a pact that you exact from my debtor at Carthage, I from yours at Rome, or that you build on my soil and I on yours, and I have built and you delay, in the former type a mandate seems in a certain way to have intervened, without which money cannot be exacted in another’s name: for although expenses also follow, nevertheless we render reciprocal service, and the mandate arising from the pact can even exceed its own nature (for I can mandate to you both that you furnish custody for me and that you not expend more in collecting than 10): and if we were to expend the same amount, there is no doubt. But if only one has done it, so that here too a mandate seems to have intervened, as though we were reimbursing one another the outlays: for I do not mandate to you concerning your own affair.

sed tutius erit et in insulis fabricandis et in debitoribus exigendis praescriptis verbis dari actionem, quae actio similis erit mandati actioni, quemadmodum in superioribus casibus locationi et emptioni.

but it will be safer, both in constructing insulae (tenement-houses) and in exacting from debtors, for an action to be granted praescriptis verbis; which action will be similar to the action of mandate, just as in the foregoing cases to letting and to purchase.

Dig. 19.5.5.5

Digest 19.5.5.5

Paulus 5 quaest.

Paulus 5 Questions.

Si ergo haec sunt, ubi de faciendo ab utroque convenit, et in proposita quaestione idem dici potest et necessario sequitur, ut eius fiat condemnatio, quanti interest mea servum habere quem manumisi. an deducendum erit, quod libertum habeo? sed hoc non potest aestimari.

If therefore these things are so, where as to performance it is agreed by both, and in the proposed question the same can be said and it necessarily follows, that there be a condemnation of him for as much as it is to my interest to have the slave whom I manumitted. Or must there be a deduction, on the ground that I have a freedman? But this cannot be estimated.

Dig. 19.5.6

Digest 19.5.6

Nerva 1 resp.

Nerva 1 Responses.

Insulam hoc modo, ut aliam insulam reficeres, vendidi. respondit nullam esse venditionem, sed civili intentione incerti agendum est.

I sold an insula in this way, that you should repair another insula. he responded that there is no sale, but one must proceed by a civil intentio for an uncertain matter.

Dig. 19.5.7

Digest 19.5.7

Papinianus 2 quaest.

Papinian Questions, book 2.

Si tibi decem dedero, ut stichum manumittas, et cessaveris, confestim agam praescriptis verbis, ut solvas quanti mea interest: aut, si nihil interest, condicam tibi, ut decem reddas.

If I give you ten, so that you manumit Stichus, and you are remiss, I will immediately bring an action with the prescribed words, that you pay what the amount of my interest is; or, if it is of no interest, I will bring a condictio against you, that you return the ten.

Dig. 19.5.8

Digest 19.5.8

Papinianus 27 quaest.

Papinianus 27 Questions.

Si dominus servum, cum furto argueretur, quaestionis habendae causa aestimatum dedisset neque de eo compertum fuisset et is non redderetur, eo nomine civiliter agi posse, licet aliquo casu servum retenturus esset, qui traditum accepisset. potest enim retinere servum, sive dominus pro eo pecuniam elegisset sive in admisso deprehensus fuisset: tunc enim et datam aestimationem reddi a domino oportere. sed quaesitum est, qua actione pecunia, si eam dominus elegisset, peti posset.

If the master, when the slave was being charged with theft, had handed him over, appraised, for the sake of holding an inquest, and no finding had been made concerning him and he were not returned, a civil action can be brought on that account, although in some case the person who received the one delivered would retain the slave. For he can retain the slave, whether the master had elected money in his stead or whether he had been apprehended in the offense: for then the appraisal-sum that had been given also ought to be returned by the master. But the question was raised by what action the money, if the master had so elected it, could be claimed.

dixi, tametsi quod inter eos ageretur verbis quoque stipulationis conclusum non fuisset, si tamen lex contractus non lateret, praescriptis verbis incerti et hic agi posse, nec videri nudum pactum intervenisse, quotiens certa lege dari probaretur.

I said that, although what was transacted between them had not also been concluded by the words of a stipulation, nevertheless, if the lex of the contract were not hidden, the action praescriptis verbis for an incertum could also be brought here, nor would it appear that a naked pact had intervened, whenever it was proved that it was to be given under a definite lex.

Dig. 19.5.9

Digest 19.5.9

Papinianus 11 resp.

Papinian 11 responses

Ob eam causam accepto liberatus, ut nomen titii debitoris delegaret, si fidem contractus non impleat, incerti actione tenebitur. itaque iudicis officio non vetus obligatio restaurabitur, sed promissa praestabitur aut condemnatio sequetur.

Having been released by acceptilation for that cause, on condition that he delegate Titius as debtor, if he does not fulfill the good faith of the contract, he will be held by an action for an uncertain thing. And so, by the judge’s office the old obligation will not be restored, but the promised thing will be provided, or a condemnation will follow.

Dig. 19.5.10

Digest 19.5.10

Iavolenus 13 epist.

Javolenus 13 epistles.

Partis tertiae usum fructum legavit: heredis bona ab eius creditoribus distracta sunt et pecuniam, quae ex aestimatione partis tertiae fiebat, mulier accepit fruendi causa et per ignorantiam stipulatio praetermissa est. quaero, an ab herede mulieris pecunia, quae fruendi causa data est, repeti possit, et qua actione. respondi in factum actionem dari debere.

He bequeathed the usufruct of a third part: the heir’s goods were sold off by his creditors, and the money which arose from the appraisal of the third part the woman received for the purpose of enjoying the fruits, and through ignorance the stipulatio was omitted. I ask whether from the woman’s heir the money which was given for the purpose of enjoyment can be recovered, and by what action. I answered that an actio in factum ought to be granted.

Dig. 19.5.11

Digest 19.5.11

Pomponius 39 ad q. muc.

Pomponius 39 on Quintus Mucius.

Quia actionum non plenus numerus esset, ideo plerumque actiones in factum desiderantur. sed et eas actiones, quae legibus proditae sunt, si lex iusta ac necessaria sit, supplet praetor in eo quod legi deest: quod facit in lege aquilia reddendo actiones in factum accommodatas legi aquiliae, idque utilitas eius legis exigit.

Because the number of actions is not full, therefore for the most part actions on the facts are called for. But even those actions which are brought forth by the laws, if the law is just and necessary, the praetor supplies in what is lacking to the law: which he does in the Aquilian law by rendering actions on the facts accommodated to the Aquilian law, and the utility of that law requires this.

Dig. 19.5.12

Digest 19.5.12

Proculus 11 epist.

Proculus book 11 of the Letters.

Si vir uxori suae fundos vendidit et in venditione comprehensum est convenisse inter eos, si ea nupta ei esse desisset, ut eos fundos si ipse vellet, eodem pretio mulier transcriberet viro: in factum existimo iudicium esse reddendum idque et in aliis personis observandum.

If a man sold estates to his wife, and in the sale it was included that it had been agreed between them that, if she should cease to be married to him, the woman, if he wished, would transfer those estates to the man at the same price: I consider that an actio in factum ought to be granted, and that this is to be observed also in the case of other persons.

Dig. 19.5.13pr.

Digest 19.5.13 pr.

Ulpianus 30 ad sab.

Ulpian, 30 On Sabinus.

Si tibi rem vendendam certo pretio dedissem, ut, quo pluris vendidisses, tibi haberes, placet neque mandati neque pro socio esse actionem, sed in factum quasi alio negotio gesto, quia et mandata gratuita esse debent, et societas non videtur contracta in eo, qui te non admisit socium distractionis, sed sibi certum pretium excepit.

If I had given you a thing to be sold at a fixed price, on the terms that whatever more you had sold it for you should keep for yourself, the view is that there is an action neither of mandate nor for partnership, but an in factum action, as though for another business managed; for mandates ought to be gratuitous, and a partnership does not seem to have been contracted with one who did not admit you as a partner in the alienation, but reserved to himself a fixed price.

Dig. 19.5.13.1

Digest 19.5.13.1

Ulpianus 30 ad sab.

Ulpian, 30 on Sabinus.

Iulianus libro undecimo digestorum scribit, si tibi areae meae dominium dedero, ut insula aedificata partem mihi reddas, neque emptionem esse, quia pretii loco partem rei meae recipio, neque mandatum, quia non est gratuitum, neque societatem, quia nemo societatem contrahendo rei suae dominus esse desinit. sed si puerum docendum vel pecus pascendum tibi dedero vel puerum nutriendum ita, ut, si post certos annos venisset, pretium inter nos communicaretur, abhorrere haec ab area eo, quod hic dominus esse non desinit qui prius fuit: competit igitur pro socio actio. sed si forte puerum dominii tui fecero, idem se quod in area dicturum, quia dominium desinit ad primum dominum pertinere.

Julianus writes in the eleventh book of the Digest that, if I have conferred upon you the dominion of my plot, on condition that, when an apartment-house has been built, you return a part to me, there is neither a purchase, because in lieu of a price I receive back a part of my own thing, nor a mandate, because it is not gratuitous, nor a partnership, because no one, by contracting a partnership, ceases to be owner of his own property. But if I have given to you a boy to be taught or cattle to be pastured or a boy to be nourished, on this understanding, that, if after certain years he should be sold, the price would be shared between us, these differ from the plot in that here the one who was owner before does not cease to be owner: accordingly, the action pro socio lies. But if by chance I have made the boy to be of your dominion, he says he will speak the same as in the case of the plot, because the dominion ceases to pertain to the first owner.

quid ergo est? in factum putat actionem iulianus dandam, id est praescriptis verbis. ergo si quis areae dominium non transtulerit, sed passus sit te sic aedificare, ut communicaretur vel ipsa vel pretium, erit societas.

What then is it? Julian thinks an action on the facts should be given, that is, by prescribed words. Therefore, if someone has not transferred ownership of the plot, but has allowed you to build in such a way that either the thing itself or the price would be shared, there will be a partnership.

idemque et si partis areae dominium transtulerit, partis non, et eadem lege aedificare passus sit.

and the same (holds) also if he has transferred the dominion of a part of the plot, but not of another part, and has allowed building under the same condition.

Dig. 19.5.14pr.

Digest 19.5.14pr.

Ulpianus 41 ad sab.

Ulpian, 41 on Sabinus.

Qui servandarum mercium suarum causa alienas merces in mare proiecit, nulla tenetur actione: sed si sine causa id fecisset, in factum, si dolo, de dolo tenetur.

He who, for the sake of preserving his own merchandise, cast another’s merchandise into the sea is bound by no action; but if he did this without cause, he is liable by an action on the facts; if by fraud, by an action for fraud (de dolo).

Dig. 19.5.14.1

Digest 19.5.14.1

Ulpianus 41 ad sab.

Ulpian, 41 on Sabinus.

Sed et si servum quis alienum spoliaverit isque frigore mortuus sit, de vestimentis quidem furti agi poterit, de servo vero in factum agendum criminali poena adversus eum servata.

But also, if someone has despoiled another’s slave and he has died of cold, with respect to the garments an action for theft can be brought; but as to the slave, an action in factum must be pursued, with the criminal penalty preserved against him.

Dig. 19.5.14.2

Digest 19.5.14.2

Ulpianus 41 ad sab.

Ulpian, 41 on Sabinus.

Sed et si calicem argenteum quis alienum in profundum abiecerit damni dandi causa, non lucri faciendi, pomponius libro septimo decimo ad sabinum scripsit neque furti neque damni iniuriae actionem esse, in factum tamen agendum.

But also, if someone were to throw another’s silver chalice into the depths for the purpose of causing damage, not of making profit, Pomponius wrote in the seventeenth book on Sabinus that neither the action for theft nor for wrongful damage lies; however, one should proceed by an action in factum.

Dig. 19.5.14.3

Digest 19.5.14.3

Ulpianus 41 ad sab.

Ulpian 41 on sab.

Si glans ex arbore tua in meum fundum cadat eamque ego immisso pecore depascam: aristo scribit non sibi occurrere legitimam actionem, qua experiri possim: nam neque ex lege duodecim tabularum de pastu pecoris ( quia non in tuo pascitur) neque de pauperie neque de damni iniuriae agi posse: in factum itaque erit agendum.

If an acorn from your tree falls onto my land and I, having let my herd in, graze it down: Aristo writes that no legitimate action occurs to him by which I could bring suit; for neither under the Law of the Twelve Tables concerning the pasturing of cattle (because it is not grazing on your land), nor under pauperies, nor under the action for wrongful damage can one sue: accordingly, it will have to be proceeded with by an action in factum.

Dig. 19.5.15

Digest 19.5.15

Ulpianus 42 ad sab.

Ulpian, 42 on Sabinus.

Solent, qui noverunt servos fugitivos alicubi celari, indicare eos dominis ubi celentur: quae res non facit eos fures. solent etiam mercedem huius rei accipere et sic indicare, nec videtur illicitum esse hoc quod datur. quare qui accepit, quia ob causam accepit nec improbam causam, non timet condictionem.

Those who know that fugitive slaves are being concealed somewhere are accustomed to indicate them to the masters where they are concealed: which thing does not make them thieves. They are also accustomed to receive a fee for this matter and thus to indicate, nor does that which is given seem to be illicit. Wherefore he who has received, because he received on account of a cause and not an improper cause, does not fear a condiction.

quod si solutum quidem nihil est, sed pactio intercessit ob indicium, hoc est ut, si indicasset adprehensusque esset fugitivus, certum aliquid daretur, videamus, an possit agere. et quidem conventio ista non est nuda, ut quis dicat ex pacto actionem non oriri, sed habet in se negotium aliquod: ergo civilis actio oriri potest, id est praescriptis verbis. nisi si quis et in hac specie de dolo actionem competere dicat, ubi dolus aliquis arguatur.

But if indeed nothing has been paid, yet a pact has intervened on account of the information—namely, that, if he should have indicated it and the fugitive were apprehended, a certain thing would be given—let us see whether he can bring suit. And indeed this agreement is not naked, so that someone might say that no action arises from a pact, but it contains some business within itself; therefore a civil action can arise, that is, by prescribed words. Unless perhaps someone should say that in this instance too an action for fraud (dolus) is competent, where some dolus is alleged.

Dig. 19.5.16pr.

Digest 19.5.16pr.

Pomponius 22 ad sab.

Pomponius 22 on Sabinus.

Permisisti mihi cretam eximere de agro tuo ita, ut eum locum, unde exemissem, replerem: exemi nec repleo: quaesitum est, quam habeas actionem. sed certum est civilem actionem incerti competere: si autem vendidisti cretam, ex vendito ages. quod si post exemptionem cretae replevero nec patieris me cretam tollere tu, agam ad exhibendum, quia mea facta est, cum voluntate tua exempta sit.

You permitted me to take out clay from your field on the condition that I refill the place from which I had taken it: I have taken it out and I do not refill: the question has been raised what action you have. But it is certain that a civil action for the incertum will lie; if, however, you have sold the clay, you will sue ex vendito. But if after the removal of the clay I shall have refilled and you do not allow me to carry off the clay, I shall bring the action ad exhibendum, because it has become mine, since it was taken out with your consent.

Dig. 19.5.16.1

Digest 19.5.16.1

Pomponius 22 ad sab.

Pomponius 22 on Sabinus.

Permisisti mihi, ut sererem in fundo tuo et fructus tollerem: sevi nec pateris me fructus tollere. nullam iuris civilis actionem esse aristo ait: an in factum dari debeat, deliberari posse: sed erit de dolo.

You permitted me to sow on your fundus and to take the fruits: I sowed, and you do not allow me to take the fruits. Aristo says that there is no civil-law action: whether an action in factum ought to be granted can be deliberated: but there will be one for dolus (fraud).

Dig. 19.5.17pr.

Digest 19.5.17, beginning.

Ulpianus 28 ad ed.

Ulpian 28 on the Edict.

Si gratuitam tibi habitationem dedero, an commodati agere possim? et vivianus ait posse: sed est tutius praescriptis verbis agere.

If I have given you gratuitous habitation, can I bring the action of commodatum? And Vivianus says that I can; but it is safer to sue with prescribed words.

Dig. 19.5.17.1

Digest 19.5.17.1

Ulpianus 28 ad ed.

Ulpian 28 on the Edict.

Si margarita tibi aestimata dedero, ut aut eadem mihi adferres aut pretium eorum, deinde haec perierint ante venditionem, cuius periculum sit? et ait labeo, quod et pomponius scripsit, si quidem ego te venditor rogavi, meum esse periculum: si tu me, tuum: si neuter nostrum, sed dumtaxat consensimus, teneri te hactenus, ut dolum et culpam mihi praestes. actio autem ex hac causa utique erit praescriptis verbis.

If I have given you a pearl under an aestimatum (on appraisement), so that you either bring back the same to me or the price of it, and then it has perished before the sale, whose risk is it? And Labeo says, as also Pomponius wrote: if indeed I, the seller, requested you, the risk is mine; if you requested me, it is yours; if neither of us requested, but only we consented, you are held thus far, that you make good to me fraud and fault. Moreover, from this cause an action will in any case lie praescriptis verbis (with prescribed words).

Dig. 19.5.17.2

Digest 19.5.17.2

Ulpianus 28 ad ed.

Ulpian, 28 on the Edict.

Papinianus libro octavo quaestionum scripsit, si rem tibi inspiciendam dedi et dicas te perdidisse, ita demum mihi praescriptis verbis actio competit, si ignorem ubi sit: nam si mihi liqueat apud te esse, furti agere possum vel condicere vel ad exhibendum agere. secundum haec, si cui inspiciendum dedi sive ipsius causa sive utriusque, et dolum et culpam mihi praestandam esse dico propter utilitatem, periculum non: si vero mei dumtaxat causa datum est, dolum solum, quia prope depositum hoc accedit.

Papinian, in the eighth book of the Questions, wrote that if I gave a thing to you to be inspected and you say that you have lost it, then an action with the words prescribed is available to me only if I do not know where it is: for if it is clear to me that it is with you, I can sue for theft or bring a condictio or sue ad exhibendum. Following these, if I gave it to someone to be inspected, whether for his sake or for both, I say that both fraud and fault must be made good to me on account of the utility, but not the peril: but if it was given for my sake only, then fraud alone, because this comes close to deposit.

Dig. 19.5.17.3

Digest 19.5.17.3

Ulpianus 28 ad ed.

Ulpian, 28 on the Edict.

Si, cum unum bovem haberem et vicinus unum, placuerit inter nos, ut per denos dies ego ei et ille mihi bovem commodaremus, ut opus faceret, et apud alterum bos periit, commodati non competit actio, quia non fuit gratuitum commodatum, verum praescriptis verbis agendum est.

If, when I had one ox and my neighbor one, it was agreed between us that, for ten-day periods, I would lend him and he would lend me an ox to do the work, and the ox perished while with the other, the action on commodatum does not lie, because the commodatum was not gratuitous; rather, one must proceed by an actio praescriptis verbis.

Dig. 19.5.17.4

Digest 19.5.17.4

Ulpianus 28 ad ed.

Ulpian, 28 on the Edict.

Si, cum mihi vestimenta venderes, rogavero, ut ea apud me relinquas, ut peritioribus ostenderem, mox haec perierint vi ignis aut alia maiore, periculum me minime praestaturum: ex quo apparet utique custodiam ad me pertinere.

If, when you were selling garments to me, I shall have asked that you leave them with me, so that I might show them to more expert persons, and soon these should perish by the violence of fire or by some other greater [force], I shall by no means make good the peril: whence it plainly appears that the custody pertains to me.

Dig. 19.5.17.5

Digest 19.5.17.5

Ulpianus 28 ad ed.

Ulpian, 28 on the Edict.

Si quis sponsionis causa anulos acceperit nec reddit victori, praescriptis verbis actio in eum competit: nec enim recipienda est sabini opinio, qui condici et furti agi ex hac causa putat: quemadmodum enim rei nomine, cuius neque possessionem neque dominium victor habuit, aget furti? plane si inhonesta causa sponsionis fuit, si anuli dumtaxat repetitio erit.

If someone, for the sake of a wager, has received rings and does not return them to the victor, an action with the prescribed words lies against him: for Sabinus’s opinion is not to be accepted, who thinks that from this cause a condictio and an action for theft can be brought; for how, in respect of the thing, of which the victor had neither possession nor ownership, will he sue for theft? Clearly, if the cause of the wager was dishonorable, there will be only a recovery of the rings.

Dig. 19.5.18

Digest 19.5.18

Ulpianus 30 ad ed.

Ulpian 30 on the edict.

Si apud te pecuniam deposuerim, ut dares titio, si fugitivum meum reduxisset, nec dederis, quia non reduxit: si pecuniam mihi non reddas, melius est praescriptis verbis agere: non enim ambo pecuniam ego et fugitivarius deposuimus, ut quasi apud sequestrem sit depositum.

If I have deposited money with you, to give to Titius if he should have brought back my fugitive, and you have not given it because he did not bring him back: if you do not return the money to me, it is better to proceed by the action praescriptis verbis; for it is not the case that both I and the fugitive-catcher deposited the money, as though it were deposited with a sequester.

Dig. 19.5.19pr.

Digest 19.5.19pr.

Ulpianus 31 ad ed.

Ulpian, 31 on the Edict.

Rogasti me, ut tibi nummos mutuos darem: ego cum non haberem, dedi tibi rem vendendam, ut pretio utereris. si non vendidisti aut vendidisti quidem, pecuniam autem non accepisti mutuam, tutius est ita agere, ut labeo ait, praescriptis verbis, quasi negotio quodam inter nos gesto proprii contractus.

You asked me to give you money on loan: I, since I did not have it, gave you a thing to be sold, so that you might make use of the price. If you did not sell, or indeed you did sell, but you did not receive the money as a loan, it is safer to proceed thus, as Labeo says, by an action with prescribed words, as upon a certain business transacted between us, of a contract of its own kind.

Dig. 19.5.19.1

Digest 19.5.19.1

Ulpianus 31 ad ed.

Ulpian 31 on the edict.

Si praedium pro te obligavero, deinde placuerit inter nos, ut mihi fideiussorem praestares, nec facias, melius esse dico praescriptis verbis agi, nisi merces intervenit: nam si intervenit, ex locato esse actionem.

If I have pledged an estate for you, and thereafter it has been agreed between us that you should furnish me a surety (fideiussor), and you do not do so, I say it is better to proceed by the action on the prescribed words, unless a fee (merces) has intervened: for if it has intervened, the action is from letting (ex locato).

Dig. 19.5.20pr.

Digest 19.5.20, beginning.

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the Edict.

Apud labeonem quaeritur, si tibi equos venales experiendos dedero, ut, si in triduo displicuissent, redderes, tuque desultor in his cucurreris et viceris, deinde emere nolueris, an sit adversus te ex vendito actio. et puto verius esse praescriptis verbis agendum: nam inter nos hoc actum, ut experimentum gratuitum acciperes, non ut etiam certares.

In Labeo it is asked whether, if I have given you horses for sale to be tried, on the terms that, if within three days they displeased you, you would return them, and you, being a desultor, have raced on them and won, then were unwilling to buy, an action ex vendito lies against you. And I think the truer view is that one should proceed by an actio praescriptis verbis: for between us this was agreed, that you should receive a gratuitous experiment, not that you should also compete.

Dig. 19.5.20.1

Digest 19.5.20.1

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian 32 on the edict.

Item apud melam quaeritur, si mulas tibi dedero ut experiaris et, si placuissent, emeres, si displicuissent, ut in dies singulos aliquid praestares, deinde mulae a grassatoribus fuerint ablatae intra dies experimenti, quid esset praestandum, utrum pretium et merces an merces tantum. et ait mela interesse, utrum emptio iam erat contracta an futura, ut, si facta, pretium petatur, si futura, merces petatur: sed non exprimit de actionibus. puto autem, si quidem perfecta fuit emptio, competere ex vendito actionem, si vero nondum perfecta esset, actionem talem qualem adversus desultorem dari.

Likewise, in Mela it is asked: if I should give you mules for you to try out, and, if they had pleased, you would buy, but if they had displeased, that you would pay something by the day, then the mules were carried off by highwaymen within the days of the trial, what ought to be rendered—whether the price and the hire, or only the hire. And Mela says it makes a difference whether the sale had already been contracted or was to be in the future: so that, if it was done, the price is sought; if it was to be, the hire is sought. But he does not specify about the actions. However, I think that, if indeed the sale was perfected, the action ex vendito lies; but if it was not yet perfected, an action such as is given against a desultor.

Dig. 19.5.20.2

Digest 19.5.20.2

Ulpianus 32 ad ed.

Ulpian, 32 on the Edict.

Si, cum emere argentum velles, vascularius ad te detulerit et reliquerit et, cum displicuisset tibi, servo tuo referendum dedisti et sine dolo malo et culpa tua perierit, vascularii esse detrimentum, quia eius quoque causa sit missum. certe culpam eorum, quibus custodiendum perferendumve dederis, praestare te oportere labeo ait, et puto praescriptis verbis actionem in hoc competere.

If, when you wished to buy silver, a dealer in vessels brought it to you and left it, and when it displeased you, you gave it to your slave to be taken back, and it perished without fraud and without your fault, the loss is the dealer’s, because it was sent also on his account. Certainly Labeo says that you ought to answer for the fault of those to whom you have given it to be kept or carried, and I think that an action on the prescribed words lies in this matter.

Dig. 19.5.21

Digest 19.5.21

Ulpianus 2 disp.

Ulpian Disputations, Book 2.

Quotiens deficit actio vel exceptio, utilis actio vel exceptio est.

Whenever an action or an exception fails, a useful action or exception exists.

Dig. 19.5.22

Digest 19.5.22

Gaius 10 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 10 on the Provincial Edict.

Si tibi polienda sarciendave vestimenta dederim, si quidem gratis hanc operam te suscipiente, mandati est obligatio, si vero mercede data aut constituta, locationis conductionisque negotium geritur. quod si neque gratis hanc operam susceperis neque protinus aut data aut constituta sit merces, sed eo animo negotium gestum fuerit, ut postea tantum mercedis nomine daretur, quantum inter nos statutum sit, placet quasi de novo negotio in factum dandum esse iudicium, id est praescriptis verbis.

If I have given you garments to be smoothed/polished or mended, then, if you undertake this work gratis, the obligation is of mandate; but if a wage has been given or stipulated, the business of letting and hiring is carried on. But if you have neither undertaken this work gratis nor has a wage immediately been either given or stipulated, yet the business was conducted with this intention, that afterwards there be given, under the name of wage, as much as has been settled between us, it is held that, as if concerning a new transaction, an action on the facts is to be granted, that is, with prescribed words.

Dig. 19.5.23

Digest 19.5.23

Alfenus 3 Dig. a paulo epit.

Alfenus Digest 3 from the epitome by Paulus.

Duo secundum tiberim cum ambularent, alter eorum ei, qui secum ambulabat, rogatus anulum ostendit, ut respiceret ^ respicerit^: illi excidit anulus et in tiberim devolutus est. respondit posse agi cum eo in factum actione.

While two were walking along the Tiber, one of them, at the request of the one who was walking with him, showed him a ring, so that he might look at it ^ has looked at it^; the ring slipped from him and was rolled down into the Tiber. He answered that it was possible to bring an in factum action against him.

Dig. 19.5.24

Digest 19.5.24

Africanus 8 quaest.

Africanus 8 questions.

Titius sempronio triginta dedit pactique sunt, ut ex reditu eius pecuniae tributum, quod titius pendere deberet, sempronius praestaret computatis usuris semissibus, quantoque minus tributorum nomine praestitum foret, quam earum usurarum quantitas esset, ut id titio restitueret, quod amplius praestitum esset, id ex sorte decederet, aut, si et sortem et usuras summa tributorum excessisset, id quod amplius esset titius sempronio praestaret: neque de ea re ulla stipulatio interposita est. titius consulebat, id quod amplius ex usuris sempronius redegisset, quam tributorum nomine praestitisset, qua actione ab eo consequi possit. respondit pecuniae quidem creditae usuras nisi in stipulationem deductas non deberi: verum in proposito videndum, ne non tam faenerata pecunia intellegi debeat, quam quasi mandatum inter eos contractum, nisi quod ultra semissem consecuturus esset: sed ne ipsius quidem sortis petitionem pecuniae creditae fuisse, quando, si sempronius eam pecuniam sine dolo malo vel amisisset vel vacuam habuisset, dicendum nihil eum eo nomine praestare debuisse.

Titius gave thirty to Sempronius, and they made a pact that, out of the revenue of that money, Sempronius would discharge the tax which Titius ought to pay, with half‑interests computed; and that, to the extent less had been furnished under the name of taxes than the amount of those interests, he should restore that to Titius; what had been furnished more, that it should be deducted from the principal; or, if the sum of the taxes had exceeded both principal and interests, that Titius should furnish to Sempronius what was in excess: and no stipulation was interposed concerning this matter. Titius consulted, by what action he could obtain from him that which Sempronius had collected more out of the interests than he had furnished under the name of taxes. He responded that the interests of money indeed lent are not owed unless brought into a stipulation; but in the case proposed it is to be considered that the money ought to be understood not so much as lent at interest as that, as it were, a mandate had been contracted between them—save only that he was to obtain beyond the half‑interest; but not even the claim for the principal itself was that of money lent, since, if Sempronius had either lost that money without dolus malus or had kept it idle, it must be said that he would owe nothing on that account.

quare tutius esse praescriptis verbis in factum actionem dari, praesertim cum illud quoque convenisset, ut quod amplius praestitum esset, quam ex usuris redigeretur, sorti decederet: quod ipsum ius et causam pecuniae creditae excedat.

therefore it is safer that an action in factum with prescribed words be given, especially since it had also been agreed that whatever had been paid in excess, beyond what would be recovered by way of interest, should be deducted from the principal: which thing itself goes beyond the law and rationale of a money-loan.

Dig. 19.5.25

Digest 19.5.25

Marcianus 3 reg.

Marcianus Rules Book 3.

Si operas fabriles quis servi vice mutua dedisset, ut totidem reciperet, posse eum praescriptis verbis agere, sicuti si paenulas dedisset, ut tunicas acciperet: nec esse hoc contrarium, quod, si per errorem operae indebitae datae sunt, ipsae repeti non possunt. nam aliud dando, ut aliud reddatur, obligari iure gentium possumus: quod autem indebitum datur, aut ipsum repeti debet aut tantundem ex eodem genere, quorum neutro modo operae repeti possunt.

If someone, in the manner of a slave, had furnished artisans’ services by mutual exchange, so that he might receive the same number in return, he can sue by the action with prescribed words, just as if he had given cloaks so as to receive tunics; nor is this contrary to the rule that, if by mistake services not owed have been rendered, they themselves cannot be reclaimed. For by giving one thing so that another be returned, we can be obligated by the law of nations; but what is given as not due must either itself be reclaimed, or an equivalent amount of the same kind, in neither of which ways can services be reclaimed.

Dig. 19.5.26pr.

Digest 19.5.26pr.

Pomponius 21 ad sab.

Pomponius 21 on Sabinus.

Si tibi scyphos dedi, ut eosdem mihi redderes, commodati actio est: si, ut pondus argenti redderes quantum in illis esset, tantidem ponderis petitio est per actionem praescriptis verbis, tam boni tamen argenti, quam illi scyphi fuerunt: sed si ut vel hos scyphos vel ut eiusdem ponderis argentum dares, convenit, dicendum est, si quidem tua est electio, scyphos statim tuos fieri et te mihi dare aut scyphos aut argentum utrum malis: quod si mihi permissum est eligere, scyphi ^ scyphos^ tui ^ tuos^ non fient ^ fieri,^ antequam dixero me eos habere nolle.

If I gave you cups, so that you would return the same to me, there is an action of commodatum: if it was so that you would return the weight of silver as much as was in them, there is a claim for an equal weight by the praescriptis verbis action, yet of silver as good as those cups were: but if it was agreed that you either give these cups or silver of the same weight, it must be said that, if indeed the choice is yours, the cups at once become yours and you give me either the cups or the silver, whichever you prefer: but if it has been permitted to me to choose, the cups ^ cups^ yours ^ yours^ will not become ^ be made,^ before I have said that I do not wish to have them.

Dig. 19.5.26.1

Digest 19.5.26.1

Pomponius 21 ad sab.

Pomponius 21 on sab.

Quod kalendis <ianuariis?> dari solet medicis et scaenicis, non est merces: itaque si quid in hisce ministeriis aliter fiat quam convenit, non ex locato, sed in factum actio dabitur.

What is accustomed to be given on the Kalends of <January?> to physicians and stage-actors is not wages: accordingly, if anything in these services is done otherwise than is agreed, an action will be given not from hire (ex locato), but in factum.