Justinian: DIGESTA

The praetor set forth this title for the sake of having a rationale and of guarding his own dignity and his decorum, lest, without selection, petitions be made everywhere before him.

Dig. 3.1.1.1

Digest 3.1.1.1

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 on the edict.

Eapropter tres fecit ordines: nam quosdam in totum prohibuit postulare, quibusdam vel pro se permisit, quibusdam et pro certis dumtaxat personis et pro se permisit.

Therefore he made three classes: for he wholly prohibited some from petitioning, to some he permitted it for themselves, to some he permitted both on behalf of certain persons only and for themselves.

Dig. 3.1.1.2

Digest 3.1.1.2

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 on the edict.

Postulare autem est desiderium suum vel amici sui in iure apud eum, qui iurisdictioni praeest, exponere: vel alterius desiderio contradicere.

To petition, moreover, is to set forth one’s own desire or that of one’s friend in court before him who presides over the jurisdiction: or to contradict another’s desire.

Dig. 3.1.1.3

Digest 3.1.1.3

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 on the Edict.

Initium autem fecit praetor ab his, qui in totum prohibentur postulare. in quo edicto aut pueritiam aut casum excusavit. pueritiam: dum minorem annis decem et septem, qui eos non in totum complevit, prohibet postulare, quia moderatam hanc aetatem ratus est ad procedendum in publicum, qua aetate aut paulo maiore fertur nerva filius et publice de iure responsitasse.

But the praetor made a beginning with those who are altogether prohibited from making applications. In this edict he excused either youth or accident. Youth: in that he forbids one under seventeen years, who has not fully completed those years, to make applications, because he judged this age a moderate one for proceeding into public life—at which age, or at one a little greater, Nerva the son is said even to have given public responses on the law.

propter casum surdum qui prorsus non audit prohibet apud se postulare: nec enim erat permittendum ei postulare, qui decretum praetoris exaudire non poterat, quod etiam ipsi erat periculosum futurum: nam non exaudito decreto praetoris, quasi non obtemperasset, poena ut contumax plecteretur.

on account of the mischance of being deaf—one who does not hear at all—he forbids him to petition before him: for it ought not to be permitted that one petition who could not hear out the praetor’s decree, which would also prove dangerous to himself; for, the praetor’s decree not having been heard, as if he had not obeyed, he would be punished with a penalty as contumacious.

Dig. 3.1.1.4

Digest 3.1.1.4

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 6 on the Edict.

Ait praetor: "si non habebunt advocatum, ego dabo." nec solum his personis hanc humanitatem praetor solet exhibere, verum et si quis alius sit, qui certis ex causis vel ambitione adversarii vel metu patronum non invenit.

The praetor says: "If they do not have an advocate, I will give one." Nor is the praetor accustomed to show this humanity only to these persons, but also if there is anyone else who, for certain causes, either
by the ambition of an adversary or by fear, has not found a patron.

Dig. 3.1.1.5

Digest 3.1.1.5

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 on the Edict.

Secundo loco edictum proponitur in eos, qui pro aliis ne postulent: in quo edicto excepit praetor sexum et casum, item notavit personas in turpitudine notabiles. sexum: dum feminas prohibet pro aliis postulare. et ratio quidem prohibendi, ne contra pudicitiam sexui congruentem alienis causis se immisceant, ne virilibus officiis fungantur mulieres: origo vero introducta est a carfania improbissima femina, quae inverecunde postulans et magistratum inquietans causam dedit edicto.

In the second place an edict is set forth against those who are not to plead on behalf of others: in which edict the praetor excepted sex and contingency, likewise he marked persons noteworthy for turpitude. the sex: in that he forbids women to plead for others. And indeed the reason for the prohibition is, lest they involve themselves in others’ causes contrary to the modesty congruent to their sex, lest women perform virile offices: but the origin was introduced from Carfania, a most shameless woman, who, shamelessly pleading and disturbing the magistrate, gave the occasion for the edict.

casum: dum caecum utrisque luminibus orbatum praetor repellit: videlicet quod insignia magistratus videre et revereri non possit. refert etiam labeo publilium caecum asprenatis noni patrem aversa sella a bruto destitutum, cum vellet postulare. quamvis autem caecus pro alio postulare non possit, tamen et senatorium ordinem retinet et iudicandi officio fungitur.

the case: in that, when the praetor repels a blind man deprived of both eyes,
namely because he cannot see and reverence the insignia of a magistrate. Labeo also relates that Publilius, a blind man, the father of Nonius Asprenas, was refused audience with the chair turned away by Brutus,
when he wished to petition. And although a blind man cannot petition on behalf of another, nevertheless he retains the senatorial order and discharges the office of judging.

numquid ergo et magistratus gerere possit? sed de hoc deliberabimus. exstat quidem exemplum eius, qui gessit: appius denique claudius caecus consiliis publicis intererat et in senatu severissimam dixit sententiam de pyrrhi captivis.

Can he then also hold magistracies? But we will deliberate about this. Indeed there exists an example of one who did hold: Appius Claudius the Blind, moreover, took part in public counsels and in the senate delivered a most severe opinion concerning Pyrrhus’s captives.

sed melius ^ milius^ est, ut dicamus retinere quidem iam coeptum magistratum posse, adspirare autem ad novum penitus prohiberi: idque multis comprobatur exemplis.

but it is better that we say that one can indeed retain a magistracy already begun, but to aspire to a new one is utterly prohibited; and this is confirmed by many examples.

Dig. 3.1.1.6

Digest 3.1.1.6

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 on the Edict.

Removet autem a postulando pro aliis et eum, qui corpore suo muliebria passus est. si quis tamen vi praedonum vel hostium stupratus est, non debet notari, ut et pomponius ait. et qui capitali crimine damnatus est, non debet pro alio postulare.

Moreover, it removes from petitioning on behalf of others also the man who has with his body suffered womanly acts. If, however, someone has been violated by the force of brigands or enemies, he ought not to be marked, as Pomponius also says. And he who has been condemned for a capital crime ought not to petition on behalf of another.

item senatus consulto etiam apud iudices pedaneos postulare prohibetur calumniae publici iudicii damnatus. et qui operas suas, ut cum bestiis depugnaret, locaverit. bestias autem accipere debemus ex feritate magis, quam ex animalis genere: nam quid si leo sit, sed mansuetus, vel alia dentata mansueta?

Likewise, by senatus‑consultum, one condemned for calumny in a public trial is also forbidden to petition even before pedanei judges; and so too is one who has hired out his services to fight with beasts. But we ought to understand “beasts” by ferocity rather than by the class of animal: for what if it is a lion, but tame, or some other toothed animal that is tame?

ergo qui locavit solus notatur, sive depugnaverit sive non: quod si depugnaverit, cum non locasset operas suas, non tenebitur: non enim qui cum bestiis depugnavit, tenebitur, sed qui operas suas in hoc locavit. denique eos, qui virtutis ostendendae causa hoc faciunt sine mercede, non teneri aiunt veteres, nisi in harena passi sunt se honorari: eos enim puto notam non evadere. sed si quis operas suas locaverit, ut feras venetur, vel ut depugnaret feram quae regioni nocet, extra harenam: non est notatus.

therefore he who has let out his services alone is marked, whether he has fought or not: but if he has fought, when he had not let out his services, he will not be held: for it is not he who has fought with beasts who will be held, but he who has let out his services for this. finally, those who do this for the sake of displaying virtue without pay, the ancients say are not held, unless in the arena they have allowed themselves to be honored (i.e., to receive an honorarium): for I think those do not escape the mark. but if someone has let out his services to hunt wild beasts, or to fight a wild beast that harms the region, outside the arena: he is not marked.

his igitur personis, quae non virtutis causa cum bestiis pugnaverunt, pro se praetor permittit allegare, pro alio prohibet. sed est aequissimum, si tutelam vel curam huiusmodi personae administrent, postulare eis pro his, quorum curam gerunt, concedi. qui adversus ea fecisse monstretur, et pro aliis interdicta postulatione repellitur et pro aestimatione iudicis extra ordinem pecuniaria poena multabitur.

Accordingly, for these persons who have fought with beasts not for the sake of virtue, the praetor permits them to plead for themselves; he forbids it on behalf of another. But it is most equitable that, if they administer the guardianship or curatorship of a person of this kind, it be conceded to them to petition on behalf of those whose care they bear.
Whoever is shown to have acted contrary to these provisions is both repelled, with petitioning interdicted, from acting for others,
and, according to the judge’s estimation, will be fined extra ordinem with a pecuniary penalty.

Dig. 3.1.1.7

Digest 3.1.1.7

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 6 on the Edict.

Ut initio huius tituli diximus, tres ordines praetor fecit non postulantium: quorum hic tertius est, quibus non in totum denegat postulandi facultatem, sed ne pro omnibus postularent: quasi minus deliquerint quam hi qui superioribus captibus notantur.

As we said at the beginning of this title, the praetor made three orders of non-petitioners: of which this is the third, for whom he does not in total deny the faculty of petitioning, but that they should not petition on behalf of all: as if they had been less at fault than those who are noted in the preceding headings.

Dig. 3.1.1.8

Digest 3.1.1.8

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 on the Edict.

Ait praetor: " qui lege, plebis scito, senatus consulto, edicto, decreto principum nisi pro certis personis postulare prohibentur: hi pro alio, quam pro quo licebit, in iure apud me ne postulent. " hoc edicto continentur etiam alii omnes, qui edicto praetoris ut infames notantur, qui omnes nisi pro se et certis personis ne postulent.

The praetor says: " those who by a law, a plebiscite, a senatus consult, an edict, or a decree of the emperors are prohibited from petitioning except for certain persons: these, on behalf of anyone other than those for whom it will be permitted, in iure before
me let them not petition. " By this edict there are included also all others who by the praetor’s edict are marked as infamous, all of whom are not to petition except for themselves and for certain persons.

Dig. 3.1.1.9

Digest 3.1.1.9

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 6 on the Edict.

Deinde adicit praetor: " qui ex his omnibus, qui supra scripti sunt, in integrum restitutus non erit. " " eum qui ex his, qui supra scripti sunt" sic accipe: si fuerit inter eos, qui tertio edicto continentur et nisi pro certis personis postulare prohibentur: ceterum si ex superioribus, difficile in integrum restitutio impetrabitur.

Then the praetor adds: " whoever among all those who are written above will not be restored to the status quo (in integrum). " " the one who is among those who are written above" understand thus: if he is among those who are contained in the third edict and are prohibited from petitioning except on behalf of certain persons: otherwise, if he is from those earlier ones, in integrum restitution will be difficult to obtain.

Dig. 3.1.1.10

Digest 3.1.1.10

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian 6 on the Edict.

De qua autem restitutione praetor loquitur? utrum de ea quae a principe vel a senatu? pomponius quaerit: et putat de ea restitutione sensum, quam princeps vel senatus indulsit.

But of which restitution does the praetor speak? Is it of that which is by the emperor or by the senate? Pomponius inquires, and thinks the sense is of that restitution which the emperor or the senate has granted.

an autem et praetor restituere possit, quaeritur: et mihi videtur talia praetorum decreta non esse servanda, nisi sicubi ex officio iurisdictionis suae subvenerunt: ut in aetate observatur, si quis deceptus sit, ceterisque speciebus quas sub titulo de in integrum restitutione exsequemur. pro qua sententia est, quod si quis famoso iudicio condemnatus per in integrum restitutionem fuerit absolutus, pomponius putat hunc infamia eximi.

but whether also the praetor can grant restitution is asked: and it seems to me that such decrees of praetors are not to be observed, unless wherever they have afforded relief by virtue of the office of their jurisdiction: as is observed in
a matter of age, if someone has been deceived, and in the other kinds which under the title On Restitution in Integrum we shall set forth. In support of which opinion is this, that if someone condemned in a notorious judgment has been acquitted by restitution in integrum, pomponius thinks that this man is exempted from infamy.

Dig. 3.1.1.11

Digest 3.1.1.11

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 on the Edict.

Deinde adicit praetor: " pro alio ne postulent praeterquam pro parente, patrono patrona, liberis parentibusque patroni patronae": de quibus personis sub titulo de in ius vocando plenius diximus. item adicit: " liberisve suis, fratre sorore, uxore, socero socru, genero nuru, vitrico noverca, privigno privigna, pupillo pupilla, furioso furiosa, "

Then the praetor adds: " that they are not to petition on behalf of another except for a parent, a patron or patrona, the children and parents of a patron or patrona": about which persons we have spoken more fully under the title On Summons to Court. likewise he adds: " or their own children, brother sister, wife, father-in-law mother-in-law, son-in-law daughter-in-law, stepfather stepmother, stepson stepdaughter, male ward female ward, insane man insane woman, "

Dig. 3.1.2

Digest 3.1.2

Gaius 1 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 1 on the provincial edict

" fatuo fatua": cum istis quoque personis curator detur.

" to a fool, to a foolish woman": for these persons too a curator is appointed.

Dig. 3.1.3pr.

Digest 3.1.3, preface.

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 on the Edict.

" cui eorum a parente, aut de maioris partis tutorum sententia, aut ab eo cuius de ea re iurisdictio fuit ea tutela curatiove data erit. "

" to whichever of them, by a parent, or by the decision of the majority of the guardians, or by the one who had jurisdiction in that matter, that tutelage or curatorship shall have been granted. "

Dig. 3.1.3.1

Digest 3.1.3.1

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 on the Edict.

Adfinitates non eas accipere debemus, quae quondam fuerunt, sed praesentes.

We ought not to take affinities as those which once existed, but as present.

Dig. 3.1.3.2

Digest 3.1.3.2

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 on the Edict.

Item pomponius nurus et generi appellatione et soceri et socrus et ulteriores, quibus pro praepositio solet accedere, contineri ait.

Likewise, Pomponius says that under the appellation of daughters-in-law and sons-in-law are included also fathers-in-law and mothers-in-law and those more ulterior (more remote), to whom the preposition pro is accustomed to be prefixed.

Dig. 3.1.3.3

Digest 3.1.3.3

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 6 on the Edict.

In curatoribus debuisse eum adicere: muti ceterorumque, quibus dare solent, id est surdo prodigo et adulescenti:

As to curators he ought to have added: of the mute and of the others to whom they are accustomed to give [them], that is, to the deaf man, the prodigal, and the adolescent:

Dig. 3.1.4

Digest 3.1.4

Paulus 5 ad ed.

Paulus 5 on the Edict.

Item quibus propter infirmitatem curatorem praetor dare solet,

Likewise, for those to whom, on account of infirmity, the praetor is accustomed to appoint a curator,

Dig. 3.1.5

Digest 3.1.5

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, 9 on the Edict.

Et qui negotiis suis aliquo perpetuo morbo superesse non possunt.

And those who, by reason of some permanent illness, are unable to attend to their own affairs.

Dig. 3.1.6

Digest 3.1.6

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 on the Edict.

Puto autem omnes, qui non sponte, sed necessario officio funguntur, posse sine offensa edicti postulare, etiamsi hi sint, qui non nisi pro se postulare possunt. si quis advocationem praestare fuerit prohibitus, si quidem apud se, ut solent facere, tempore magistratus sui, puto eum postea apud successorem eius adesse posse.

I think, moreover, that all who act not of their own accord but in the discharge of a necessary office can petition without offense to the edict, even if they are those who can petition only for themselves. if someone has been prohibited from providing advocacy—namely, before himself, as they are accustomed to do, during the time of his magistracy—I think that afterward he can appear before his successor.

Dig. 3.1.7

Digest 3.1.7

Gaius 3 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius Book 3 on the provincial edict

Quos prohibet praetor apud se postulare, omnimodo prohibet, etiam si adversarius eos patiatur postulare.

Those whom the praetor prohibits from pleading before him, he prohibits absolutely, even if the adversary permits them to plead.

Dig. 3.1.8

Digest 3.1.8

Papinianus 2 quaest.

Papinian, Questions 2.

Imperator titus antoninus rescripsit eum, cui advocationibus in quinquennio interdictum esset, post quinquennium pro omnibus postulare non prohiberi. divus quoque hadrianus rescripserat de exilio reversum postulare posse. nec adhibetur distinctio, quo crimine silentium vel exilium sit irrogatum, ne scilicet poena tempore determinata contra sententiae fidem ulterius porrigatur.

The emperor Titus Antoninus wrote in a rescript that one who had been interdicted from advocations for five years is not, after the five-year term, prohibited from petitioning on behalf of all. The Deified also Hadrian had written in a rescript that one returned from exile can petition. Nor is a distinction applied as to by what crime silence or exile was imposed, lest, to wit, a penalty determined by time be extended further against the tenor of the sentence.

Dig. 3.1.9

Digest 3.1.9

Papinianus 1 resp.

Papinianus, Responses, Book 1.

Ex ea causa prohibitus pro alio postulare, quae infamiam non irrogat ideoque ius pro omnibus postulandi non aufert, in ea tantum provincia pro aliis non recte postulat, in qua praeses fuit qui sententiam dixit, in alia vero non prohibetur, licet eiusdem nominis sit.

One who has been prohibited, on that ground which does not inflict infamy and therefore does not take away the right of postulating for all, from postulating on behalf of another, only in that province does not rightly postulate for others in which he was the governor (praeses) who pronounced the sentence; in another, however, he is not prohibited, even if it is of the same name.

Dig. 3.1.10

Digest 3.1.10

Paulus l.S. reg.

Paulus, in the single book of Rules.

Hi qui fisci causas agunt suam vel filiorum et parentium suorum vel pupillorum quorum tutelas gerunt causam et adversus fiscum agere non prohibentur. decuriones quoque contra patriam suam causas agere prohibentur, praeter superiores personas.

Those who plead the causes of the fisc—either their own, or those of their sons and their parents, or of wards whose tutelage they bear—are not prohibited from also pleading against the fisc. Decurions likewise are prohibited from pleading causes against their own fatherland, except for the aforesaid persons.

Dig. 3.1.11pr.

Digest 3.1.11, preface.

Tryphonus 5 disp.

Tryphoninus, Disputations, 5.

A principe nostro rescriptum est non prohiberi tutorem adesse pupillo in negotio, in quo advocatus contra patrem eius fuisset. sed et illud permissum ab eo est agere tutorem pupilli causam adversus fiscum, in qua adversus patrem pupilli antea advocatus fisci fuisset.

By a rescript of our prince it was [declared] that a tutor is not prohibited from being present for the pupil in a matter in which he had been an advocate against the pupil’s father. But also this has been permitted by him: that the tutor may plead the pupil’s cause against the fisc, in which previously he had been an advocate of the fisc against the pupil’s father.

Dig. 3.1.11.1

Digest 3.1.11.1

Tryphonus 5 disp.

Tryphonus 5 disputations.

Qui autem inter infames sunt, sequenti titulo explanabitur.

Those, however, who are among the infamous will be explained in the following title.

Dig. 3.2.0. De his qui notantur infamia.

Digest 3.2.0. On those who are marked with infamy.

Dig. 3.2.1

Digest 3.2.1

Iulianus 1 ad ed.

Julian 1 on the Edict.

Praetoris verba dicunt: " infamia notatur qui ab exercitu ignominiae causa ab imperatore eove, cui de ea re statuendi potestas fuerit, dimissus erit: qui artis ludicrae pronuntiandive causa in scaenam prodierit: qui lenocinium fecerit: qui in iudicio publico calumniae praevaricationisve causa quid fecisse iudicatus erit: qui furti, vi bonorum raptorum, iniuriarum, de dolo malo et fraude suo nomine damnatus pactusve erit: qui pro socio, tutelae, mandati depositi suo nomine non contrario iudicio damnatus erit: qui eam, quae in potestate eius esset, genero mortuo, cum eum mortuum esse sciret, intra id tempus, quo elugere virum moris est, antequam virum elugeret, in matrimonium collocaverit: eamve sciens quis uxorem duxerit non iussu eius, in cuius potestate est: et qui eum, quem in potestate haberet, eam, de qua supra comprehensum est, uxorem ducere passus fuerit: quive suo nomine non iussu eius in cuius potestate esset, eiusve nomine quem quamve in potestate haberet bina sponsalia binasve nuptias in eodem tempore constitutas habuerit. "

The praetor’s words say: "he is noted with infamy who shall have been dismissed from the army for the cause of ignominy by the emperor or by him to whom the power of deciding on that matter shall have belonged: who shall have gone upon the stage for the sake of a ludic art or of declaiming: who shall have practiced pandering: who in a public trial shall have been judged to have done something for the sake of calumny or of praevaricatio (collusion): who in his own name shall have been condemned or have compounded in actions of theft, of violent seizure of goods, of injuries, of dolus malus and fraud: who in his own name, not by a counter-judgment, shall have been condemned in actions pro socio, tutelae, mandati, depositi: who shall have settled in marriage her who was in his power, his son-in-law being dead, although he knew him to be dead, within that time in which it is the custom to bewail a husband, before she had bewailed her husband: or who knowingly shall have taken as wife a woman not by the order of him in whose power she is: and who shall have allowed him whom he had in his power to take to wife the woman about whom above it has been included: or who, in his own name without the order of him in whose power he was, or in the name of him or her whom he had in his power, shall have had two betrothals or two marriages arranged at the same time."

Dig. 3.2.2pr.

Digest 3.2.2, beginning.

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 On the Edict.

Quod ait praetor: " qui ab exercitu dimissus erit": dimissum accipere debemus militem caligatum, vel si quis alius usque ad centurionem, vel praefectum cohortis vel alae vel legionis, vel tribunum sive cohortis sive legionis dimissus est. hoc amplius pomponius ait etiam eum, qui exercitui praeest, licet consularibus insignibus utitur, ignominiae causa ab imperatore missum hac nota laborare: ergo et si dux cum exercitui praeest dimissus erit, notatur, et si princeps dimiserit et adiecerit ignominiae causa se mittere, ut plerumque facit, non dubitabis et ex edicto praetoris eum infamia esse notatum: non tamen si citra indignationem principis successor ei datus est.

What the praetor says, "he who shall have been dismissed from the army": we ought to take "dismissed" to include a common soldier (caligatus), or anyone else up to a centurion, or a prefect of a cohort or of an ala or of a legion, or a tribune, whether of a cohort or of a legion, who has been dismissed. Moreover, Pomponius says that even he who is in command of the army, although he uses consular insignia, if he has been sent away by the emperor for the cause of ignominy, labors under this mark: therefore, both if a general, while he is in command of the army, has been dismissed, he is marked, and if the princeps has dismissed him and has added that he is sending him on account of ignominy, as he very often does, you will not doubt that also by the praetor’s edict he is noted with infamy; not, however, if, short of the emperor’s indignation, a successor has been given to him.

Dig. 3.2.2.1

Digest 3.2.2.1

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 on the edict.

Exercitum autem non unam cohortem neque unam alam dicimus, sed numeros multos militum: nam exercitui praeesse dicimus eum, qui legionem vel legiones cum suis auxiliis ab imperatore commissas administrat: sed hic etiam eum, qui ab aliquo numero militum missus est, quasi ab exercitu missum sic accipiemus.

We do not call an army one cohort nor one wing (ala), but many numbers of soldiers: for we say that he is in command of an army who administers a legion or legions with their auxiliaries entrusted by the emperor:
but here too we shall take him who has been sent by some number of soldiers as if sent by the army.

Dig. 3.2.2.2

Digest 3.2.2.2

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 on the Edict.

" ignominiae causa missum " : hoc ideo adiectum est, quoniam multa genera sunt missionum. est honesta, quae emeritis stipendiis vel ante ab imperatore indulgetur: est causaria, quae propter valetudinem laboribus militiae solvit: est ignominiosa. ignominiosa autem missio totiens est, quotiens is qui mittit addidit nominatim ignominiae causa se mittere: semper enim debet addere, cur miles mittatur.

" dismissed for the cause of ignominy " : this was added for this reason, since there are many kinds of discharges. There is the honorable, which is granted, with terms of service completed, or earlier by the emperor: there is the causarial, which releases from the labors of military service on account of health: there is the ignominious. But the ignominious discharge is the case whenever the one who dismisses has added expressly that he is dismissing for the cause of ignominy: for he must always add why the soldier is being dismissed.

sed et si eum exauctoraverit, id est insignia militaria detraxerit, inter infames efficit, licet non addidisset ignominiae causa se eum exauctorasse. est et quartum genus missionis, si quis evitandorum munerum causa militiam subisset: haec autem missio existimationem non laedit, ut est saepissime rescriptum.

but also, if he has exauctorated him—that is, has stripped off the military insignia—he makes him among the infamous, even if he had not added that he exauctorated him for the cause of ignominy. There is also a fourth kind of discharge, if someone had undertaken military service for the sake of avoiding public munera: this discharge, however, does not injure reputation (existimation), as has been very often established by rescript.

Dig. 3.2.2.3

Digest 3.2.2.3

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 on the Edict

Miles, qui lege iulia de adulteriis fuerit damnatus, ita infamis est, ut etiam ipsa sententia eum sacramento ignominiae causa solvat.

A soldier who has been condemned under the Julian Law on Adulteries is so infamous that even the sentence itself releases him from the military oath by reason of ignominy.

Dig. 3.2.2.4

Digest 3.2.2.4

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 6 on the Edict.

Ignominia autem missis neque in urbe neque alibi, ubi imperator est, morari licet.

However, for those dismissed with ignominy, it is not permitted to remain either in the city or anywhere else where the emperor is.

Dig. 3.2.2.5

Digest 3.2.2.5

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 6 on the Edict.

Ait praetor: " qui in scaenam prodierit, infamis est". scaena est, ut labeo definit, quae ludorum faciendorum causa quolibet loco, ubi quis consistat moveaturque spectaculum sui praebiturus, posita sit in publico privatove vel in vico, quo tamen loco passim homines spectaculi causa admittantur. eos enim, qui quaestus causa in certamina descendunt et omnes propter praemium in scaenam prodeuntes famosos esse pegasus et nerva filius responderunt.

The praetor says: " whoever shall have come forth onto the stage is infamous". A stage is, as Labeo defines, that which, for the purpose of producing games, wherever it has been placed, in any location where someone, about to offer a spectacle of himself, stands and moves, is set in a public or private place or in a street, provided that in that place people are admitted indiscriminately for the sake of the spectacle. For Pegasus and Nerva the son answered that those who descend into contests for the sake of gain, and all who come forth onto the stage on account of a prize, are infamous.

Dig. 3.2.3

Digest 3.2.3

Gaius 1 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius, 1 on the Provincial Edict

Qui autem operas suas locavit, ut prodiret artis ludicrae causa neque prodit, non notatur: quia non est ea res adeo turpis, ut etiam consilium puniri debeat.

However, one who has hired out his services to appear for the sake of the performing art and does not appear is not branded with infamy: because the matter is not so shameful that even the mere intention ought to be punished.

Dig. 3.2.4pr.

Digest 3.2.4, preface.

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 On the Edict.

Athletas autem sabinus et cassius responderunt omnino artem ludicram non facere: virtutis enim gratia hoc facere. et generaliter ita omnes opinantur et utile videtur, ut neque thymelici neque xystici neque agitatores nec qui aquam equis spargunt ceteraque eorum ministeria, qui certaminibus sacris deserviunt, ignominiosi habeantur.

However, Sabinus and Cassius answered that athletes are by no means engaged in a theatrical art: for they do this for the sake of virtue. And, generally, thus all are of opinion and it seems expedient, that neither thymelic performers nor xystic competitors nor charioteers nor those who sprinkle water on the horses, and their other ministrations, who serve the sacred contests, be regarded as ignominious.

Dig. 3.2.4.1

Digest 3.2.4.1

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 on the Edict.

Designatores autem, quos graeci brabeutas appellant, artem ludicram non facere celsus probat, quia ministerium, non artem ludicram exerceant. et sane locus iste hodie a principe non pro modico beneficio datur.

Designators, however, whom the Greeks call brabeutae, Celsus approves as not practicing the theatrical art, because they exercise a ministry, not the theatrical art. And indeed this post today by the emperor is not given as a slight favor.

Dig. 3.2.4.2

Digest 3.2.4.2

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, On the Edict, book 6.

Ait praetor: " qui lenocinium fecerit". lenocinium facit qui quaestuaria mancipia habuerit: sed et qui in liberis hunc quaestum exercet, in eadem causa est. sive autem principaliter hoc negotium gerat sive alterius negotiationis accessione utatur ( ut puta si caupo fuit vel stabularius et mancipia talia habuit ministrantia et occasione ministerii quaestum facientia: sive balneator fuerit, velut in quibusdam provinciis fit, in balineis ad custodienda vestimenta conducta habens mancipia hoc genus observantia in officina), lenocinii poena tenebitur.

The praetor says: " whoever has practiced pandering." He practices pandering who has had profit-making slaves; but he also who carries on this gain with free persons is in the same case. And whether he conducts this business principally or uses it as an accessory to another business (for instance, if he was an innkeeper or a stable-keeper and had such slaves ministering and, on the occasion of their service, making profit; or if he was a bathkeeper, as happens in certain provinces, having slaves hired in the baths to guard clothes, with slaves of this kind attending in the establishment), he will be held by the penalty for pandering.

Dig. 3.2.4.3

Digest 3.2.4.3

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 On the Edict.

Pomponius et eum, qui in servitute peculiaria mancipia prostituta habuit, notari post libertatem ait.

Pomponius also says that the man who, while in servitude, had peculium-slaves prostituted is to be marked with a note after freedom.

Dig. 3.2.4.4

Digest 3.2.4.4

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 6 on the Edict.

Calumniator ita demum notatur, si fuerit calumniae causa damnatus: neque enim sufficit calumniatum: item praevaricator. praevaricator autem est quasi varicator, qui diversam partem adiuvat prodita causa sua: quod nomen labeo a varia certatione tractum ait, nam qui praevaricatur, ex utraque parte constitit, quin immo ex adversa.

Only then is a calumniator marked, if he has been condemned on a charge of calumny; for it does not suffice that he has merely calumniated; and likewise the prevaricator. But a prevaricator is, as it were, a varicator, who helps the opposite
party, his own case having been betrayed: and Labeo says that this name is drawn from a varied contest, for one who prevaricates stands on both sides—nay rather on the adverse side.

Dig. 3.2.4.5

Digest 3.2.4.5

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 6 on the Edict.

Item " si qui furti, vi bonorum raptorum, iniuriarum, de dolo malo suo nomine damnatus pactusve erit" simili modo infames sunt,

Likewise " if anyone for theft, for the rapine of goods by force, for outrages, or for malicious fraud, in his own name shall have been condemned or has entered into a settlement," in a similar manner are infamous,

Dig. 3.2.5

Digest 3.2.5

Paulus 5 ad ed.

Paulus, On the Edict, Book 5.

Quoniam intellegitur confiteri crimen qui paciscitur.

Since he who makes a settlement is understood to confess the crime.

Dig. 3.2.6pr.

Digest 3.2.6, beginning.

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 6 on the Edict.

" furti" accipe sive manifesti sive nec manifesti.

" of theft" take whether manifest or non-manifest.

Dig. 3.2.6.1

Digest 3.2.6.1

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 6 on the Edict.

Sed si furti vel aliis famosis actionibus quis condemnatus provocavit, pendente iudicio nondum inter famosos habetur: si autem omnia tempora provocationis lapsa sunt, retro infamis est: quamvis si iniusta appellatio eius visa sit, hodie notari puto, non retro notatur.

But if someone condemned of theft or other infamous actions has appealed, with the case pending he is not yet held among the infamous: but if all the times for appeal have elapsed, he is infamous retroactively: although, if his appeal has seemed unjust, I think he is marked from today, he is not marked retroactively.

Dig. 3.2.6.2

Digest 3.2.6.2

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 on the Edict.

Si quis alieno nomine condemnatus fuerit, non laborat infamia: et ideo nec procurator meus vel defensor vel tutor vel curator vel heres furti vel ex alia simili specie condemnatus infamia notabuntur, nec ego, si ab initio per procuratorem causa agitata est.

If someone has been condemned in another’s name, he does not suffer infamy: and therefore neither my procurator nor defender nor tutor nor curator nor heir, condemned for theft or from another similar species, will be marked with infamy, nor I, if from the beginning the cause was litigated through a procurator.

Dig. 3.2.6.3

Digest 3.2.6.3

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, On the Edict, 6.

" pactusve" inquit " erit": pactum sic accipimus, si cum pretio quantocumque pactus est: alioquin et qui precibus impetravit ne secum ageretur erit notatus nec erit veniae ulla ratio, quod est inhumanum.

"or 'pactus' will he be," he says: we thus take "pactum," if he has bargained with a price, of whatever amount; otherwise even he who by entreaties has obtained that no action be brought against him will be marked, nor will there be any rationale for pardon, which is inhumane.

Dig. 3.2.6.4

Digest 3.2.6.4

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 6 on the Edict.

Qui iussu praetoris pretio dato pactus est, non notatur.

He who, by order of the praetor, has made a pact with the price given, is not branded with infamy.

Dig. 3.2.6.4a

Digest 3.2.6.4a

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 On the Edict.

Sed et si iureiurando delato iuraverit quis se non deliquisse, non erit notatus: nam quodammodo innocentiam suam iureiurando adprobavit.

But also, if, upon an oath being tendered, someone has sworn that he has not committed a delict, he will not be noted: for in a certain manner he has attested his own innocence by an oath.

Dig. 3.2.6.5

Digest 3.2.6.5

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 on the Edict.

" mandati condemnatus": verbis edicti notatur non solum qui mandatum suscepit, sed et is, qui fidem, quam adversarius secutus est, non praestat. ut puta fideiussi pro te et solvi: mandati te si condemnavero, famosum facio.

" condemned in a mandate": by the words of the edict is marked not only he who undertook the mandate, but also he who does not make good the credit which the adversary relied upon. For instance, I stood surety for you and
I paid: if I shall have condemned you in mandate, I make you infamous.

Dig. 3.2.6.6

Digest 3.2.6.6

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 on the Edict.

Illud plane addendum est, quod interdum et heres suo nomine damnatur et ideo infamis fit, si in deposito vel in mandato male versatus sit: non tamen in tutela vel pro socio heres suo nomine damnari potest, quia heres neque in tutelam neque in societatem succedit, sed tantum in aes alienum defuncti.

That plainly must be added, that sometimes even the heir is condemned in his own name and therefore becomes infamous, if he has conducted himself badly in a deposit or in a mandate: nevertheless, in guardianship or on the action for a partner, the heir cannot be condemned in his own name, because the heir succeeds neither into guardianship nor into partnership, but only into the debt of the deceased.

Dig. 3.2.6.7

Digest 3.2.6.7

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 on the Edict.

Contrario iudicio damnatus non erit infamis: nec immerito. nam in contrariis non de perfidia agitur, sed de calculo, qui fere iudicio solet dirimi.

One condemned in a counter action will not be infamous; and not without good reason. For in counter-matters it is not a question of perfidy, but of the calculation, which for the most part is wont to be resolved by the judgment.

Dig. 3.2.7

Digest 3.2.7

Paulus 5 ad ed.

Paulus, Book 5 on the Edict.

In actionibus, quae ex contractu proficiscuntur, licet famosae sint et damnati notantur, attamen pactus non notatur, merito: quoniam ex his causis non tam turpis est pactio quam ex superioribus.

In actions which proceed from contract, although they are infamous and the condemned are noted, nevertheless the pacting party is not noted, with good reason: since in these causes the paction is not so shameful as in the foregoing.

Dig. 3.2.8

Digest 3.2.8

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 on the edict.

" genero" inquit"mortuo": merito adiecit praetor: " cum eum mortuum esse sciret", ne ignorantia puniatur. sed cum tempus luctus continuum est, merito et ignoranti cedit ex die mortis mariti: et ideo si post legitimum tempus cognovit, labeo ait ipsa die et sumere eam lugubria et deponere.

" son-in-law" he says"dead": the praetor rightly added: " provided that she knew him to be dead," lest ignorance be punished. But since the time of mourning is continuous, it rightly accrues even to one ignorant from the day of the husband's death: and therefore, if she learned after the lawful time, Labeo says that on that very day she both put on her mourning clothes and laid them aside.

Dig. 3.2.9pr.

Digest 3.2.9, preface.

Paulus 5 ad ed.

Paulus 5 On the Edict.

Uxores viri lugere non compelluntur.

Wives are not compelled to mourn their husbands.

Dig. 3.2.9.1

Digest 3.2.9.1

Paulus 5 ad ed.

Paulus, Book 5 on the Edict.

Sponsi nullus luctus est.

There is no mourning for a betrothed man.

Dig. 3.2.10pr.

Digest 3.2.10, beginning.

Paulus 8 ad ed.

Paulus, 8 On the Edict.

Solet a principi impetrari, ut intra legitimum tempus mulieri nubere liceat.

It is customary to be obtained from the emperor that it be permitted for a woman to marry within the legitimate time.

Dig. 3.2.10.1

Digest 3.2.10.1

Paulus 8 ad ed.

Paulus, book 8 on the Edict.

Quae virum eluget, intra id tempus sponsam fuisse non nocet.

She who has completed mourning for her husband— that she was a fiancée within that time does not prejudice her.

Dig. 3.2.11pr.

Digest 3.2.11, pr.

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 6 on the Edict.

Liberorum autem et parentium luctus impedimento nuptiis non est.

However, the mourning of children and of parents is not an impediment to nuptials.

Dig. 3.2.11.1

Digest 3.2.11.1

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 on the Edict.

Etsi talis sit maritus, quem more maiorum lugeri non oportet, non posse eam nuptum intra legitimum tempus collocari: praetor enim ad id tempus se rettulit, quo vir elugeretur: qui solet elugeri propter turbationem sanguinis.

Even if the husband be of such a kind that, by ancestral custom, he ought not to be mourned, she cannot be placed in marriage within the legitimate period: for the praetor referred himself to that time at which the husband would be fully mourned out: who is accustomed to be fully mourned on account of a perturbation of the blood.

Dig. 3.2.11.2

Digest 3.2.11.2

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 on the Edict.

Pomponius eam, quae intra legitimum tempus partum ediderit, putat statim posse nuptiis se collocare: quod verum puto.

Pomponius thinks that she who has brought forth offspring within the legitimate time can immediately place herself in marriage: which I think true.

Dig. 3.2.11.3

Digest 3.2.11.3

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 on the Edict.

Non solent autem lugeri, ut neratius ait, hostes vel perduellionis damnati nec suspendiosi nec qui manus sibi intulerunt non taedio vitae, sed mala conscientia: si quis ergo post huiusmodi exitum mariti nuptum se collocaverit, infamia notabitur.

Moreover, as Neratius says, enemies or those condemned for treason (perduellio) are not wont to be mourned, nor the hanged, nor those who have laid hands upon themselves, not from weariness of life but from an evil conscience: if, therefore, after such an end of her husband, a woman has placed herself in marriage, she will be marked with infamy.

Dig. 3.2.11.4

Digest 3.2.11.4

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 6 on the Edict.

Notatur etiam " qui eam duxit", sed si sciens: ignorantia enim excusatur non iuris, sed facti. excusatur qui iussu eius, in cuius potestate erat, duxerit, et ipse, qui passus est ducere, notatur, utrumque recte: nam et qui obtemperavit, venia dignus est et qui passus est ducere, notari ignominia.

He too is marked, “who took her,” but only if knowingly; for ignorance is excused not of law, but of fact. He is excused who took her at the order of him in whose power he was; and he himself who allowed her to be taken is marked—both rightly: for he who obeyed is worthy of pardon, and he who allowed her to be taken is to be noted with ignominy.

Dig. 3.2.12

Digest 3.2.12

Paulus 5 ad ed.

Paulus 5 on the edict.

Qui iussu patris duxit, quamvis liberatus potestate patria eam retinuit, non notatur.

He who, by his father’s order, took a wife, although, once freed from paternal power, he kept her, is not censured.

Dig. 3.2.13pr.

Digest 3.2.13 pr.

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 on the Edict.

Quid ergo si non ducere sit passus, sed posteaquam duxit ratum habuerit? ut puta initio ignoraverit talem esse, postea scit? non notabitur: praetor enim ad initium nuptiarum se rettulit.

What then if he did not allow himself to marry, but after he has married he has held it ratified? Suppose, for instance, that at the beginning he was ignorant that she was such, later he learns it? He will not be marked: for the praetor has referred himself to the beginning of the nuptials.

Dig. 3.2.13.1

Digest 3.2.13.1

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 on the Edict.

Si quis alieno nomine bina sponsalia constituerit, non notatur, nisi eius nomine constituat, quem quamve in potestate haberet: certe qui filium vel filiam constituere patitur, quodammodo ipse videtur constituisse.

If anyone should establish two betrothals in another’s name, he is not noted, unless he establishes in the name of one whom he has in his power: certainly he who allows a son or a daughter to establish a betrothal,
is in a certain manner himself seen to have established it.

Dig. 3.2.13.2

Digest 3.2.13.2

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 on the Edict.

Quod ait praetor " eodem tempore " , non initium sponsaliorum eodem tempore factum accipiendum est, sed si in idem tempus concurrant.

As to what the praetor says " at the same time ", the inception of the betrothal is not to be taken as having been done at the same time, but rather if they concur in the same time.

Dig. 3.2.13.3

Digest 3.2.13.3

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 on the Edict.

Item si alteri sponsa, alteri nupta sit, ex sententia edicti punitur.

Likewise, if she is betrothed to one man and married to another, she is punished according to the tenor of the edict.

Dig. 3.2.13.4

Digest 3.2.13.4

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 on the Edict.

Cum autem factum notetur, etiam si cum ea quis nuptias vel sponsalia constituat, quam uxorem ducere vel non potest vel fas non est, erit notatus.

When, however, the fact is noted, even if someone constitutes nuptials or sponsals with a woman whom he either cannot take as a wife or it is not lawful to take, he will be noted.

Dig. 3.2.13.5

Digest 3.2.13.5

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 on the Edict

Ex compromisso arbiter infamiam non facit, quia non per omnia sententia est.

From a compromissum an arbiter does not inflict infamy, because it is not in all respects a judgment.

Dig. 3.2.13.6

Digest 3.2.13.6

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 on the Edict.

Quantum ad infamiam pertinet, multum interest, in causa quae agebatur causa cognita aliquid pronuntiatum sit an quaedam extrinsecus sunt elocuta: nam ex his infamia non irrogatur.

As far as pertains to infamy, it makes much difference whether, in the case that was being litigated, upon cognizance taken of the cause something was pronounced, or whether certain things were uttered extrinsically: for from such things infamy is not imposed.

Dig. 3.2.13.7

Digest 3.2.13.7

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, 6 on the Edict.

Poena gravior ultra legem imposita existimationem conservat, ut et constitutum est et responsum. ut puta si eum, qui parte bonorum multari debuit, praeses relegaverit: dicendum erit duriori sententia cum eo transactum de existimatione eius idcircoque non esse infamem. sed si in causa furti nec manifesti in quadruplum iudex condemnavit, oneratum quidem reum poena aucta, nam ex furto non manifesto in duplum conveniri debuit: verum hanc rem existimationem ei non conservasse, quamvis si in poena non pecuniaria eum onerasset, transactum cum eo videtur.

A graver penalty imposed beyond the law conserves reputation, as both has been established and given in a responsum. For instance, if the governor has relegated one who ought to have been mulcted in a part of his goods: it will have to be said that, by the harsher sentence, the matter has been settled with him as to his reputation, and for that reason he is not infamous. But if in the case of theft not manifest the judge has condemned in quadruple, the defendant is indeed burdened with an increased penalty, for from theft not manifest he ought to have been proceeded against in double; but this does not conserve his reputation—although, if he had burdened him with a non-pecuniary penalty, it is seen as transacted with him.

Dig. 3.2.13.8

Digest 3.2.13.8

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 6 on the Edict.

Crimen stellionatus infamiam irrogat damnato, quamvis publicum non est iudicium.

The crime of stellionate inflicts infamy upon the condemned, although the proceeding is not a public iudicium.

Dig. 3.2.14

Digest 3.2.14

Paulus 5 ad ed.

Paulus, Book 5 on the edict

Servus, cuius nomine noxale iudicium dominus acceperit, deinde eundem liberum et heredem instituerit, ex eodem iudicio damnatus non est famosus, quia non suo nomine condemnatur: quippe cum initio lis in eum contestata non sit.

A slave, in whose name the master has accepted a noxal action, and then has instituted the same man as free and as heir, if condemned under the same action, is not infamous, because he is not condemned in his own name
— since at the outset the suit was not joined against him.

Dig. 3.2.15

Digest 3.2.15

Ulpianus 8 ad ed.

Ulpian 8 on the Edict.

Notatur quae per calumniam ventris nomine in possessionem missa est, dum se adseverat praegnatem,

She is censured who, by calumny, has been put into possession in the name of the womb, while she avers herself to be pregnant,

Dig. 3.2.16

Digest 3.2.16

Paulus 8 ad ed.

Paulus, book 8 on the Edict.

Cum non praegnas esset vel ex alio concepisset:

When she was not pregnant or had conceived by another:

Dig. 3.2.17

Digest 3.2.17

Ulpianus 8 ad ed.

Ulpian, 8 on the Edict.

Debuit enim coerceri quae praetorem decepit. sed ea notatur, quae cum suae potestatis esset hoc facit.

For she who deceived the praetor ought indeed to have been restrained; but she is censured who does this while she was of her own power.

Dig. 3.2.18

Digest 3.2.18

Gaius 3 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 3 on the provincial edict

Ea, quae falsa existimatione decepta est, non potest videri per calumniam in possessione fuisse.

She who has been deceived by a false estimation cannot be deemed to have been in possession through calumny.

Dig. 3.2.19

Digest 3.2.19

Ulpianus 8 ad ed.

Ulpian, 8 on the Edict.

Non alia autem notatur quam ea, de qua pronuntiatum est calumniae causa eam fuisse in possessionem missam. idque et in patre erit servandum, qui calumniae causa passus est filiam, quam in potestate habebat, in possessionem ventris nomine mitti.

But no other is branded than she about whom it has been pronounced that she was put into possession for the sake of calumny. And this too must be observed in the case of the father, who for the sake of calumny allowed his daughter, whom he had in his power, to be sent into possession under the name of the womb.

Dig. 3.2.20

Digest 3.2.20

Papinianus 1 resp.

Papinian, Responses 1.

Ob haec verba sententiae praesidis provinciae " callido commento videris accusationis instigator fuisse" pudor potius oneratur, quam ignominia videtur irrogari: non enim qui exhortatur mandatoris opera fungitur.

On account of these words of the judgment of the governor of the province, " by a cunning contrivance you seem to have been the instigator of the accusation," shame is rather burdened than does ignominy seem to be imposed: for he who exhorts does not perform the office of a mandator.

Dig. 3.2.21

Digest 3.2.21

Paulus 2 resp.

Paulus, Responses 2.

Lucius titius crimen intendit gaio seio quasi iniuriam passus atque in eam rem testationem apud praefectum praetorio recitavit: praefectus fide non habita testationis nullam iniuriam lucium titium passum esse a gaio seio pronuntiavit. quaero, an testes, quorum testimonium reprobatum est, quasi ex falso testimonio inter infames habentur. paulus respondit nihil proponi, cur hi, de quibus quaeritur, infamium loco haberi debeant, cum non oportet ex sententia sive iusta sive iniusta pro alio habita alium praegravari.

Lucius Titius brought a charge against Gaius Seius as though he had suffered an injury, and for that matter he read out an attestation before the Praetorian Prefect: the Prefect, no credence being given to the attestation, pronounced that Lucius Titius had suffered no injury from Gaius Seius. I ask whether witnesses whose testimony has been disallowed are held among the infamous, as if for false testimony. Paulus answered that nothing is put forward why these men, about whom the question is raised, ought to be held in the place of the infamous, since it is not proper that from a judgment—whether just or unjust—rendered on behalf of another, another person be overburdened.

Dig. 3.2.22

Digest 3.2.22

Marcellus 2 publ.

Marcellus, Book 2, On Public Prosecutions

Ictus fustium infamiam non importat, sed causa, propter quam id pati meruit, si ea fuit, quae infamiam damnato irrogat. in ceteris quoque generibus poenarum eadem forma statuta est.

Blows of cudgels do not entail infamy, but the cause, on account of which he deserved to suffer it—if it was one that imposes infamy on the condemned. in the other kinds of punishments as well the same rule has been established.

Dig. 3.2.23

Digest 3.2.23

Ulpianus 8 ad ed.

Ulpian, 8 on the edict.

Parentes et liberi utriusque sexus nec non et ceteri adgnati vel cognati secundum pietatis rationem et animi sui patientiam, prout quisque voluerit, lugendi sunt: qui autem eos non eluxit, non notatur infamia.

Parents and children of either sex, and likewise the other agnates or cognates, are to be mourned according to the rule of piety and the patience of one’s own spirit, as each may have willed; but whoever them has not mourned is not marked with infamy.

Dig. 3.2.24

Digest 3.2.24

Ulpianus 6 ad ed.

Ulpian, On the Edict, 6.

Imperator severus rescripsit non offuisse mulieris famae quaestum eius in servitute factum.

Emperor Severus rescripted that the earnings she made in servitude had not injured the woman’s reputation.

Dig. 3.2.25pr.

Digest 3.2.25, at the beginning.

Papinianus 2 quaest.

Papinian, Questions, Book 2.

Exheredatum quoque filium luctum habere patris memoriae placuit, idemque et in matre iuris est, cuius hereditas ad filium non pertinet.

It has been decreed that even a disinherited son may have mourning for his father’s memory, and the same is the law with respect to a mother, whose inheritance does not pertain to the son.

Dig. 3.2.25.1

Digest 3.2.25.1

Papinianus 2 quaest.

Papinian, Questions 2.

Si quis in bello ceciderit, etsi corpus eius non compareat, lugebitur.

If someone has fallen in war, even if his body does not appear, he will be mourned.

Dig. 3.3.0. De procuratoribus et defensoribus.

Dig. 3.3.0. On procurators and defenders.

Dig. 3.3.1pr.

Digest 3.3.1pr.

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 9 on the Edict.

Procurator est qui aliena negotia mandatu domini administrat.

A procurator is one who administers another’s affairs by the mandate of the owner.

Dig. 3.3.1.1

Digest 3.3.1.1

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, 9 on the Edict.

Procurator autem vel omnium rerum vel unius rei esse potest constitutus vel coram vel per nuntium vel per epistulam: quamvis quidam, ut pomponius libro vicensimo quarto scribit, non putent unius rei mandatum suscipientem procuratorem esse: sicuti ne is quidem, qui rem perferendam vel epistulam vel nuntium perferendum suscepit, proprie procurator appellatur. sed verius est eum quoque procuratorem esse qui ad unam rem datus sit.

Moreover, a procurator can be constituted either for all matters or for a single matter, either in person or through a messenger or by epistle: although some, as Pomponius writes in the 24th book, do not think that one who receives a mandate for a single matter is a procurator; just as not even he who has undertaken to carry a thing or to deliver an epistle or a message is properly called a procurator. But the truer view is that he too is a procurator who has been given for one matter.

Dig. 3.3.1.2

Digest 3.3.1.2

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, 9 on the Edict.

Usus autem procuratoris perquam necessarius est, ut qui rebus suis ipsi superesse vel nolunt vel non possunt, per alios possint vel agere vel conveniri.

The use of a procurator is very necessary, so that those who either do not wish or are not able themselves to attend to their own affairs may, through others, either act (bring an action) or be convened (sued).

Dig. 3.3.1.3

Digest 3.3.1.3

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 9 on the edict.

Dari autem procurator et absens potest,

Moreover, a procurator can be appointed even when absent,

Dig. 3.3.2pr.

Digest 3.3.2pr.

Paulus 8 ad ed.

Paulus, 8 on the Edict.

Dummodo certus sit qui datus intellegetur et is ratum habuerit.

Provided that it be certain who is understood to have been appointed, and that he has ratified it.

Dig. 3.3.2.1

Digest 3.3.2.1

Paulus 8 ad ed.

Paulus, book 8 on the Edict.

Furiosus non est habendus absentis loco, quia in eo animus deest, ut ratum habere non possit.

A insane person is not to be considered in the place of an absent person, because the mind is lacking in him, so that he cannot ratify.

Dig. 3.3.3

Digest 3.3.3

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, 9 on the Edict.

Item ad litem futuram et in diem et sub condicione et usque ad diem dari potest.

Likewise, it can be given for a future lawsuit, and for a day certain, and under condition, and up to a day certain.

Dig. 3.3.4

Digest 3.3.4

Paulus 8 ad ed.

Paul, 8 on the Edict.

Et in perpetuum.

And in perpetuity.

Dig. 3.3.5

Digest 3.3.5

Ulpianus 7 ad ed.

Ulpian, 7 on the edict.

Praesens habetur et qui in hortis est.

Even he who is in the gardens is considered present.

Dig. 3.3.6

Digest 3.3.6

Paulus 6 ad ed.

Paulus, 6, on the Edict.

Et qui in foro et qui in urbe et in continentibus aedificiis:

And those who are in the forum and those who are in the city and in contiguous buildings:

Dig. 3.3.7

Digest 3.3.7

Ulpianus 7 ad ed.

Ulpian, 7 on the Edict.

Et ideo procurator eius praesentis esse videtur.

And therefore his procurator seems to be present.

Dig. 3.3.8pr.

Digest 3.3.8, beginning.

Ulpianus 8 ad ed.

Ulpian, On the Edict, book 8.

Filius familias et ad agendum dare procuratorem potest, si qua sit actio, qua ipse experiri potest: non solum si castrense peculium habeat, sed et quivis filius familias: ut puta iniuriam passus dabit ad iniuriarum actionem, si forte neque pater praesens sit nec patris procurator velit experiri, et erit iure ab ipso filio familias procurator datus. hoc amplius iulianus scribit et si filio familias patri per filium eius in eadem potestate manentem fiat iniuria neque avus praesens sit, posse patrem procuratorem dare ad ulciscendam iniuriam, quam nepos absentis passus est. ad defendendum quoque poterit filius familias procuratorem dare.

A filius familias can also appoint a procurator for proceeding in court, if there is any action which he himself is able to bring: not only if he has a castrense peculium, but any filius familias at all: for instance,
having suffered an injury, he will appoint [one] for an action of injuries, if perchance neither the father is present nor the father’s procurator is willing to proceed, and the procurator will have been lawfully appointed by the filius familias himself. Moreover,
Julianus writes that, if an injury is done to a father who is a filius familias, through his son who remains in the same power, and the grandfather is not present, the father can appoint a procurator for avenging the injury which the grandson of the absent man has suffered. For defending as well, a filius familias will be able to appoint a procurator.

sed et filia familias poterit dare procuratorem ad iniuriarum actionem. nam quod ad dotis exactionem cum patre dat procuratorem, supervacuum esse valerius severus scribit, cum sufficiat patrem dare ex filiae voluntate. sed puto, si forte pater absens sit vel suspectae vitae, quo casu solet filiae competere de dote actio, posse eam procuratorem dare.

but also a daughter of the household can appoint a procurator for the action for injuries. For as to appointing a procurator together with her father for the exaction of the dowry, Valerius Severus writes that this is superfluous, since it suffices for the father to appoint one by the will of the daughter. Yet I think that, if perchance the father is absent or of a suspect life— in which case the action concerning the dowry is wont to belong to the daughter— she can appoint a procurator.

ipse quoque filius procurator dari poterit et ad agendum et ad defendendum.

the son himself also may be appointed procurator both for bringing an action and for defending.

Dig. 3.3.8.1

Digest 3.3.8.1

Ulpianus 8 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 8 on the Edict.

Invitus procurator non solet dari. invitum accipere debemus non eum tantum qui contradicit, verum eum quoque qui consensisse non probatur.

An unwilling procurator is not wont to be appointed. We ought to take as unwilling not only him who contradicts, but also him who is not proven to have consented.

Dig. 3.3.8.2

Digest 3.3.8.2

Ulpianus 8 ad ed.

Ulpian, 8 On the Edict.

Veterani procuratores fieri possunt: milites autem nec si velit adversarius procuratores dari possunt, nisi hoc tempore litis contestatae quocumque casu praetermissum est: excepto eo qui in rem suam procurator datus est, vel qui communem causam omnis sui numeri persequatur vel suscipit, quibus talis procuratio concessa est.

Veterans can become procurators; but soldiers cannot be appointed procurators, not even if the adversary wishes, unless at the time of the joinder of issue this was, by whatever chance, overlooked: except for the one who has been appointed a procurator for his own interest, or who pursues or undertakes the common cause of his whole unit, to whom such a procuratorship has been granted.

Dig. 3.3.8.3

Digest 3.3.8.3

Ulpianus 8 ad ed.

Ulpian, 8 on the Edict.

" procuratorem ad litem suscipiendam datum, pro quo consentiente dominus iudicatum solvi exposuit", praetor ait, " iudicium accipere cogam". verum ex causa non debebit compelli. ut puta inimicitiae capitales intervenerunt inter ipsum procuratorem et dominum: scribit iulianus debere in procuratorem denegari actionem. item si dignitas accesserit procuratori: vel rei publicae causa afuturus sit:

" a procurator given for undertaking the lawsuit, for whom, with the owner consenting, he has posted that 'the judgment be paid'," the praetor says, " I will compel him to accept the suit". however, for good cause he ought not to be compelled. for instance, capital enmities have intervened between the procurator himself and the master: Julian writes that the action ought to be denied against the procurator. likewise if dignity has accrued to the procurator: or he is going to be absent for the sake of the Republic:

Dig. 3.3.9

Digest 3.3.9

Gaius 3 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius, Book 3 on the Provincial Edict.

Aut si valetudinem aut si necessariam peregrinationem alleget:

Or if he alleges ill-health or a necessary peregrination:

Dig. 3.3.10

Digest 3.3.10

Ulpianus 8 ad ed.

Ulpian, 8 on the Edict.

Vel hereditas superveniens eum occupet: vel ex alia iusta causa. hoc amplius et si habeat praesentem dominum, non debere compelli procuratorem,

Or a supervening inheritance may occupy him: or from another just cause. Furthermore this: even if he has the owner present, the procurator ought not to be compelled,

Dig. 3.3.11

Digest 3.3.11

Paulus 8 ad ed.

Paulus, Book 8 on the Edict.

Si tamen dominus cogi possit.

If, however, the owner can be compelled.

Dig. 3.3.12

Digest 3.3.12

Gaius 3 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius, Book 3, on the Provincial Edict.

Sed etiam ex his causis dicitur aliquando cogendum procuratorem iudicium accipere: veluti si dominus praesens non sit et actor adfirmet tractu temporis futurum ut res pereat.

But also for these causes it is said that the procurator is sometimes to be compelled to accept the action: for example, if the owner is not present and the plaintiff affirms that by the lapse of time the thing will perish.

Dig. 3.3.13

Digest 3.3.13

Ulpianus 8 ad ed.

Ulpian, 8 on the Edict.

Sed haec neque passim admittenda sunt neque destricte deneganda, sed a praetore causa cognita temperanda.

But these things are neither to be admitted indiscriminately nor strictly denied, but are to be tempered by the praetor, upon cognizance of the case.

Dig. 3.3.14

Digest 3.3.14

Paulus 8 ad ed.

Paulus, 8 On the Edict.

Si post datum procuratorem capitales inimicitiae intercesserunt, non cogendum accipere iudicium nec stipulationem ob rem non defensam committi, quoniam nova causa sit.

If after a procurator has been appointed capital enmities have intervened, he is not to be compelled to accept the trial, nor is the stipulation on account of a matter not defended to be incurred, since it is a new cause.

Dig. 3.3.15pr.

Digest 3.3.15, beginning.

Ulpianus 8 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 8 on the Edict.

Si defunctus sit dominus ante litem contestatam, iudicatum solvi stipulatione pro suo procuratore data, procurator compellendus est ad iudicium accipiendum: ita tamen si hoc dominus sciente procuratore et non contradicente fecit. quod si aliter actum est, inscium quidem procuratorem teneri satis incivile est, committitur autem ob rem non defensam stipulationis clausula.

If the principal has died before the suit was joined, the stipulation iudicatum solvi having been given on behalf of his procurator, the procurator is to be compelled to accept the suit: but only if the principal did this with the procurator aware and not objecting. But if it was done otherwise, it is quite uncivil that an unknowing procurator be held liable; however, the clause of the stipulation is forfeited on account of the matter not having been defended by him.

Dig. 3.3.15.1

Digest 3.3.15.1

Ulpianus 8 ad ed.

Ulpian, On the Edict, book 8.

Qui ad communi dividundo iudicium datus est, ad agendum item et ad defendendum videbitur datus duplici cautela interponenda.

He who has been appointed for the iudicium communi dividundo will be deemed appointed both for prosecuting and for defending, with a double caution to be interposed.

Dig. 3.3.16

Digest 3.3.16

Paulus 8 ad ed.

Paulus, 8 on the Edict.

Ante litem contestatam libera potestas est vel mutandi procuratoris vel ipsi domino iudicium accipiendi.

Before the suit is joined, there is free power either of changing the procurator or for the master/principal himself to accept the trial.

Dig. 3.3.17pr.

Digest 3.3.17 pr.

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 9 on the Edict.

Post litem autem contestatam reus qui procuratorem dedit mutare quidem eum vel in se litem transferre a vivo procuratore vel in civitate manente potest, causa tamen prius cognita.

But after the issue has been joined, the defendant who has appointed a procurator may indeed either change him or transfer the suit onto himself, even with the procurator alive and remaining in his civic status, yet only after the cause has first been examined.

Dig. 3.3.17.1

Digest 3.3.17.1

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 9 on the Edict.

Non solum autem ipsi qui dedit procuratorem hoc permittitur, sed etiam heredi eius et ceteris successoribus.

Not only is this permitted to the one himself who appointed a procurator, but also to his heir and to his other successors.

Dig. 3.3.17.2

Digest 3.3.17.2

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, 9 on the Edict.

In causae autem cognitione non solum haec versantur, quae supra diximus in procuratore non compellendo suscipere iudicium, verum et aetas.

However, in the cognition of the cause not only are those matters in play which we said above concerning not compelling a procurator to undertake the judicial proceeding, but age as well.

Dig. 3.3.18

Digest 3.3.18

Modestinus 10 pand.

Modestinus 10 Pandects.

Aut religionis beneficium.

Or the benefit of religion.

Dig. 3.3.19

Digest 3.3.19

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 9, on the Edict.

Item si suspectus sit procurator aut in vinculis aut in hostium praedonumve potestate,

Likewise, if a procurator be suspected, either in chains or in the power of enemies or of pirates,

Dig. 3.3.20

Digest 3.3.20

Paulus 8 ad ed.

Paulus, 8 on the Edict.

Vel iudicio publico privatove vel valetudine vel maiore re sua distringatur.

Or let him be constrained either by public or private judgment, or by ill-health, or by his own more important affair.

Dig. 3.3.21

Digest 3.3.21

Gaius 3 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius, 3, on the Provincial Edict.

Vel exilio, vel si latitet, vel inimicus postea fiat,

Or by exile, or if he is in hiding, or if he later becomes an enemy,

Dig. 3.3.22

Digest 3.3.22

Paulus 8 ad ed.

Paulus, On the Edict, book 8.

Aut adfinitate aliqua adversario iungatur, vel heres ei existat,

Or be joined to the adversary by some affinity, or be his heir,

Dig. 3.3.23

Digest 3.3.23

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, 9 On the Edict.

Aut longa peregrinatio et aliae similes causae impedimento sint,

Or a long peregrination and other similar causes may be an impediment,

Dig. 3.3.24

Digest 3.3.24

Paulus 8 ad ed.

Paulus, 8 on the Edict.

Mutari debebit vel ipso procuratore postulante.

It must be changed, or at the request of the procurator himself.

Dig. 3.3.25

Digest 3.3.25

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 9 on the Edict.

Quae omnia non solum ex parte rei, sed etiam in persona actoris observabuntur. sed si adversarius vel ipse procurator dicat dominum mentiri, apud praetorem haec finiri oportet. nec ferendus est procurator qui sibi adserit procurationem: nam hoc ipso suspectus est qui operam suam ingerit invito.

All these things shall be observed not only on the side of the defendant, but also in the person of the plaintiff. But if the adversary or even the procurator himself says that the principal is lying, these matters ought to be settled before the praetor. Nor is a procurator to be tolerated who claims the procuratorship for himself; for by this very fact he is suspect who thrusts his services upon one unwilling.

nisi forte purgare magis convicium quam procurationem exsequi maluit. et hactenus erit audiendus, si dicat se procuratione quidem carere velle, sed si id inlaesa existimatione sua fiat: ceterum ferendus erit pudorem suum purgans. plane si dicat in rem suam se procuratorem datum et hoc probaverit, non debet carere propria lite.

unless perhaps he preferred to purge the insult rather than to execute the procuration. And he will be heard thus far, if he says that he indeed wishes to be without the procuration, but only if that is done with his reputation uninjured; otherwise, he is to be tolerated as purging his sense of honor. Clearly, if he says that he has been appointed a procurator in his own interest (in rem suam) and proves this, he ought not to be deprived of his own suit.

item si retentione aliqua procurator uti velit, non facile ab eo lis erit transferenda,

likewise, if the procurator should wish to use some retention, the suit will not easily be transferred from him,

Dig. 3.3.26

Digest 3.3.26

Paulus 8 ad ed.

Paulus, 8 on the Edict.

Nisi dominus ei solvere paratus sit.

Unless the owner is prepared to pay him.

Dig. 3.3.27pr.

Digest 3.3.27pr.

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, 9 on the Edict.

In causae cognitione etiam hoc versabitur, ut ita demum transferri a procuratore iudicium permittatur, si quis omnia iudicii ab eo transferre paratus sit. ceterum si velit quaedam transferre, quaedam relinquere, iuste procurator hanc inconstantiam recusabit. sed haec ita, si mandato domini procurator egit.

In the cognition of the cause this also will be in play: that only then may the trial be permitted to be transferred by the procurator, if someone is prepared to transfer all of the trial away from him. Furthermore, if he should wish to transfer certain things and leave certain things, the procurator will justly refuse this inconstancy. But these things are thus, if the procurator has acted by the mandate of his principal.

ceterum si mandatum non est, cum neque in iudicium quicquam deduxerit, nec tu ea comprobasti: quae invito te acta sunt tibi non praeiudicant ideoque translatio earum litium non est tibi necessaria, ne alieno facto onereris. haec autem cognitio procuratoris mutandi praetoris est.

but if there is no mandate, since he has brought nothing into judgment, nor have you ratified these things: what has been done with you unwilling does not prejudice you, and therefore the transfer of those lawsuits is not necessary for you, lest you be burdened by another’s act. but this inquiry belongs to the praetor for changing the procurator.

Dig. 3.3.27.1

Digest 3.3.27.1

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, 9 on the Edict.

Si ex parte actoris litis transactio fiat, dicimus committi iudicatum solvi stipulationem a reo factam, idque et neratius probat et iulianus et hoc iure utimur: scilicet si dominus satis accepit. sed et si procurator satis accepit et transferatur iudicium in dominum: verius est committi et ex stipulatu actionem a procuratore in dominum transferri. sed et si a domino vel a procuratore in procuratorem iudicium transferatur, non dubitat Marcellus, quin committatur stipulatio.

If on the plaintiff’s part a settlement of the suit is made, we say that the iudicatum solvi stipulation made by the defendant is committed, and both Neratius and Julian approve this, and we use this law: namely, if the principal
has accepted surety. But also if the procurator has accepted surety and the action is transferred to the principal, the truer view is that it is committed and that the ex stipulatu action is transferred from the procurator to the principal. But also if the action
is transferred from the principal or from a procurator to a procurator, Marcellus does not doubt that the stipulation is committed.

et haec vera sunt. et licet procuratori commissa sit stipulatio, tamen domino erit danda utilis ex stipulatu actio, directa penitus tollenda.

And these things are true. And although the stipulation has been committed to the procurator, nevertheless a useful action ex stipulatu will have to be given to the owner, the direct action being entirely removed.

Dig. 3.3.28

Digest 3.3.28

Ulpianus 1 disp.

Ulpian, Disputations, book 1.

Si procurator meus iudicatum solvi satis acceperit, mihi ex stipulatu actio utilis est, sicuti iudicati actio mihi indulgetur. sed et si egit procurator meus ex ea stipulatione me invito, nihilo minus tamen mihi ex stipulatu actio tribuetur. quae res facit ut procurator meus ex stipulatu agendo exceptione debeat repelli: sicuti cum agit iudicati non in rem suam datus nec ad eam rem procurator factus.

If my procurator has accepted adequate security for “the judgment to be paid,” a useful action ex stipulatu is mine, just as an action on the judgment is granted to me. But even if my procurator sued on that stipulation against my will,
nonetheless an action ex stipulatu will be conferred on me. This state of things makes it so that my procurator, when proceeding ex stipulatu, ought to be repelled by an exception: just as when he sues on the judgment, not having been appointed in his own interest, nor made procurator for that matter.

per contrarium autem si procurator meus iudicatus solvi satisdederit, in me ex stipulatu actio non datur. sed et si defensor meus satisdederit, in me ex stipulatu actio non datur, quia nec iudicati mecum agi potest.

Conversely, however, if my procurator has given surety for the payment of the judgment, an action ex stipulatu is not granted against me. But also if my defender has given surety, an action ex stipulatu is not granted against me, because not even an action on the judgment can be brought against me.

Dig. 3.3.29

Digest 3.3.29

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, 9 on the Edict.

Si actor malit dominum potius convenire quam eum qui in rem suam procurator est, dicendum est ei licere.

If the plaintiff prefers to sue the owner rather than the one who is a procurator in his own interest, it must be said that he is permitted to do so.

Dig. 3.3.30

Digest 3.3.30

Paulus 1 sent.

Paul, Sentences 1.

Actoris procurator non in rem suam datus propter impensas quas in litem fecit potest desiderare, ut sibi ex iudicatione satisfiat, si dominus litis solvendo non sit.

The plaintiff’s procurator, not appointed in rem suam, may seek—on account of the expenses which he has incurred in the litigation—that satisfaction be made to himself out of the adjudication, if the dominus litis is not solvent.

Dig. 3.3.31pr.

Digest 3.3.31, beginning.

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, On the Edict, 9.

Si quis, cum procuratorio nomine condemnatus esset, heres extiterit domino litis: iudicati actionem non recte recusabit. hoc si ex asse. sin autem ex parte heres extiterit et totum solverit, si quidem ei mandatum est hoc quoque ut solvat, mandati actionem adversus coheredes habebit: si non sit mandatum, negotiorum gestorum actio datur.

If someone, when he had been condemned under a procuratorial name, has emerged as heir to the master of the suit: he will not rightly refuse the action on the judgment. This if as to the whole. But if he has become heir in part and has paid the whole,
if indeed it was also mandated to him to pay this, he will have the action of mandate against the coheirs: if it was not mandated, an action for the management of affairs is given.

quod est et si heres procurator non exstiterit et solverit.

which is also the case if the heir has not turned out to be procurator and has paid.

Dig. 3.3.31.1

Digest 3.3.31.1

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, 9 on the Edict.

Unius litis plurium personarum plures dari procuratores non est prohibitum.

For one lawsuit of several persons, it is not prohibited that several procurators be appointed.

Dig. 3.3.31.2

Digest 3.3.31.2

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 9, On the Edict.

Iulianus ait eum, qui dedit diversis temporibus procuratores duos, posteriorem dando priorem prohibuisse videri.

Julian says that he who appointed two procurators at different times seems, by appointing the latter, to have prohibited the former.

Dig. 3.3.32

Digest 3.3.32

Paulus 8 ad ed.

Paulus, 8, on the Edict.

Pluribus procuratoribus in solidum simul datis occupantis melior condicio erit, ut posterior non sit in eo quod prior petit procurator.

When several procurators are appointed in solidum at the same time, the condition of the one who first takes up the matter will be the better, so that the later procurator is not to be involved in that which the prior procurator seeks.

Dig. 3.3.33pr.

Digest 3.3.33pr.

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, On the Edict, Book 9.

Servum quoque et filium familias procuratorem posse habere aiunt. et quantum ad filium familias verum est: in servo subsistimus. et negotia quidem peculiaria servi posse gerere aliquem et hoc casu procuratorem eius esse admittimus, quod et labeoni videtur: actionem autem intendere vetamus.

They say that a slave too and a filius familias can have a procurator. And as regards the filius familias, this is true: in the case of the slave we stop short. And indeed we admit that someone can manage the affairs of a slave’s peculium, and in this case be his procurator, which also seems right to Labeo: however, we forbid him to bring the action (to intend the action).

Dig. 3.3.33.1

Digest 3.3.33.1

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, 9 On the Edict.

Eum vero qui de statu suo litigat procuratorem habere posse non dubitamus non solum in administratione rerum, sed etiam in actionibus, quae ei vel adversus eum competant, ex possessione sive servitutis sive libertatis de suo statu litigat. ex contrario quoque eum procuratorem dari posse manifestum est.

We do not doubt that he who litigates about his status can have a procurator, not only in the administration of his affairs, but also in the actions which are competent to him or against him, when he, on the basis of possession—whether of servitude or of liberty—litigates about his own status. conversely too, it is manifest that a procurator can be given to him.

Dig. 3.3.33.2

Digest 3.3.33.2

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, 9 on the edict.

Publice utile est absentes a quibuscumque defendi: nam et in capitalibus iudiciis defensio datur. ubicumque itaque absens quis damnari potest, ibi quemvis verba pro eo facientem et innocentiam excusantem audiri aequum est et ordinarium admittere: quod et ex rescripto imperatoris nostri apparet.

It is publicly useful that the absent be defended by anyone whatsoever: for even in capital trials a defense is given. ubicumque therefore someone absent can be condemned, there it is equitable that anyone speaking words on his behalf and excusing his innocence be heard, and for the ordinary judge to admit him: which also appears from the rescript of our emperor.

Dig. 3.3.33.3

Digest 3.3.33.3

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 9 on the Edict.

Ait praetor: " cuius nomine quis actionem dari sibi postulabit, is eum viri boni arbitratu defendat: et ei quo nomine aget id ratum habere eum ad quem ea res pertinet, boni viri arbitratu satisdet".

The praetor says: "Whoever shall request that an action be granted to himself in someone’s name, let him defend that person by the arbitrament of a good man; and to the one in whose name he will act, let him, by the arbitrament of a good man, give security that the person to whom the matter pertains will hold it ratified".

Dig. 3.3.33.4

Digest 3.3.33.4

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, 9 on the Edict.

Aequum praetori visum est eum, qui alicuius nomine procurator experitur, eundem etiam defensionem suscipere.

It seemed equitable to the praetor that he who proceeds as procurator in someone’s name should likewise undertake the defense.

Dig. 3.3.33.5

Digest 3.3.33.5

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, 9, on the Edict.

Si quis in rem suam procurator interveniat, adhuc erit dicendum debere eum defendere: nisi forte ex necessitate fuerit factus.

If a procurator should intervene in his own matter, it must still be said that he ought to defend: unless perhaps he has been appointed out of necessity.

Dig. 3.3.34

Digest 3.3.34

Gaius 3 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius, Book 3, on the provincial edict

Si quis in rem suam procuratorio nomine agit, veluti emptor hereditatis: an debeat invicem venditorem defendere? et placet, si bona fide et non in fraudem eorum qui invicem agere vellent gestum sit negotium, non oportere eum invicem defendere.

If someone proceeds, in his own interest, under a procuratorial title, for example a purchaser of an inheritance: whether he ought to defend the seller in return? And it is held that, if the business has been conducted in good faith and not in fraud of those who would wish to sue reciprocally, he need not defend him in return.

Dig. 3.3.35pr.

Digest 3.3.35 preface.

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, 9 on the Edict.

Sed et hae personae procuratorum debebunt defendere, quibus sine mandatu agere licet: ut puta liberi, licet sint in potestate, item parentes et fratres et adfines et liberti.

But these persons too ought to sustain the role of procurators, those to whom it is permitted to act without a mandate: for instance, children, though they are under power, likewise parents and brothers and affines and freedmen.

Dig. 3.3.35.1

Digest 3.3.35.1

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, 9 on the Edict.

Patronus libertum et per procuratorem ut ingratum accusare potest et libertus per procuratorem respondere.

A patron can accuse a freedman, even through a procurator, as ungrateful, and the freedman can respond through a procurator.

Dig. 3.3.35.2

Digest 3.3.35.2

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, 9 on the Edict.

Non solum autem si actio postuletur a procuratore, sed et si praeiudicium vel interdictum, vel si stipulatione legatorum vel damni infecti velit caveri: debebit absentem defendere in competenti tribunali et eadem provincia. ceterum cogi eum etiam in provincia de roma abire vel e contrario vel a provincia in aliam provinciam et defendere durum est.

Not only, moreover, if an action is brought by a procurator, but also if a prejudicial proceeding or an interdict, or if one wishes to be secured by stipulation for legacies or for threatened damage: he ought to defend the absent party in the competent tribunal and in the same province. Otherwise, to compel him, even in the province, to go away from Rome—or conversely—or to go from a province into another province and to make the defense, is harsh.

Dig. 3.3.35.3

Digest 3.3.35.3

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, 9 on the Edict.

Defendere autem est id facere quod dominus in litem faceret, et cavere idonee: nec debebit durior condicio procuratoris fieri quam est domini, praeterquam in satisdando. praeter satisdationem procurator ita defendere videtur, si iudicium accipiat. unde quaesitum est apud iulianum, an compellatur, an vero sufficiat ob rem non defensam stipulationem committi.

To defend, moreover, is to do that which the principal would do in the suit, and to give adequate surety; nor ought the condition of the procurator to be made harsher than that of the principal, except in the matter of giving security. Apart from suretyship, a procurator seems to defend if he accepts the trial. Whence the question was put in Julian, whether he is to be compelled, or whether it rather suffices that, on account of the matter not defended, the stipulation be committed.

et iulianus scribit libro tertio digestorum compellendum accipere iudicium: nisi et agendum causa cognita recusaverit vel ex iusta causa remotus fuerit. defendere videtur procurator et si in possessionem venire patiatur, cum quis damni infecti satis vel legatorum desideret,

and Julian writes in the third book of the Digests that he must be compelled to accept the suit: unless he has, the case having been examined, also refused to act, or has been removed for just cause. the procurator is considered to be defending even if he allows someone to come into possession, when a person demands security for damage not yet done or for legacies,

Dig. 3.3.36

Digest 3.3.36

Paulus 8 ad ed.

Paulus, book 8 on the Edict.

Vel in operis novi nuntiatione. sed et si servum ex causa noxali patiatur duci, defendere videtur: ita tamen, ut in his omnibus ratam rem dominum habiturum caveat.

Or in the denunciation of a new work. but also if he allows a slave to be led away on a noxal ground, he is considered to defend: provided, however, that in all these matters he gives security that the owner will hold the thing ratified.

Dig. 3.3.37pr.

Digest 3.3.37pr.

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, 9 on the Edict.

Omnium autem actionum nomine debet defendere, etiam earum quae in heredem non dantur.

However, he must defend in the name of all actions, even those which are not given against the heir.

Dig. 3.3.37.1

Digest 3.3.37.1

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 9, On the Edict.

Unde est quaesitum: si adversarius plures intendat actiones et in singulas singuli existant defensores suscipere parati, videri eum recte defendi iulianus ait. quo iure nos uti pomponius scribit.

Whence the question has been raised: if the adversary should bring several actions, and for each individual action there are individual defenders ready to undertake [the defense], Julianus says that he is considered to be rightly defended. On which law we rely, Pomponius writes.

Dig. 3.3.38

Digest 3.3.38

Ulpianus 40 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 40 on the Edict.

Non tamen eo usque procedendum erit, ut, si decem ^ milia^ petantur et exstant duo defensores parati in quina defendere, audiantur.

Nevertheless, one must not proceed to that point that, if 10,000 are claimed and there exist two defenders prepared to defend in shares of 5,000 each, they be heard.

Dig. 3.3.39pr.

Digest 3.3.39 pr.

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, 9 on the Edict.

Non solum autem in actionibus et interdictis et in stipulationibus debet dominum defendere, verum in interrogationibus quoque, ut in iure interrogatus ex omnibus causis respondeat, ex quibus dominus. an igitur heres sit absens, respondere debebit et si responderit vel tacuerit, tenebitur.

Not only, moreover, in actions and interdicts and in stipulations ought he to defend the owner, but in interrogations as well, so that, when questioned in law, he may answer on all causes on which the owner would. whether, therefore, the heir is absent, he will have to answer; and if he has answered or has kept silent, he will be held liable.

Dig. 3.3.39.1

Digest 3.3.39.1

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, 9 on the Edict.

Qui alieno nomine agit quamcumque actionem, id ratum habiturum eum ad quem ea res pertinebit cavere debet. sed interdum licet suo nomine procurator experiatur, tamen de rato debebit cavere, ut pomponius libro vicensimo quarto scribit. ut puta iusiurandum procuratori rettulit, iuravit absenti dari oportere: agit hoc iudicio suo nomine propter suum iusiurandum ( neque enim haec actio domino competere potuit): sed debebit de rato cavere.

Whoever acts in another’s name with whatever action must give security to the person to whom the matter will pertain that he will hold it ratified. But sometimes, although the procurator may proceed in his own name, nevertheless he must give security for ratification, as pomponius writes in the twenty-fourth book. For example, he referred the oath to the procurator; he swore that it ought to be given to one absent: he prosecutes this suit in his own name on account of his own oath ( for this action could not be available to the principal): but he will have to give security for ratification.

sed et si procuratori constitutum est et ex ea causa agat: dubitandum non est, quin locus sit de rato cautioni, idque pomponius scribit.

but also if a constitutum has been made in favor of the procurator and he sues on that account, there is no doubt that there is room for a de rato caution, and this Pomponius writes.

Dig. 3.3.39.2

Digest 3.3.39.2

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 9 on the Edict.

Quaeritur apud iulianum: utrum dominum solum ratam rem habere debet satisdare an etiam ceteros creditores? et ait dumtaxat de domino cavendum nec illis verbis " ad quem ea res pertinet" creditores contineri: nam nec ipsi domino haec incumbebat cautio.

It is asked in Julian: whether only the owner ought to give surety to have the matter ratified, or also the other creditors? and he says that security is to be taken only concerning the owner, and that creditors are not contained under those words "to whom
that matter pertains": for this security did not even lie upon the owner himself.

Dig. 3.3.39.3

Digest 3.3.39.3

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 9 on the Edict.

Si de dote agat pater, cavere debet ratam rem filiam habituram: sed et defendere eam debet, ut et Marcellus scribit.

If the father brings an action concerning the dowry, he ought to give a guarantee that the matter will be ratified by the daughter; but he also ought to defend her, as Marcellus likewise writes.

Dig. 3.3.39.4

Digest 3.3.39.4

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 9 on the Edict.

Si pater filii nomine iniuriarum agat, cum duae sint actiones una patris altera filii, cessat de rato cautio.

If a father brings an action for insults (iniuriae) in his son’s name, since there are two actions—one of the father, the other of the son—the de rato security ceases (is not required).

Dig. 3.3.39.5

Digest 3.3.39.5

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 9 on the Edict.

Si status controversiam cui faciat procurator, sive ex servitute in libertatem adversus eum quis litiget sive ipse ex libertate in servitutem petat, debet cavere ratam rem dominum habiturum. et ita edicto scriptum est, ut ex utroque latere quasi actor habeatur.

If a procurator conducts a status-controversy for someone, whether someone litigates against him from servitude into liberty or he himself claims from liberty into servitude, he must give surety that the master will have the matter ratified. And thus it is written in the edict, that on either side he is to be regarded as, as it were, the actor (plaintiff).

Dig. 3.3.39.6

Digest 3.3.39.6

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, 9 on the edict.

Est et casus, quo quis eiusdem actionis nomine et de rato caveat et iudicatum solvi. ut puta postulata est cognitio de in integrum restitutione, cum minor circumscriptus in venditione diceretur: alterius procurator existit: debet cavere hic procurator et ratam rem dominum habiturum, ne forte dominus reversus velit quid petere, item iudicatum solvi, ut si quid forte propter hanc restitutionem in integrum praestari adulescenti debeat, hoc praestetur. et haec ita pomponius libro vicensimo quinto ad edictum scribit.

There is also a case in which someone, under the title of the same action, should give security both de rato and that what has been adjudged be paid. For instance, a hearing has been requested concerning restitution in integrum, when a minor was said to have been overreached in
a sale: the procurator of the other party appears: this procurator ought to give security both that the principal will have the matter ratified, lest perchance, when the principal returns, he should wish to claim something, and also for iudicatum solvi,
so that, if perchance anything ought to be rendered to the young man on account of this restitution in integrum, this may be rendered. And thus Pomponius writes in the twenty-fifth book on the Edict.

Dig. 3.3.39.7

Digest 3.3.39.7

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 9 on the Edict.

Item ait, si suspectus tutor postuletur, defensorem eius oportere etiam de rato cavere, ne reversus ille velit retractare quod actum est. sed non facile per procuratorem quis suspectus accusabitur, quoniam famae causa est, nisi constet ei a tutore mandatum nominatim, aut si etiam absente tutore, quasi non defenderetur, praetor erat cogniturus.

Likewise he says, if a suspected tutor is petitioned for, his defender ought also to give security de rato, lest on his return that man should wish to retract what has been done. But one will not easily be accused as suspect through a procurator, since it is a matter of reputation, unless it is established that he has a mandate by name from the tutor, or, if the tutor were even absent, as if he were not being defended, the praetor would take cognizance.

Dig. 3.3.40pr.

Digest 3.3.40, at the beginning.

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 9 On the Edict

Pomponius scribit non omnes actiones per procuratorem posse quem instituere. denique ut liberi, qui in potestate absentis dicuntur, ducantur, interdictum non posse desiderare ait nisi, ut iulianus ait, causa cognita, id est si et nominatim ei mandatum sit et pater valetudine vel alia iusta causa impediatur.

Pomponius writes that not all actions can be brought through a procurator whom one appoints. and finally, that, so that children who are said to be in the power of an absentee be brought, he says that an interdict cannot be sought
unless, as Julian says, after inquiry into the case—that is, if both a mandate has been given to him expressly by name, and the father is impeded by ill-health or another just cause.

Dig. 3.3.40.1

Digest 3.3.40.1

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, 9 on the Edict.

Si stipuletur procurator damni infecti vel legatorum, debebit de rato cavere.

If a procurator stipulates for threatened damage or for legacies, he must give security for ratification.

Dig. 3.3.40.2

Digest 3.3.40.2

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 9 on the Edict.

Sed et is, qui quasi defensor in rem actione convenitur, praeter solitam satisdationem iudicatum solvi etiam de rato debet cavere. quid enim si hoc iudicio rem meam esse pronuntietur, reversus ille, cuius defensor extiterat, velit fundum vindicare: nonne ratum non videbitur habere quod iudicatum est? denique si verus procurator extitisset vel ipse praesens causam suam egisset et victus esset: si a me vindicaret, exceptione rei iudicatae summoveretur, et ita iulianus libro quinquagensimo digestorum scribit: nam cum iudicatur rem meam esse, simul iudicatur illius non esse.

But also he who is convened by an action in rem as a sort of defensor, besides the customary satisdation iudicatum solvi, must also give security de rato. For what if in this suit it is pronounced that the thing is mine, and the one whose defensor he had been, upon returning, should wish to vindicate the estate: would he not seem not to hold as ratified what has been adjudged? Finally, if a true procurator had appeared or he himself in person had conducted his case and had been defeated: if he were to vindicate from me, he would be removed by the exceptio rei iudicatae; and thus Julian writes in the fiftieth book of the Digest: for when it is adjudged that the thing is mine, at the same time it is adjudged that it is not his.

Dig. 3.3.40.3

Digest 3.3.40.3

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, 9 on the Edict.

Ratihabitionis autem satisdatio ante litis contestationem a procuratore exigitur: ceterum semel lite contestata non compelletur ad cautionem.

But the furnishing of security for ratification is demanded from the procurator before the contestation of the suit; however, once the suit has been contested, he is not compelled to provide security.

Dig. 3.3.40.4

Digest 3.3.40.4

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, 9 On the Edict.

In his autem personis, in quibus mandatum non exigimus, dicendum est, si forte evidens sit contra voluntatem eos experiri eorum pro quibus interveniunt, debere eos repelli. ergo non exigimus ut habeant voluntatem vel mandatum, sed ne contraria voluntas probetur: quamvis de rato offerant cautionem.

In those persons, in whose case we do not require a mandate, it must be said that, if perchance it is evident that they proceed to bring suit contrary to the will of those for whom they intervene, they ought to be repelled. therefore we do not require that they have consent or a mandate, but that a contrary will not be proved; even though they offer security for ratification (de rato).

Dig. 3.3.41

Digest 3.3.41

Paulus 9 ad ed.

Paulus, 9, on the Edict.

Feminas pro parentibus agere interdum permittetur causa cognita, si forte parentes morbus aut aetas impediat, nec quemquam qui agat habeant.

Women will sometimes be permitted, the cause ascertained, to act on behalf of their parents, if perhaps illness or age impedes the parents, and they have no one to act.

Dig. 3.3.42pr.

Digest 3.3.42pr.

Paulus 8 ad ed.

Paulus, Book 8 on the Edict.

Licet in popularibus actionibus procurator dari non possit, tamen dictum est merito eum qui de via publica agit et privato damno ex prohibitione adficitur, quasi privatae actionis dare posse procuratorem. multo magis dabit ad sepulchri violati actionem is ad quem ea res pertinet.

Although in popular actions a procurator cannot be appointed, nevertheless it has been rightly said that he who brings suit concerning a public road and is affected with private loss from a prohibition, as if it were a private action, can appoint a procurator. much more will he to whom that matter pertains appoint a procurator for the action for a violated sepulcher.

Dig. 3.3.42.1

Digest 3.3.42.1

Paulus 8 ad ed.

Paulus, Book 8 on the Edict.

Ad actionem iniuriarum ex lege cornelia procurator dari potest: nam etsi pro publica utilitate exercetur, privata tamen est.

For the action for outrages under the Cornelian law a procurator can be appointed: for although it is prosecuted for public utility, nevertheless it is private.

Dig. 3.3.42.2

Digest 3.3.42.2

Paulus 8 ad ed.

Paulus, book 8 on the Edict.

Ea obligatio, quae inter dominum et procuratorem consistere solet, mandati actionem parit. aliquando tamen non contrahitur obligatio mandati: sicut evenit, cum in rem suam procuratorem praestamus eoque nomine iudicatum solvi promittimus: nam si ex ea promissione aliquid praestiterimus, non mandati, sed ex vendito si hereditatem vendidimus, vel ex pristina causa mandati agere debemus: ut fit cum fideiussor reum procuratorem dedit.

That obligation which is wont to subsist between an owner and a procurator begets an action of mandate. Sometimes, however, an obligation of mandate is not contracted: as happens when we appoint a procurator in his own interest (in rem suam) and in that capacity promise that the adjudged sum shall be paid (iudicatum solvi). For if under that promise we have rendered anything, we ought to sue not on mandate, but on sale (ex vendito) if we have sold the inheritance, or on the prior ground of the mandate: as happens when a surety (fideiussor) has given the debtor as procurator.

Dig. 3.3.42.3

Digest 3.3.42.3

Paulus 8 ad ed.

Paulus, 8 on the Edict.

Is cui hereditas ex trebelliano senatus consulto restituta est heredem iure dabit procuratorem.

He to whom the inheritance has been restored under the Trebellian senatorial decree will appoint a procurator in the heir’s right.

Dig. 3.3.42.4

Digest 3.3.42.4

Paulus 8 ad ed.

Paul, 8 on the Edict.

Sed et dominum pignoris creditor recte dabit procuratorem ad servianam.

But the creditor will also rightly appoint the owner of the pledge as procurator for the Servian action.

Dig. 3.3.42.5

Digest 3.3.42.5

Paulus 8 ad ed.

Paulus 8 on the Edict.

Porro si uni ex reis credendi constitutum sit isque alium in constitutam pecuniam det, non negabimus posse dare. sed et ex duobus reis promittendi alter alterum ad defendendum procuratorem dabit.

Moreover, if it be constituted that among the joint creditors payment is to be made to one, and he were to appoint another for the stipulated money, we shall not deny that he is able to appoint. But also, out of two joint promisors, the one will give the other as procurator for defense.

Dig. 3.3.42.6

Digest 3.3.42.6

Paulus 8 ad ed.

Paulus, 8 on the Edict.

Si plures heredes sint et familiae erciscundae aut communi dividundo agatur, pluribus eundem procuratorem non est permittendum dare, quoniam res expediri non potest circa adiudicationes et condemnationes: plane permittendum dare, si uni coheredi plures heredes existant.

If there are several heirs and the action for partition of the family‑inheritance (familiae erciscundae) or for division of common property (communi dividundo) is being pursued, it is not to be permitted to appoint the same procurator for several persons, since the matter cannot be expedited with respect to adjudications and condemnations: clearly it is to be permitted to appoint (him), if, for one coheir, there exist multiple heirs.

Dig. 3.3.42.7

Digest 3.3.42.7

Paulus 8 ad ed.

Paulus, 8 on the edict.

Reo latitante post litem contestatam ita demum fideiussores eum defendere videbuntur, si vel unus ex his eum pro solido defendat, vel omnes vel qui ex his unum dederint in quem iudicium transferetur.

With the defendant lurking in hiding after the joinder of issue, then and only then will the sureties be deemed to be defending him, if either even one of them defends him for the whole (pro solido), or all of them do, or those who from among them have appointed a single person to whom the action will be transferred.

Dig. 3.3.43pr.

Digest 3.3.43pr.

Paulus 9 ad ed.

Paulus, Book 9 on the Edict.

Mutus et surdus per eum modum qui procedere potest procuratorem dare non prohibentur: forsitan et ipsi dantur non quidem ad agendum, sed ad administrandum.

A mute and a deaf person, in that mode in which the proceeding can go forward, are not prohibited from appointing a procurator; perhaps they themselves also are appointed, not indeed for acting (in suit), but for administering.

Dig. 3.3.43.1

Digest 3.3.43.1

Paulus 9 ad ed.

Paulus, book 9, On the Edict.

Cum quaeretur, an alicui procuratorem habere liceat, inspiciendum erit, an non prohibeatur procuratorem dare, quia hoc edictum prohibitorium est.

When it is asked whether it is permitted for someone to have a procurator, it will have to be examined whether he is not prohibited from appointing a procurator, because this edict is prohibitory.

Dig. 3.3.43.2

Digest 3.3.43.2

Paulus 9 ad ed.

Paulus, On the Edict, 9.

In popularibus actionibus, ubi quis quasi unus ex populo agit, defensionem ut procurator praestare cogendus non est.

In popular actions, where someone acts as if one of the people, he is not to be compelled to furnish a defense as a procurator.

Dig. 3.3.43.3

Digest 3.3.43.3

Paulus 9 ad ed.

Paulus, book 9 on the Edict.

Is, qui curatorem alicui praesenti petat, non aliter audietur nisi adulto consentiente: quod si absenti, ratam rem eum habiturum necesse habet dare.

He who petitions a curator for someone present will not otherwise be heard unless the adult consents: but if for someone absent, he must give security that he will have the matter ratified by him.

Dig. 3.3.43.4

Digest 3.3.43.4

Paulus 9 ad ed.

Paulus, book 9 on the edict.

Poena non defendentis procuratoris haec est, ut denegetur ei actio.

The penalty of a procurator who does not defend is this: that the action is denied to him.

Dig. 3.3.43.5

Digest 3.3.43.5

Paulus 9 ad ed.

Paulus, On the Edict, book 9.

Si procurator agat et praesens sit absentis servus, atilicinus ait servo cavendum, non procuratori.

If a procurator brings the action and the slave of the absentee is present, Atilicinus says that security must be given to the slave, not to the procurator.

Dig. 3.3.43.6

Digest 3.3.43.6

Paulus 9 ad ed.

Paulus 9 on the Edict.

Qui non cogitur defendere absentem, tamen si iudicatum solvi satisdedit defendendi absentis gratia, cogendum procuratorem iudicium accipere, ne decipiatur is qui satis accepit: nam eos, qui non coguntur rem defendere, post satisdationem cogi. labeo causa cognita temperandum, et si captio actoris sit propter temporis tractum, iudicium eum accipere cogendum: quod si aut adfinitas dirempta sit aut inimicitiae intercesserint aut bona absentis possideri coeperint.

He who is not compelled to defend an absentee, nevertheless, if he has given surety that the judgment be paid for the sake of defending the absentee, the procurator must be compelled to accept the trial, lest the one who received the surety be deceived: for those who are not compelled to defend the matter, after suretyship, are compelled. Labeo [holds] that, the case having been inquired into, it should be tempered; and if there is a trapping of the plaintiff on account of the tract of time, he must be compelled to accept the trial: but if either the relationship by marriage has been severed or enmities have intervened or the goods of the absentee have begun to be possessed.

Dig. 3.3.44

Digest 3.3.44

Ulpianus 7 disp.

Ulpian 7 disputations.

Vel si longinquo sit afuturus vel alia iusta causa intervenerit,

Or if he is going to be absent on account of remoteness, or another just cause has intervened,

Dig. 3.3.45pr.

Digest 3.3.45, preface.

Paulus 9 ad ed.

Paulus, book 9 on the Edict.

Non cogendum. sabinus autem nullas praetoris partes esse ad compellendum defendere, sed ex stipulatu ob rem non defensam agi posse: at si iustas causas habeat, cur iudicium accipere nolit, fideiussores non teneri, quia vir bonus arbitraturus non fuerit, ut qui iustam excusationem adferret, defendere cogeretur. sed et si satis non dedit, sed repromittenti ei creditum est, idem statuendum est.

Not to be compelled. sabinus, however, says that it is no part of the praetor to compel a defense, but that it is possible to sue ex stipulatu on account of the matter not having been defended: but if he has just causes why he does not wish to accept the trial,
the fideiussors (sureties) are not held, because a good man as arbitrator would not decide that one who brought a just excuse should be compelled to defend. but also if he did not give security, but credit was given to one who promised again on his behalf, the same is to be determined.

Dig. 3.3.45.1

Digest 3.3.45.1

Paulus 9 ad ed.

Paulus, Book 9 on the Edict.

Qui ita de publico agunt, ut et privatum commodum defendant, causa cognita permittuntur procuratorem dare, et postea alius agens exceptione repelletur.

Those who so act on a public matter as also to defend a private advantage, once the cause has been examined are permitted to appoint a procurator, and thereafter another bringing an action will be repelled by an exception.

Dig. 3.3.45.2

Digest 3.3.45.2

Paulus 9 ad ed.

Paulus, Book 9 on the Edict.

Si procuratori opus novum nuntiatum sit isque interdicto utatur " ne ei vis fiat aedificanti", defensoris partes eum sustinere nec compelli cavere ratam rem dominum habiturum iulianus ait, et si satisdederit, non animadverto, inquit iulianus, quo casu stipulatio committatur.

If a new work has been announced to a procurator and he uses the interdict "that no force be done to him who is building," Julian says that he sustains the role of a defender and is not compelled to give security that the owner will hold the matter ratified; and if he has furnished surety, I do not perceive, says Julian, in what case the stipulation would be incurred.

Dig. 3.3.46pr.

Digest 3.3.46, preface.

Gaius 3 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius, Book 3 on the Provincial Edict.

Qui proprio nomine iudicium accepisset, si vellet procuratorem dare, in quem actor transferat iudicium, audiri debet sollemniterque pro iudicatum solvi satisdatione cavere.

He who has accepted the action in his own name, if he should wish to appoint a procurator to whom the plaintiff transfers the action, ought to be heard, and should, solemnly, give security by satisdation for payment of what has been adjudged.

Dig. 3.3.46.1

Digest 3.3.46.1

Gaius 3 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius, book 3 on the provincial edict

Ei qui defendit eum, cuius nomine ipse non agat, liberum est vel in unam rem defendere.

It is permitted to one who defends him, in whose name he himself does not bring suit, to defend even with respect to a single thing.

Dig. 3.3.46.2

Digest 3.3.46.2

Gaius 3 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius, Book 3 on the Provincial Edict

Qui alium defendit, satisdare cogitur: nemo enim alienae litis idoneus defensor sine satisdatione intellegitur.

He who defends another is compelled to give surety: for no one is deemed a suitable defender of another’s suit without surety.

Dig. 3.3.46.3

Digest 3.3.46.3

Gaius 3 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 3 on the provincial edict

Item quaeritur, si iudicium acceperit defensor et actor in integrum restitutus sit, an cogendus sit restitutorium iudicium accipere: et magis placet cogendum.

Likewise it is asked, if the defender has accepted the suit and the plaintiff has been restored in integrum, whether he is to be compelled to accept the restitutory suit; and the more approved view is that he must be compelled.

Dig. 3.3.46.4

Digest 3.3.46.4

Gaius 3 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 3 on the Provincial Edict

Procurator ut in ceteris quoque negotiis gerendis, ita et in litibus ex bona fide rationem reddere debet. itaque quod ex lite consecutus erit sive principaliter ipsius rei nomine sive extrinsecus ob eam rem, debet mandati iudicio restituere usque adeo, ut et si per errorem aut iniuriam iudicis non debitum consecutus fuerit, id quoque reddere debeat.

Just as in the conducting of other negotiations, so also in lawsuits the procurator must render an account in good faith. Therefore whatever he has obtained from the suit, whether principally in the name of the thing itself or extrinsically on account of that matter, he must restore by the action on mandate—indeed, to such an extent that even if through error or the injustice of the judge he has obtained what was not owed, he must return that as well.

Dig. 3.3.46.5

Digest 3.3.46.5

Gaius 3 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius, 3 on the provincial edict.

Item contra quod ob rem iudicatam procurator solverit, contrario mandati iudicio reciperare debet: poenam autem, quam ex suo delicto praestitit, reciperare non debet.

Likewise, as to what the procurator has paid on account of a res judicata, he ought to recover by the contrary action of mandate; but he ought not to recover the penalty which he has satisfied by his own delict.

Dig. 3.3.46.6

Digest 3.3.46.6

Gaius 3 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius, book 3, on the provincial edict.

Litis impendia bona fide facta vel ab actoris procuratore vel a rei debere ei restitui aequitas suadet.

Equity persuades that the expenses of the suit, incurred in good faith, whether by the plaintiff’s procurator or by the defendant, ought to be restored to him.

Dig. 3.3.46.7

Digest 3.3.46.7

Gaius 3 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius, Book 3, On the Provincial Edict.

Si duobus mandata sit administratio negotiorum, quorum alter debitor sit mandatoris, an alter cum eo recte acturus sit? et utique recte: non enim ob id minus procurator intellegitur, quod is quoque cum quo agitur procurator sit.

If the administration of affairs has been entrusted to two, of whom one is a debtor of the mandator (principal), is the other going to act rightly against him? And assuredly, rightly: for he is not on that account any the less understood to be a procurator, because the one with whom suit is brought is also a procurator.

Dig. 3.3.47

Digest 3.3.47

Iulianus 4 ad urs. ferocem.

Julianus 4 to Urseius Ferox.

Qui duos procuratores omnium rerum suarum reliquit, nisi nominatim praecepit ut alter ab altero pecuniam petat, non videtur mandatum utrilibet eorum dedisse.

He who has left two procurators over all his affairs, unless he expressly directed that the one demand money from the other, is not regarded as having given a mandate to either of them.

Dig. 3.3.48

Digest 3.3.48

Gaius 3 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 3 on the provincial edict

Itaque, si hoc specialiter mandatum est, tunc excipiente eo cum quo agitur " si non mihi mandatum sit, ut a debitoribus peterem" actorem ita debere replicare" aut si mihi mandatum est ut a te peterem".

Therefore, if this has been specifically mandated, then, when the defendant raises the exception, " if no mandate has been given to me to demand from the debtors," the plaintiff ought to reply thus: " or if a mandate has been given to me to demand from you".

Dig. 3.3.49

Digest 3.3.49

Paulus 54 ad ed.

Paulus, 54 on the Edict.

Ignorantis domini condicio deterior per procuratorem fieri non debet.

The condition of an ignorant owner ought not to be made worse through his procurator.

Dig. 3.3.50

Digest 3.3.50

Gaius 22 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius, book 22 on the provincial edict

Quacumque ratione procurator tuus a me liberatus est, id tibi prodesse debet.

By whatever method your procurator has been released by me, that ought to benefit you.

Dig. 3.3.51pr.

Digest 3.3.51, beginning.

Ulpianus 60 ad ed.

Ulpian, 60 on the Edict.

Minor viginti quinque annis si defensor existat, ex quibus causis in integrum restitui possit, defensor idoneus non est, quia et ipsi et fideiussoribus eius per in integrum restitutionem succurritur.

If someone under twenty-five years should be a defensor, in those causes in which he could be restored in integrum, he is not a suitable defensor, because by in integrum restitution aid is afforded both to himself and to his sureties.

Dig. 3.3.51.1

Digest 3.3.51.1

Ulpianus 60 ad ed.

Ulpian, 60 on the Edict.

Quoniam tamen defendere est eandem vicem quam reus subire, defensor mariti in amplius quam maritus facere possit non est condemnandus.

Since, however, to defend is to undergo the same position as the defendant, the defender of the husband is not to be condemned for more than the husband could be made to perform.

Dig. 3.3.51.2

Digest 3.3.51.2

Ulpianus 60 ad ed.

Ulpian, 60 on the edict.

Is qui suscepit defensionem, etsi locupletissimus sit,

He who has undertaken the defense, even if he is most wealthy,

Dig. 3.3.52

Digest 3.3.52

Paulus 57 ad ed.

Paulus 57 to the edict.

Etsi consularis sit,

Although he is of consular rank,

Dig. 3.3.53

Digest 3.3.53

Ulpianus 60 ad ed.

Ulpian, 60 on the edict.

Non videtur defendere, nisi satisdare fuerit paratus.

He is not considered to be defending, unless he is ready to furnish security.

Dig. 3.3.54pr.

Digest 3.3.54pr.

Paulus 50 ad ed.

Paulus, Book 50 on the Edict.

Neque femina neque miles neque qui rei publicae causa afuturus est aut morbo perpetuo tenetur aut magistratum initurus est aut invitus iudicium pati non potest, idoneus defensor intellegitur.

Neither a woman nor a soldier nor one who will be absent for the sake of the commonwealth nor one who is held by a perpetual disease nor one who is about to enter a magistracy nor one who cannot, if unwilling, undergo a trial, is understood to be a suitable defender.

Dig. 3.3.54.1

Digest 3.3.54.1

Paulus 50 ad ed.

Paul, 50 On the Edict.

Tutores, qui in aliquo loco administraverunt, eodem loco et defendi debent.

Guardians who have administered in some place ought also to make their defense in that same place.

Dig. 3.3.55

Digest 3.3.55

Ulpianus 65 ad ed.

Ulpian, 65 on the Edict.

Procuratore in rem suam dato praeferendus non est dominus procuratori in litem movendam vel pecuniam suscipiendam: qui enim suo nomine utiles actiones habet, rite eas intendit.

When a procurator has been appointed in rem suam, the owner is not to be preferred to the procurator for moving the suit or for receiving the money: for he who has useful actions in his own name properly brings them forward.

Dig. 3.3.56

Digest 3.3.56

Ulpianus 66 ad ed.

Ulpian, 66 on the Edict.

Ad rem mobilem petendam datus procurator ad exhibendum recte aget.

A procurator appointed for claiming a movable thing will proceed properly by the action ad exhibendum.

Dig. 3.3.57pr.

Digest 3.3.57pr.

Ulpianus 74 ad ed.

Ulpian, 74 On the Edict.

Qui procuratorem dat, ut confestim agat, is intellegendus est permittere procuratori et postea litem peragere.

He who appoints a procurator, so that he may act forthwith, is to be understood to permit the procurator both to act at once and thereafter to prosecute the suit.

Dig. 3.3.57.1

Digest 3.3.57.1

Ulpianus 74 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 74 on the Edict.

Si quis remisit exceptionem procuratoriam, non poterit ex paenitentia eam opponere.

If anyone has waived the procuratorial exception, he will not be able, out of repentance, to oppose it.

Dig. 3.3.58

Digest 3.3.58

Paulus 71 ad ed.

Paulus 71 on the edict.

Procurator, cui generaliter libera administratio rerum commissa est, potest exigere, novare, aliud pro alio permutare.

The procurator, to whom in general a free administration of affairs has been entrusted, can exact, novate, [and] exchange one thing for another.

Dig. 3.3.59

Digest 3.3.59

Paulus 10 ad plaut.

Paul, book 10 on Plautius.

Sed et id quoque ei mandari videtur, ut solvat creditoribus.

But also this too seems to be entrusted to him, that he pay the creditors.

Dig. 3.3.60

Digest 3.3.60

Paulus 4 resp.

Paul, Responses 4.

Mandato generali non contineri etiam transactionem decidendi causa interpositam: et ideo si postea is qui mandavit transactionem ratam non habuit, non posse eum repelli ab actionibus exercendis.

A general mandate does not include even a transaction interposed for the sake of deciding the case; and therefore, if afterward the one who gave the mandate did not ratify the transaction, he cannot be barred from prosecuting actions.

Dig. 3.3.61

Digest 3.3.61

Paulus 1 ad plaut.

Paul, Book 1 on Plautius.

Plautius ait: procuratorem damnatum non debere conveniri, nisi aut in rem suam datus esset aut optulisset se, cum sciret cautum non esse, omnibus placuit. idem erit observandum et si defensoris loco cum satisdatione se liti optulerit.

Plautius says: a condemned procurator ought not to be sued, unless either he had been appointed in rem suam or had offered himself, when he knew that security had not been provided; this has pleased everyone. The same will be to be observed also if, in the place of a defender, he has offered himself to the suit upon giving surety.

Dig. 3.3.62

Digest 3.3.62

Pomponius 2 ex plaut.

Pomponius 2 from Plautius.

Ad legatum petendum procurator datus si interdicto utatur adversus heredem de tabulis exhibendis, procuratoria exceptio, quasi non et hoc esset ei mandatum non obstat.

If a procurator appointed for claiming a legacy employs the interdict against the heir for the exhibiting of the tablets, the procuratorial exception—as though this too had not been mandated to him—does not stand in the way.

Dig. 3.3.63

Digest 3.3.63

Modestinus 6 diff.

Modestinus 6 differences.

Procurator totorum bonorum, cui res administrandae mandatae sunt, res domini neque mobiles vel immobiles neque servos sine speciali domini mandatu alienare potest, nisi fructus aut alias res, quae facile corrumpi possunt.

The procurator of the whole estate, to whom affairs for administration have been entrusted, cannot alienate the owner’s property—neither movables or immovables nor slaves—without the owner’s special mandate, except fruits or other things that can easily spoil.

Dig. 3.3.64

Digest 3.3.64

Modestinus 3 reg.

Modestinus 3 Rules.

Is, cuius nomine defensor exstiterit, si ante litem contestatam in praesentia fuerit et postulet suo nomine litem suscipere, causa cognita audiendus est.

He, in whose name a defender has appeared, if before the joinder of issue he is present and requests to take up the suit in his own name, must be heard after the case has been examined.

Dig. 3.3.65

Digest 3.3.65

Modestinus l.S. de heuremat.

Modestinus, in a single book On Discoveries.

Si procuratorem absentem dominus satisdatione relevare velit, litteras suas ad adversarium derigere debebit, quibus significet, quem adversus eum procuratorem et in qua causa fecerit, ratumque se habiturum quod cum eo actum sit: hoc enim casu litteris eius adprobatis velut praesentis procuratorem intervenire intellegendum est. itaque etsi postea mutata voluntate procuratorem esse noluerit, tamen iudicium, quo quasi procurator expertus est, ratum esse debet.

If the principal should wish to relieve an absent procurator from surety, he ought to direct his letters to the adversary, in which he indicates whom he has appointed as procurator against him and in what cause, and that he will hold as ratified whatever shall have been transacted with him: for in this case, upon the approbation of his letters, the procurator is to be understood to intervene as though present. and so even if afterwards, his will having changed, he should be unwilling that he be procurator, nevertheless the action in which he has proceeded as if procurator ought to be ratified.

Dig. 3.3.66

Digest 3.3.66

Papinianus 9 quaest.

Papinianus, Questions, Book 9.

Si is qui stichum vel damam, utrum eorum ipse vellet, stipulatus est et ratum habeat, quod alterum procuratorio nomine titius petit: facit, ut res in iudicium deducta videatur, et stipulationem consumit.

If the one who has stipulated for Stichus or Dama, whichever of them he himself might wish, also ratifies what Titius, in a procuratorial capacity, claims for the other: it causes that the matter is deemed to have been brought into judgment, and consumes the stipulation.

Dig. 3.3.67

Digest 3.3.67

Papinianus 2 resp.

Papinian, Responses 2.

Procurator, qui pro evictione praediorum quae vendidit fidem suam adstrinxit, etsi negotia gerere desierit, obligationis tamen onere praetoris auxilio non levabitur: nam procurator, qui pro domino vinculum obligationis suscepit, onus eius frustra recusat.

The procurator, who has bound his own faith for the eviction of the estates which he sold, even if he has ceased to manage the business, nevertheless will not be relieved of the burden of the obligation by the praetor’s aid: for a procurator who has undertaken the bond of the obligation on behalf of the master vainly refuses its burden.

Dig. 3.3.68

Digest 3.3.68

Papinianus 3 resp.

Papinian, Responses, 3.

Quod procurator ex re domini mandato non refragante stipulatur, invito procuratore dominus petere non potest.

What the procurator stipulates for the principal’s interest, the mandate not opposing, the principal cannot sue for with the procurator unwilling.

Dig. 3.3.69

Digest 3.3.69

Paulus 3 resp.

Paulus, Responses 3.

Paulus respondit etiam eum, qui ad litem suscipiendam procuratorem dedit, causae suae adesse non prohiberi.

Paulus replied that even one who has appointed a procurator for undertaking the suit is not prohibited from being present at his own cause.

Dig. 3.3.70

Digest 3.3.70

Scaevola 1 resp.

Scaevola, response 1.

Pater filio suo pupillo tutorem dedit sempronium creditorem suum: is administrata tutela reliquit fratrem suum heredem, qui et ipse decessit et per fideicommissum nomen debitoris titio reliquit eique mandatae sunt actiones ab heredibus: quaero, cum tam tutelae actio quam pecuniae creditae ex hereditate sempronii descendant, an non aliter mandata actio ei detur, quam si defendat heredes, a quibus ei actiones mandatae sunt. respondi debere defendere.

A father appointed Sempronius, his creditor, as tutor for his minor son; after the tutelage had been administered, he left his brother as heir, who likewise died and, by fideicommissum, left to Titius the debtor’s claim (nomen), and to him the actions were mandated by the heirs. I ask, since both the action on tutelage and the action for money lent descend from the estate of Sempronius, whether the action on mandate should be given to him only if he defends the heirs by whom the actions were mandated to him. I replied that he ought to defend.

Dig. 3.3.71

Digest 3.3.71

Paulus 1 sent.

Paulus, Sentences, Book 1.

Absens reus causas absentiae per procuratorem reddere potest.

An absent defendant can render the causes of his absence through a procurator.

Dig. 3.3.72

Digest 3.3.72

Paulus 1 manual.

Per procuratorem non semper adquirimus actiones, sed retinemus: veluti si reum conveniat intra legitimum tempus: vel si prohibeat opus novum fieri, ut interdictum nobis utile sit quod vi aut clam, nam et hic pristinum ius nobis conservat.

Through a procurator we do not always acquire actions, but we retain them: for instance, if he summons the defendant within the lawful time; or if he forbids a new work to be made, so that the interdict “what was done by force or by stealth” is useful to us, for here too he preserves our original right.

Dig. 3.3.73

Digest 3.3.73

Paulus l.S. de off. adsess.

Paul, in the single book On the Office of the Assessor.

Si reus paratus sit ante litem contestatam pecuniam solvere, procuratore agente quid fieri oportet? nam iniquum est cogi eum iudicium accipere. propter quod suspectus videri potest, qui praesente domino non optulit pecuniam?

If the defendant is ready, before the issue has been joined, to pay the money, with a procurator acting, what ought to be done? For it is inequitable to compel him to accept a trial. On which account, might he seem suspect who did not proffer the money when the principal was present?

quid si tunc facultatem pecuniae non habuit, numquid cogi debeat iudicium accipere? quid enim si et famosa sit actio? sed hoc constat, ut ante litem contestatam praeses iubeat in aede sacra pecuniam deponi: hoc enim fit et in pupillaribus pecuniis.

what if at that time he did not have the means of money; should he be compelled to accept judgment? for what if the action is also infamous? but
this is settled, that before the suit is contested the governor order the money to be deposited in a sacred temple: for this is done also in pupillary monies.

quod si lis contestata est, hoc omne officio iudicis dirimendum est.

but if the suit has been joined, all this must be resolved by the judge’s office.

Dig. 3.3.74

Digest 3.3.74

Ulpianus 4 opin.

Ulpian, Opinions 4.

Nec civitatis actor negotium publicum per procuratorem agere potest.

Nor can the city’s agent transact public business through a procurator.

Dig. 3.3.75

Digest 3.3.75

Iulianus 3 Dig.

Julian, Digest, Book 3.

Qui absentem emptorem eundemque possessorem fundi defendebat et iudicium nomine eius accipiebat, postulabat a venditore fundi, ut ab eo defenderetur: venditor desiderabat caveri sibi ratam rem emptorem habiturum: puto eum venditori de rato satisdare debere, quia si fundum agenti restituerit, nihil prohibet dominum rem petere et cogi venditorem rursus defendere.

He who was defending a purchaser who was absent and likewise possessor of the estate, and was accepting the action in his name, demanded from the vendor of the estate that he be defended by him: the vendor desired that it be guaranteed to him that the purchaser would have the matter ratified: I think he ought to furnish the vendor security de rato, because if he should restore the estate to the plaintiff, nothing prevents the owner from claiming the thing and the vendor from being compelled to defend again.

Dig. 3.3.76

Digest 3.3.76

Iulianus 5 ad minic.

Julian, Book 5, On Minicius.

Titius cum absentem defenderet, satisdedit et prius quam iudicium acciperet desiit reus solvendo esse: quam ob causam defensor recusabat iudicium in se reddi oportere. quaero, an id ei concedi oporteat. iulianus respondit: defensor cum satisdedit, domini loco habendus est.

Titius, when he was defending an absent man, gave surety, and before he received the action the defendant ceased to be solvent; for which cause the defender refused that judgment ought to be rendered against himself. I ask whether that ought to be conceded to him. julianus answered: since the defender has given surety, he is to be held in the position of the principal.

nec multum ei praestaturus est praetor, si eum non coegerit iudicium accipere, cum ad fideiussores eius iri possit et hi quidquid praestiterint a defensore consecuturi sint.

nor will the praetor be going to benefit him much, if he does not compel him to accept the trial, since recourse can be had to his sureties, and they, whatever they have paid, will recover from the defender.

Dig. 3.3.77

Digest 3.3.77

Paulus 57 ad ed.

Paulus 57 on the Edict.

Omnis qui defenditur boni viri arbitratu defendendus est.

Everyone who is defended must be defended by the arbitrament of a good man.

Dig. 3.3.78pr.

Digest 3.3.78, preface.

Africanus 6 quaest.

Africanus 6 questions.

Et ideo non potest videri boni viri arbitratu litem defendere is, qui actorem frustrando efficiat, ne ad exitum controversia deducatur.

And therefore, he cannot be considered, by the arbitration of a good man, to be defending the suit, who, by frustrating the plaintiff, brings it about that the controversy is not brought to a conclusion.

Dig. 3.3.78.1

Digest 3.3.78.1

Africanus 6 quaest.

Africanus 6 questions.

Ad duas res petendas procurator datus si unam rem petat, exceptione non excluditur et rem in iudicium deducit.

If a procurator has been appointed to claim two things, if he claims one thing, he is not excluded by an exception and brings the matter into judgment.

Dig. 3.4.0. Quod cuiuscumque universitatis nomine vel contra eam agatur.

Dig. 3.4.0. What is brought in suit in the name of any corporation, or against it.

Dig. 3.4.1pr.

Digest 3.4.1, preface.

Gaius 3 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius, 3 on the provincial edict.

Neque societas neque collegium neque huiusmodi corpus passim omnibus habere conceditur: nam et legibus et senatus consultis et principalibus constitutionibus ea res coercetur. paucis admodum in causis concessa sunt huiusmodi corpora: ut ecce vectigalium publicorum sociis permissum est corpus habere vel aurifodinarum vel argentifodinarum et salinarum. item collegia romae certa sunt, quorum corpus senatus consultis atque constitutionibus principalibus confirmatum est, veluti pistorum et quorundam aliorum, et naviculariorum, qui et in provinciis sunt.

Neither partnership nor college nor a body of this sort is granted for everyone to have indiscriminately: for by laws and by decrees of the senate and by imperial constitutions this matter is restrained. In very few cases bodies of this kind are granted: for example, it has been permitted to the associates of the public revenues to have a corporate body, either of the gold-mines or of the silver-mines and the salt-works. Likewise at Rome there are certain collegia, whose corporate body has been confirmed by decrees of the senate and imperial constitutions, such as that of the bakers and of certain others, and of the shippers, who are also in the provinces.

Dig. 3.4.1.1

Digest 3.4.1.1

Gaius 3 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 3 on the Provincial Edict

Quibus autem permissum est corpus habere collegii societatis sive cuiusque alterius eorum nomine, proprium est ad exemplum rei publicae habere res communes, arcam communem et actorem sive syndicum, per quem tamquam in re publica, quod communiter agi fierique oporteat, agatur fiat.

But to those to whom it has been permitted to have a corporate body of a collegium, a society, or any other of them in their name, it is proper, after the example of the republic, to have common things, a chest common, and an actor or syndic, through whom, as in the republic, whatever ought to be transacted and done in common may be transacted and done.

Dig. 3.4.1.2

Digest 3.4.1.2

Gaius 3 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius, 3, on the provincial edict.

Quod si nemo eos defendat, quod eorum commune erit possideri et, si admoniti non excitentur ad sui defensionem, venire se iussurum proconsul ait. et quidem non esse actorem vel syndicum tunc quoque intellegimus, cum is absit aut valetudine impedietur aut inhabilis sit ad agendum.

But if no one defends them, their common property will be possessed; and, if, when admonished, they are not stirred up to their own defense, the proconsul says that he will order them to come. and indeed we understand that there is not an actor or syndic then also, when he is absent or is hindered by ill health or is unfit for acting (pleading).

Dig. 3.4.1.3

Digest 3.4.1.3

Gaius 3 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius, Book 3, on the provincial edict.

Et si extraneus defendere velit universitatem, permittit proconsul, sicut in privatorum defensionibus observatur, quia eo modo melior condicio universitatis fit.

And if an outsider should wish to defend the corporate body, the proconsul permits it, just as is observed in the defenses of private individuals, because in that way the condition of the corporate body is made better.

Dig. 3.4.2

Digest 3.4.2

Ulpianus 8 ad ed.

Ulpian 8 on the Edict.

Si municipes vel aliqua universitas ad agendum det actorem, non erit dicendum quasi a pluribus datum sic haberi: hic enim pro re publica vel universitate intervenit, non pro singulis.

If the municipes or some universitas appoint an actor for bringing suit, it is not to be said that this is to be regarded as if it were given by several persons: for he intervenes on behalf of the republic or the universitas, not on behalf of individuals.

Dig. 3.4.3

Digest 3.4.3

Ulpianus 9 ad ed.

Ulpian, 9 on the edict.

Nulli permittitur nomine civitatis vel curiae experiri nisi ei, cui lex permittit, aut lege cessante ordo dedit, cum duae partes adessent aut amplius quam duae.

No one is permitted to bring suit in the name of the city or of the curia, except to him whom the law permits; or, the law being in abeyance, the order granted it, when two parts were present, or more than two.

Dig. 3.4.4

Digest 3.4.4

Paulus 9 ad ed.

Paulus, Book 9 on the Edict.

Plane ut duae partes decurionum adfuerint, is quoque quem decernent numerari potest.

Clearly, provided that two-thirds of the decurions are present, he too whom they decree can be counted.

Dig. 3.4.5

Digest 3.4.5

Ulpianus 8 ad ed.

Ulpian 8 on the Edict.

Illud notandum pomponius ait, quod et patris suffragium filio proderit et filii patri,

that is to be noted, pomponius says, that both a father’s suffrage will be of profit to a son and a son’s to a father,

Dig. 3.4.6pr.

Digest 3.4.6pr.

Paulus 9 ad ed.

Paul, 9 on the Edict.

Item eorum, qui in eiusdem potestate sunt: quasi decurio enim hoc dedit, non quasi domestica persona. quod et in honorum petitione erit servandum, nisi lex municipii vel perpetua consuetudo prohibeat.

Likewise as to those who are in that same person’s power: for he gave this as a decurion, not as a domestic person. This too must be observed in the seeking of honors, unless the law of the municipality or a perpetual custom forbids.

Dig. 3.4.6.1

Digest 3.4.6.1

Paulus 9 ad ed.

Paulus 9 on the edict.

Si decuriones decreverunt actionem per eum movendam quem duumviri elegerint, is videtur ab ordine electus et ideo experiri potest: parvi enim refert, ipse ordo elegerit an is cui ordo negotium dedit. sed si ita decreverint, ut quaecumque incidisset controversia, eius petendae negotium titius haberet, ipso iure id decretum nullius momenti esse, quia non possit videri de ea re, quae adhuc in controversia non sit, decreto datam persecutionem. sed hodie haec omnia per syndicos solent secundum locorum consuetudinem explicari.

If the decurions have decreed that an action is to be set in motion through him whom the duumvirs shall have chosen, he is deemed to have been chosen by the order, and therefore he can proceed; for it matters little whether the order itself chose, or the one to whom the order gave the business. But if they have so decreed that, whatever controversy might have arisen, Titius should have the business of claiming it, by the law itself that decree is of no effect, because it cannot be considered that a prosecution has been given by decree concerning a matter which is not yet in controversy. But today all these things are wont to be handled through syndics, according to local custom.

Dig. 3.4.6.2

Digest 3.4.6.2

Paulus 9 ad ed.

Paulus 9 on the Edict.

Quid si actor datus postea decreto decurionum prohibitus sit, an exceptio ei noceat? et puto sic hoc accipiendum, ut ei permissa videatur, cui et permissa durat.

What if the actor appointed is later prohibited by a decree of the decurions—does the exception harm him? And I think this should be understood thus: that it is deemed permitted to him for whom the permission also endures.

Dig. 3.4.6.3

Digest 3.4.6.3

Paulus 9 ad ed.

Paulus, 9 on the Edict.

Actor universitatis si agat, compellitur etiam defendere, non autem compellitur cavere de rato. sed interdum si de decreto dubitetur, puto interponendam et de rato cautionem. actor itaque iste procuratoris partibus fungitur et iudicati actio ei ex edicto non datur nisi in rem suam datus sit.

If the actor of a universitas brings suit, he is compelled also to defend, but he is not compelled to give a de rato security. But sometimes, if there is doubt about the decree, I think that a de rato caution too should be interposed. Accordingly, this actor performs the functions of a procurator, and the actio iudicati is not granted to him under the edict unless he has been appointed in rem suam.

et constitui ei potest. ex isdem causis mutandi actoris potestas erit, ex quibus etiam procuratoris. actor etiam filius familias dari potest.

and it can also be constituted for him. From the same causes there will be a power of changing the actor, as there is also of the procurator. An actor too may be appointed though a son under paternal power.

Dig. 3.4.7pr.

Digest 3.4.7pr.

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 10 on the Edict.

Sicut municipum nomine actionem praetor dedit, ita et adversus eos iustissime edicendum putavit. sed et legato, qui in negotium publicum sumptum fecit, puto dandam actionem in municipes.

Just as the praetor gave an action in the name of the municipes, so too he thought it most just that an edict be issued against them. But also to the legate, who incurred expense in a public business, I think an action should be given against the municipes.

Dig. 3.4.7.1

Digest 3.4.7.1

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 10 on the Edict.

Si quid universitati debetur, singulis non debetur: nec quod debet universitas singuli debent.

If anything is owed to the corporate body, it is not owed to the individuals; nor do the individuals owe what the corporate body owes.

Dig. 3.4.7.2

Digest 3.4.7.2

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, 10, on the Edict.

In decurionibus vel aliis universitatibus nihil refert, utrum omnes idem maneant an pars maneat vel omnes immutati sint. sed si universitas ad unum redit, magis admittitur posse eum convenire et conveniri, cum ius omnium in unum recciderit et stet nomen universitatis.

In the case of decurions or other corporations, it makes no difference whether all remain the same, or a part remains, or all have been changed. But if the corporation returns to one, it is more readily admitted that he can sue and be sued, since the right of all has reverted into one and the name of the corporation stands.

Dig. 3.4.8

Digest 3.4.8

Iavolenus 15 ex cass.

Javolenus 15 from Cassius.

Civitates si per eos qui res earum administrant non defenduntur nec quicquam est corporale rei publicae quod possideatur, per actiones debitorum civitatis agentibus satisfieri oportet.

If communities are not defended by those who administer their affairs, and there is nothing corporeal of the commonwealth that can be possessed, those who are suing ought to be satisfied through actions against the city’s debtors.

Dig. 3.4.9

Digest 3.4.9

Pomponius 13 ad sab.

Pomponius, 13 on Sabinus.

Si tibi cum municipibus hereditas communis erit, familiae erciscundae iudicium inter vos redditur. idemque dicendum est et in finium regundorum et aquae pluviae arcendae iudicio.

If an inheritance is shared with your fellow townsmen, the action for partition of the family estate is rendered between you. And the same is to be said also in the action for regulating boundaries and in the action for warding off rainwater.

Dig. 3.4.10

Digest 3.4.10

Paulus 1 manual.

Constitui potest actor etiam ad operis novi nuntiationem et ad stipulationes interponendas, veluti legatorum, damni infecti, iudicatum solvi, quamvis servo potius civitatis caveri debeat: sed et si actori cautum fuerit, utilis actio administratori rerum civitatis dabitur.

An agent (actor) can also be appointed for an announcement of a new work (operis novi nuntiationem) and for interposing stipulations, such as of legacies, of damnum infectum, and of iudicatum solvi, although security ought rather to be taken from the slave of the city; but even if security has been furnished to the agent, a useful action will be granted to the administrator of the affairs of the city.

Dig. 3.5.0. De negotiis gestis.

Digest 3.5.0. On business transacted.

Dig. 3.5.1

Digest 3.5.1

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 10 on the Edict.

Hoc edictum necessarium est, quoniam magna utilitas absentium versatur, ne indefensi rerum possessionem aut venditionem patiantur vel pignoris distractionem vel poenae committendae actionem, vel iniuria rem suam amittant.

This edict is necessary, since a great interest of the absent is involved, lest, undefended, they suffer the possession or vendition of their goods, or the distraction of a pledge, or an action for a penalty to be incurred, or by injustice lose their own property.

Dig. 3.5.2

Digest 3.5.2

Gaius 3 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 3 on the provincial edict

Si quis absentis negotia gesserit licet ignorantis, tamen quidquid utiliter in rem eius impenderit vel etiam ipse se in rem absentis alicui obligaverit, habet eo nomine actionem: itaque eo casu ultro citroque nascitur actio, quae appellatur negotiorum gestorum. et sane sicut aequum est ipsum actus sui rationem reddere et eo nomine condemnari, quidquid vel non ut oportuit gessit vel ex his negotiis retinet: ita ex diverso iustum est, si utiliter gessit, praestari ei, quidquid eo nomine vel abest ei vel afuturum est.

If anyone has managed the business of an absent person, even though without his knowing, nevertheless whatever he has usefully expended into his interest, or even has himself bound himself to someone in the interest of the absent, he has an action under that title: and so in that case an action arises on both sides, which is called the management of business. And indeed, just as it is equitable that he himself render an account of his acts and be condemned under that head, for whatever he either handled not as was proper or retains from these businesses: so conversely it is just, if he has managed usefully, that there be made good to him whatever under that head either is lacking to him or will be lacking.

Dig. 3.5.3pr.

Digest 3.5.3, preface.

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, 10 on the Edict.

Ait praetor: " si quis negotia alterius, sive quis negotia, quae cuiusque cum is moritur fuerint, gesserit: iudicium eo nomine dabo. "

The praetor says: " if anyone has managed the affairs of another, or if anyone has managed the affairs which belong to anyone at the time when he dies: I will grant an action on that ground. "

Dig. 3.5.3.1

Digest 3.5.3.1

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, 10 on the Edict.

Haec verba " si quis" sic sunt accipienda " sive quae": nam et mulieres negotiorum gestorum agere posse et conveniri non dubitatur.

These words " si quis" are to be understood thus, " sive quae": for it is not doubted that women too can both bring an action for business transacted and be sued.

Dig. 3.5.3.2

Digest 3.5.3.2

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 10 on the Edict.

" negotia" sic accipe, sive unum sive plura.

" transactions" take thus, whether one or several.

Dig. 3.5.3.3

Digest 3.5.3.3

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 10 on the Edict.

" alterius", inquit: et hoc ad utrumque sexum refertur.

" of the other", he says: and this is referred to both sexes.

Dig. 3.5.3.4

Digest 3.5.3.4

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, 10, on the Edict.

Pupillus sane si negotia gesserit, post rescriptum divi pii etiam conveniri potest in id quod factus est locupletior: agendo autem compensationem eius quod gessit patitur.

A ward, indeed, if he has managed business, after the rescript of the deified Pius can also be sued to the extent that he has become more wealthy; however, by bringing an action he undergoes set-off (compensation) for what he has managed.

Dig. 3.5.3.5

Digest 3.5.3.5

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian 10 on the edict.

Et si furiosi negotia gesserim, competit mihi adversus eum negotiorum gestorum actio: curatori autem furiosi vel furiosae adversus eum eamve dandam actionem labeo ait.

And if I have managed the affairs of a mad person, the action of negotiorum gestorum lies for me against him; moreover, Labeo says that to the curator of a madman or madwoman this action should be granted against him or her.

Dig. 3.5.3.6

Digest 3.5.3.6

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, 10 on the Edict.

Haec verba: " sive quis negotia, quae cuiusque cum is moritur fuerint, gesserit" significant illud tempus, quo quis post mortem alicuius negotia gessit: de quo fuit necessarium edicere, quoniam neque testatoris iam defuncti neque heredis qui nondum adiit negotium gessisse videtur. sed si quid accessit post mortem, ut puta partus et fetus et fructus, vel si quid servi adquisierint: etsi his verbis non continentur, pro adiecto tamen debent accipi.

These words: "or if anyone should have managed the affairs which belonged to someone at the time when he dies" signify that period in which someone has managed another’s affairs after his death: about which it was necessary
to issue an edict, since neither the testator now deceased nor the heir who has not yet entered upon the inheritance is seen to have managed the business. But if anything has accrued after death—say, offspring and young and fruits—
or if slaves have acquired anything: although these are not contained in these words, nevertheless they ought to be taken as by way of addition.

Dig. 3.5.3.7

Digest 3.5.3.7

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, 10 on the Edict.

Haec autem actio cum ex negotio gesto oriatur, et heredi et in heredem competit.

This action, moreover, since it arises from a managed business, lies both for the heir and against the heir.

Dig. 3.5.3.8

Digest 3.5.3.8

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, 10 on the Edict.

Si exsecutor a praetore in negotio meo datus dolum mihi fecerit, dabitur mihi adversus eum actio.

If an executor assigned by the praetor in my business has done me fraud, an action will be given to me against him.

Dig. 3.5.3.9

Digest 3.5.3.9

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, 10 on the Edict.

Interdum in negotiorum gestorum actione labeo scribit dolum solummodo versari: nam si affectione coactus, ne bona mea distrahantur, negotiis te meis optuleris, aequissimum esse dolum dumtaxat te praestare: quae sententia habet aequitatem.

Sometimes, in the action for the management of affairs, Labeo writes that only fraud is at issue: for if, compelled by affection, lest my goods be sold off, you have offered yourself to my affairs, it is most equitable that you be liable only for fraud; which opinion has equity.

Dig. 3.5.3.10

Digest 3.5.3.10

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, 10 on the Edict.

Hanc actione tenetur non solum is qui sponte et nulla necessitate cogente immiscuit se negotiis alienis et ea gessit, verum et is qui aliqua necessitate urguente vel necessitatis suspicione gessit.

One is held by this action not only he who, of his own accord and with no necessity compelling, intermingled himself with another’s affairs and managed them, but also he who managed under some necessity pressing or under a suspicion of necessity.

Dig. 3.5.3.11

Digest 3.5.3.11

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 10 on the Edict.

Apud Marcellum libro secundo digestorum quaeritur, si, cum proposuissem negotia titii gerere, tu mihi mandaveris ut geram, an utraque actione uti possim? et ego puto utramque locum habere. quemadmodum ipse Marcellus scribit, si fideiussorem accepero negotia gesturus: nam et hic dicit adversus utrumque esse actionem.

In Marcellus, in the second book of the Digests, it is asked whether, if, when I had proposed to manage Titius’s affairs, you gave me a mandate that I should manage them, I can employ both actions? And I for my part think
that both have a place. Just as Marcellus himself writes, if, being about to manage the affairs, I have taken a surety: for here too he says that there is an action against both.

Dig. 3.5.4

Digest 3.5.4

Ulpianus 45 ad sab.

Ulpian, 45 on Sabinus.

Sed videamus, an fideiussor hic habere aliquam actionem possit: et verum est negotiorum gestorum eum agere posse, nisi donandi animo fideiussit.

But let us see whether the surety here can have any action: and it is true that he can bring the action of negotiorum gestorum, unless he became surety with the intention of making a gift.

Dig. 3.5.5pr.

Digest 3.5.5pr.

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 10 on the Edict.

Item si, cum putavi a te mihi mandatum, negotia gessi, et hic nascitur negotiorum gestorum actio cessante mandati actione. idem est etiam, si pro te fideiussero, dum puto mihi a te mandatum esse.

Likewise, if, when I supposed that a mandate had been given to me by you, I managed your affairs, then here the action for the management of affairs arises, the action on mandate ceasing. The same is so also if I have stood as surety for you, while I suppose that a mandate has been given to me by you.

Dig. 3.5.5.1

Digest 3.5.5.1

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 10 on the Edict.

Sed et si, cum putavi titii negotia esse, cum essent sempronii, ea gessi, solus sempronius mihi actione negotiorum gestorum tenetur.

But also, if, when I thought the affairs were Titius’s, whereas they were Sempronius’s, I managed them, only Sempronius is held to me by the action of negotiorum gestorum.

Dig. 3.5.5.2

Digest 3.5.5.2

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 10 on the Edict.

Iulianus libro tertio digestorum scribit, si pupilli tui negotia gessero non mandato tuo, sed ne tutelae iudicio tenearis, negotiorum gestorum te habebo obligatum: sed et pupillum, modo si locupletior fuerit factus.

Julian, in the third book of the Digests, writes: if I have managed the affairs of your ward not by your mandate, but so that you not be held liable by the guardianship action, I shall hold you obligated under the action for business managed (negotiorum gestorum); and the ward as well, provided that he has been enriched.

Dig. 3.5.5.3

Digest 3.5.5.3

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 10 on the Edict.

Item si procuratori tuo mutuam pecuniam dedero tui contemplatione, ut creditorem tuum vel pignus tuum liberet, adversus te negotiorum gestorum habebo actionem, adversus eum cum quo contraxi nullam. quid tamen si a procuratore tuo stipulatus sum? potest dici superesse mihi adversus te negotiorum gestorum actionem, quia ex abundanti hanc stipulationem interposui.

Likewise, if I have given a loan of money to your procurator in contemplation of you, so that he might discharge your creditor or redeem your pledge, I will have an action of negotiorum gestorum against you, against him with whom I contracted none. But what, however, if I have stipulated from your procurator? It can be said that there remains to me an action of negotiorum gestorum against you, because I interposed this stipulation ex abundanti.

Dig. 3.5.5.4

Digest 3.5.5.4

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, On the Edict, 10.

Si quis pecuniam vel aliam quandam rem ad me perferendam acceperit: quia meum negotium gessit, negotiorum gestorum mihi actio adversus eum competit.

If anyone has received money or some other thing to be carried to me: since he has conducted my business, the action on business transacted (negotiorum gestorum) is available to me against him.

Dig. 3.5.5.5

Digest 3.5.5.5

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, 10 on the Edict.

Sed et si quis negotia mea gessit non mei contemplatione, sed sui lucri causa, labeo scripsit suum eum potius quam meum negotium gessisse ( qui enim depraedandi causa accedit, suo lucro, non meo commodo studet): sed nihilo minus, immo magis et is tenebitur negotiorum gestorum actione. ipse tamen si circa res meas aliquid impenderit, non in id quod ei abest, quia improbe ad negotia mea accessit, sed in quod ego locupletior factus sum habet contra me actionem.

But also if someone has conducted my business not out of consideration for me, but for the sake of his own lucre, Labeo wrote that he conducted his own business rather than mine ( for he who approaches for the purpose of depredation aims at his own profit, not at my advantage): but nonetheless, nay rather all the more, even he will be held by the action of business managed. he himself, however, if he has expended something around my affairs, has an action against me not for that which is lacking to him, because he approached my business improperly, but for that by which I have been made more enriched.

Dig. 3.5.5.6

Digest 3.5.5.6

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, On the Edict, book 10.

Si quis ita simpliciter versatus est, ut suum negotium in suis bonis quasi meum gesserit, nulla ex utroque latere nascitur actio, quia nec fides bona hoc patitur. quod si et suum et meum quasi meum gesserit, in meum tenebitur: nam et si cui mandavero, ut meum negotium gerat, quod mihi tecum erat commune, dicendum esse labeo ait, si et tuum gessit sciens, negotiorum gestorum eum tibi teneri.

If someone has conducted himself so simply that he has managed his own business in his own property as if it were mine, no action arises on either side, because good faith does not allow this. but if he has managed both his own
and mine as if mine, he will be held liable to me: for even if I have given a mandate to someone to manage my business, which was common to me with you, Labeo says it must be said that, if he also knowingly managed yours,
he is held to you by the action for management of affairs.

Dig. 3.5.5.7

Digest 3.5.5.7

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 10 on the Edict.

Si quis quasi servus meus negotium meum gesserit, cum esset vel libertus vel ingenuus, dabitur negotiorum gestorum actio.

If someone, as if my slave, has managed my business, although he was either a freedman or freeborn, an action for business transacted will be given.

Dig. 3.5.5.8

Digest 3.5.5.8

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, 10, on the Edict.

Sed si ego tui filii negotia gessero vel servi, videamus, an tecum negotiorum gestorum habeam actionem. et mihi videtur verum, quod labeo distinguit et pomponius libro vicensimo sexto probat, ut si quidem contemplatione tui negotia gessi peculiaria, tu mihi tenearis: quod si amicitia filii tui vel servi, vel eorum contemplatione, adversus patrem vel dominum de peculio dumtaxat dandam actionem. idemque est et si sui iuris esse eos putavi.

But if I have managed the business of your son or of your slave, let us see whether I have the action of business transacted against you. And it seems true to me, the distinction which Labeo draws and which Pomponius in the twenty-sixth book approves, that if indeed in contemplation of you I managed business pertaining to the peculium, you should be liable to me: but if on account of the friendship of your son or your slave, or in contemplation of them, an action should be given against the father
or the master de peculio only. And the same is the case even if I supposed them to be sui iuris.

nam et si servum non necessarium emero filio tuo et tu ratum habueris, nihil agitur ratihabitione eodem loco pomponius scribit hoc adiecto, quod putat, etsi nihil sit in peculio, quoniam plus patri dominove debetur, et in patrem dandam actionem, in quantum locupletior ex mea administratione factus sit.

for even if I buy an unnecessary slave for your son and you have ratified it, nothing is effected by the ratification;
in the same place Pomponius writes this with the following added, that he thinks that, even if there is nothing in the peculium, since more is owed to the father or master, an action is also to be given against the father, in
so far as he has been enriched by my administration.

Dig. 3.5.5.9

Digest 3.5.5.9

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, On the Edict, book 10.

Sed si hominis liberi qui tibi bona fide serviebat negotia gessero: si quidem putans tuum esse servum gessi, pomponius scribit earum rerum peculiarium causa, quae te sequi debent, tecum mihi fore negotiorum gestorum actionem, earum vero rerum, quae ipsum sequuntur, non tecum, sed cum ipso. sed si liberum scivi, earum quidem rerum, quae eum sequuntur, habebo adversus eum actionem, earum vero, quae te sequuntur, adversus te.

But if I have managed the business of a free man who was serving you in good faith: if indeed, thinking him to be your slave, I acted, Pomponius writes that, for the sake of those peculium-matters which ought to follow you, I will have against you an action for business transacted; but as to those things which follow him himself, not against you, but against him. but if I knew him to be free, as to those things which follow him, I will have an action against him; but as to those which follow you, against you.

Dig. 3.5.5.10

Digest 3.5.5.10

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 10 on the Edict.

Si titii servum putans qui erat sempronii, dedero pecuniam ne occideretur, ut pomponius ait, habebo negotiorum gestorum adversus sempronium actionem.

If, thinking that the slave was Titius’s who was in fact Sempronius’s, I have given money so that he not be killed, as Pomponius says, I shall have an action of negotiorum gestorum against Sempronius.

Dig. 3.5.5.11

Digest 3.5.5.11

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, 10 On the Edict.

Item quaeritur apud pedium libro septimo, si titium quasi debitorem tuum extra iudicium admonuero et is mihi solverit, cum debitor non esset, tuque postea cognoveris et ratum habueris: an negotiorum gestorum actione me possis convenire. et ait dubitari posse, quia nullum negotium tuum gestum est, cum debitor tuus non fuerit. sed ratihabitio, inquit, fecit tuum negotium: et sicut ei a quo exactum est adversus eum datur repetitio qui ratum habuit, ita et ipsi debebit post ratihabitionem adversus me competere actio.

Likewise it is asked in Pedius, Book Seven, if I have admonished Titius, as if he were your debtor, out of court, and he has paid me, when he was not a debtor, and you afterwards have come to know and have ratified it: whether you can bring an action against me by the action of management of affairs (negotiorum gestorum). And he says it can be doubted, because no business of yours was managed, since he had not been your debtor. But ratihabition, he says, made it your business: and just as a repetition is given to him from whom it was exacted against the one who ratified it, so also to him, after ratihabition, the action ought to lie against me.

sic ratihabitio constituet tuum negotium, quod ab initio tuum non erat, sed tua contemplatione gestum.

thus
ratification will constitute your business, which from the beginning was not yours, but was transacted in contemplation of you.

Dig. 3.5.5.12

Digest 3.5.5.12

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 10 on the Edict.

Idem ait, si titii debitorem, cui te heredem putabam, cum esset seius heres, convenero similiter et exegero, mox tu ratum habueris: esse mihi adversus te et tibi mutuam negotiorum gestorum actionem. adquin alienum negotium gestum est: sed ratihabitio hoc conciliat: quae res efficit, ut tuum negotium gestum videatur et a te hereditas peti possit.

He likewise says, if I have proceeded against the debtor of Titius, of whom I supposed you to be the heir, whereas Seius was the heir, and I have similarly brought suit and exacted, and soon thereafter you have ratified it: there exists for me against you, and for you, a reciprocal action of negotiorum gestorum. Nay rather, another’s business was managed; but ratification brings this about, which makes it so that your business appears to have been managed, and that the inheritance can be claimed by you.

Dig. 3.5.5.13

Digest 3.5.5.13

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, On the Edict, book 10.

Quid ergo, inquit pedius, si, cum te heredem putarem, insulam fulsero hereditariam tuque ratum habueris, an sit mihi adversus te actio? sed non fore ait, cum hoc facto meo alter sit locupletatus et alterius re ipsa gestum negotium sit, nec possit, quod alii adquisitum est ipso gestu, hoc tuum negotium videri.

“What then,” says Pedius, “if, when I supposed you to be heir, I have shored up a tenement belonging to the inheritance and you have ratified it—do I have an action against you?” But he says there will not be, since by this my act one person has been enriched and the business of another has in fact been managed, nor can that which has been acquired for another by the very management be deemed your business.

Dig. 3.5.5.14

Digest 3.5.5.14

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 10 on the Edict.

Videamus in persona eius, qui negotia administrat, si quaedam gessit quaedam non, contemplatione tamen eius alius ad haec non accessit, et si vir diligens ( quod ab eo exigimus) etiam ea gesturus fuit: an dici debeat negotiorum gestorum eum teneri et propter ea quae non gessit? quod puto verius. certe si quid a se exigere debuit, procul dubio hoc ei imputabitur. quamquam enim hoc ei imputari non possit, cur alios debitores non convenerit, quoniam conveniendi eos iudicio facultatem non habuit, qui nullam actionem intendere potuit: tamen a semet ipso cur non exegerit, ei imputabitur: et si forte non fuerit usurarium debitum, incipit esse usurarium, ut divus pius flavio longino rescripsit: nisi forte, inquit, usuras ei remiserat:

Let us consider, in the person of one who administers affairs, if he has managed certain things and not others, yet in contemplation of him another did not approach these matters, and if a diligent man ( which we require of him) would also have been going to manage those: whether he ought to be said to be held under the action of negotiorum gestorum even on account of those things which he did not manage? which I think more correct. Certainly, if he ought to have exacted anything from himself, without doubt this will be imputed to him. For although this cannot be imputed to him—why he did not convene the other debtors—since he did not have the faculty by judgment of convening them, who could bring no action: nevertheless, why he did not exact from himself will be imputed to him: and if by chance the debt was not usurious, it begins to be usurious, as the deified Pius wrote back to Flavius Longinus: unless perhaps, he says, he had remitted the interest to him:

Dig. 3.5.6

Digest 3.5.6

Paulus 9 ad ed.

Paulus, 9 on the Edict.

Quia tantundem in bonae fidei iudiciis officium iudicis valet, quantum in stipulatione nominatim eius rei facta interrogatio.

Because in good‑faith adjudications the office (duty) of the judge has as much force as the interrogation made in a stipulation expressly naming that matter.

Dig. 3.5.7pr.

Digest 3.5.7, preface.

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 10 on the Edict.

Si autem is fuit qui negotia administravit a quo mandatum non exigebatur, posse ei imputari, cur oblata de rato cautione eum non convenit: si modo facile ei fuerit satisdare. certe in sua persona indubitatum est: et ideo si ex causa fuit obligatus, quae certo tempore finiebatur, et tempore liberatus est, nihilo minus negotiorum gestorum actione erit obligatus. idem erit dicendum et in ea causa, ex qua heres non teneretur, ut Marcellus scribit.

But if the one who administered the affairs was a person from whom a mandate was not required, it can be imputed to him why, when security for ratification (de rato) was offered, he did not bring proceedings against him: provided it would have been easy for him to furnish surety. certainly, as regards his own person, it is undoubted: and therefore, if he was obligated from a cause which was terminated at a fixed time, and was released by the lapse of time, nonetheless he will be bound by the action for management of affairs. the same must be said also in that case from which the heir would not be held, as Marcellus writes.

Dig. 3.5.7.1

Digest 3.5.7.1

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 10 on the Edict.

Item si fundum tuum vel civitatis per obreptionem petiero negotium tuum vel civitatis gerens et ampliores quam oportuit fructus fuero consecutus, debebo hoc ipsum tibi vel rei publicae praestare, licet petere non potuerim.

Likewise, if I shall have sought your estate or that of the city by obreption, managing your business or that of the city, and shall have obtained fruits greater than was proper, I shall owe to render this very thing to you or to the commonwealth, although I could not have brought suit.

Dig. 3.5.7.2

Digest 3.5.7.2

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, On the Edict, book 10.

Si quocumque modo ratio compensationis habita non est a iudice, potest contrario iudicio agi: quod si post examinationem reprobatae fuerint pensationes, verius est quasi re iudicata amplius agi contrario iudicio non posse, quia exceptio rei iudicatae opponenda est.

If in whatever way the reckoning of compensation has not been taken into account by the judge, it is possible to proceed by a contrary action: but if after examination the compensations have been disapproved, the truer view is that, as if by res iudicata, it is no longer possible to proceed further by a contrary action, because the exceptio rei iudicatae must be opposed.

Dig. 3.5.7.3

Digest 3.5.7.3

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, in the 10th [book] on the Edict.

Iulianus libro tertio tractat, si ex duobus sociis alter me prohibuerit administrare, alter non: an adversus eum qui non prohibuit habebam negotiorum gestorum actionem? movetur eo, quod, si data fuerit adversus eum actio, necesse erit et eum pertingi qui vetuit: sed et illud esse iniquum eum qui non prohibuit alieno facto liberari, cum et si mutuam pecuniam alteri ex sociis prohibente socio dedissem, utique eum obligarem. et puto secundum iulianum debere dici superesse contra eum qui non prohibuit negotiorum gestorum actionem, ita tamen ut is qui prohibuit ex nulla parte neque per socium neque per ipsum aliquid damni sentiat.

Julianus in the third book discusses: if, out of two partners, one has forbidden me to administer and the other has not—am I to have an action of business managed against the one who did not forbid?
The matter is moved by this, that, if an action be granted against him, it will be necessary that he also who forbade be reached; but it is likewise unjust that he who did not forbid be freed by another’s act, since even if I had given a loan of money to one of the partners, a partner forbidding, I would surely bind him. And I think, according to Julianus, it ought to be said that the action of business managed remains against him who did not forbid, yet in such a way that he who forbade in no respect suffers any loss, neither through the partner nor by himself.

Dig. 3.5.8

Digest 3.5.8

Scaevola 1 quaest.

Scaevola, Questions 1.

Pomponius scribit, si negotium a te quamvis male gestum probavero, negotiorum tamen gestorum te mihi non teneri. videndum ergo ne in dubio hoc, an ratum habeam, actio negotiorum gestorum pendeat: nam quomodo, cum semel coeperit, nuda voluntate tolletur? sed superius ita verum se putare, si dolus malus a te absit.

Pomponius writes that, if I approve the business transacted by you, however badly it was conducted, nevertheless you are not held to me under the action for management of affairs (negotiorum gestorum). Therefore it must be considered whether in this doubt—whether I hold it ratified—the action for management of affairs hangs suspended: for how, once it has begun, will it be removed by bare will? But he thinks the foregoing to be true thus, if malicious fraud is absent on your part.

scaevola: immo puto et si comprobem, adhuc negotiorum gestorum actionem esse, sed eo dictum te mihi non teneri, quod reprobare non possim semel probatum: et quemadmodum quod utiliter gestum est necesse est apud iudicem pro rato haberi, ita omne quod ab ipso probatum est. ceterum si ubi probavi, non est negotiorum actio: quid fiet, si a debitore meo exegerit et probaverim? quemadmodum recipiam?

scaevola: rather, I think that even if I approve, there is still an action of business-managed (negotiorum gestorum), but that it is said you are not held to me for this reason, that I cannot disapprove what has once been approved: and just as what has been usefully managed must be held by the judge as ratified, so too everything that has been approved by him. but if, where I have approved, there is no action of business-managed: what will happen, if he has exacted from my debtor and I have approved? how shall I recover it?

item si vendiderit? ipse denique si quid impendit, quemadmodum recipiet? nam utique mandatum non est.

likewise, if he has sold? he himself, finally, if he has expended anything, how will he recover it? for assuredly there is no mandate.

erit igitur et post ratihabitionem negotiorum gestorum actio.

therefore there will be an action of negotiorum gestorum even after
ratihabition.

Dig. 3.5.9pr.

Digest 3.5.9, beginning.

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 10 on the Edict.

Sed an ultro mihi tribuitur actio sumptuum quos feci? et puto competere, nisi specialiter id actum est, ut neuter adversus alterum habeat actionem.

But is an action for the expenses which I have incurred granted to me of itself? And I think it lies, unless it has been specially agreed that neither shall have an action against the other.

Dig. 3.5.9.1

Digest 3.5.9.1

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 10, on the Edict.

Is autem qui negotiorum gestorum agit non solum si effectum habuit negotium quod gessit, actione ista utetur, sed sufficit, si utiliter gessit, etsi effectum non habuit negotium. et ideo si insulam fulsit vel servum aegrum curavit, etiamsi insula exusta est vel servus obit, aget negotiorum gestorum: idque et labeo probat. sed ut celsus refert, proculus apud eum notat non semper debere dari.

But he who brings the action of negotiorum gestorum will use this action not only if the business which he transacted achieved its effect, but it suffices if he managed it usefully, even if the business did not achieve its effect. And therefore, if he shored up a tenement or cared for a sick slave, even if the tenement was burned down or the slave died, he will bring negotiorum gestorum: and Labeo also approves this. But, as Celsus relates, Proculus notes with him that it ought not always to be granted.

quid enim si eam insulam fulsit, quam dominus quasi inpar sumptui deliquerit vel quam sibi necessariam non putavit? oneravit, inquit, dominum secundum labeonis sententiam, cum unicuique liceat et damni infecti nomine rem derelinquere. sed istam sententiam celsus eleganter deridet: is enim negotiorum gestorum, inquit, habet actionem, qui utiliter negotia gessit: non autem utiliter negotia gerit, qui rem non necessariam vel quae oneratura est patrem familias adgreditur.

What, then, if he shored up that tenement which the dominus, as unequal to the expense, had abandoned, or which he did not reckon necessary to himself? He has burdened, he says, the owner, according to Labeo’s opinion, since it is permitted to anyone even to abandon a thing under the head of damnum infectum (threatened damage). But Celsus elegantly derides that opinion: for, he says, he has the negotiorum gestorum action who has managed the affairs usefully; but he does not manage the affairs usefully who undertakes a thing not necessary, or one that would burden the paterfamilias.

iuxta hoc est et, quod iulianus scribit, eum qui insulam fulsit vel servum aegrotum curavit, habere negotiorum gestorum actionem, si utiliter hoc faceret, licet eventus non sit secutus. ego quaero: quid si putavit se utiliter facere, sed patri familias non expediebat? dico hunc non habiturum negotiorum gestorum actionem: ut enim eventum non spectamus, debet utiliter esse coeptum.

in line with this
there is also what julian writes: that he who shored up an insula (apartment-house) or cared for a sick slave has the action of negotiorum gestorum, if he did this usefully, even if the result did not follow. i
ask: what if he thought he was acting usefully, but it was not expedient for the paterfamilias? i say that he will not have the action of negotiorum gestorum: for just as we do not look to the outcome, it must
have been usefully undertaken.

Dig. 3.5.10

Digest 3.5.10

Pomponius 21 ad q. muc.

Pomponius, 21, on Quintus Mucius.

Si negotia absentis et ignorantis geras, et culpam et dolum praestare debes. sed proculus interdum etiam casum praestare debere, veluti si novum negotium, quod non sit solitus absens facere, tu nomine eius geras: veluti venales novicios coemendo vel aliquam negotiationem ineundo. nam si quid damnum ex ea re secutum fuerit, te sequetur, lucrum vero absentem: quod si in quibusdam lucrum factum fuerit, in quibusdam damnum, absens pensare lucrum cum damno debet.

If you conduct the business of someone absent and unaware, you must be liable for both fault and fraud. But Proculus says that sometimes you must even be liable for accident, as if you were to transact a new line of business, which the absentee is not accustomed to do, in his name: for instance, by buying up newly imported slaves for sale, or by entering into some trade. For if any loss has resulted from that matter, it will attach to you, but the profit to the absentee; yet if in some items profit has been made and in others loss, the absentee ought to balance the profit with the loss.

Dig. 3.5.11pr.

Digest 3.5.11pr.

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 10 on the Edict.

Successori eius, cuius fuerunt negotia, qui apud hostes decessit, haec actio danda erit.

To the successor of the one whose affairs they were, who died among the enemy, this action will be granted.

Dig. 3.5.11.1

Digest 3.5.11.1

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, 10 on the Edict.

Sed si filii familias militis defuncti testamento facto gessi, similiter erit danda actio.

But if I have administered under the testament of a deceased soldier who was a son under paternal power, similarly an action will have to be granted.

Dig. 3.5.11.2

Digest 3.5.11.2

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 10, on the Edict.

Sicut autem in negotiis vivorum gestis sufficit utiliter negotium gestum, ita et in bonis mortuorum, licet diversus exitus sit secutus.

Just as, moreover, in the affairs of the living that have been transacted, it suffices that the business was usefully transacted, so also in the goods of the dead, even though a different outcome has followed.

Dig. 3.5.12

Digest 3.5.12

Paulus 9 ad ed.

Paulus, On the Edict, book 9.

Debitor meus, qui mihi quinquaginta debebat, decessit: huius hereditatis curationem suscepi et impendi decem: deinde redacta ex venditione rei hereditariae centum in arca reposui: haec sine culpa mea perierunt. quaesitum est, an ab herede, qui quandoque extitisset, vel creditam pecuniam quinquaginta petere possim vel decem quae impendi. iulianus scribit in eo verti quaestionem, ut animadvertamus, an iustam causam habuerim seponendorum centum: nam si debuerim et mihi et ceteris hereditariis creditoribus solvere, periculum non solum sexaginta, sed et reliquorum quadraginta me praestaturum, decem tamen quae impenderim retenturum, id est sola nonaginta restituenda.

My debtor, who owed me fifty, has died: I undertook the curation of this inheritance and expended ten; then, having realized a hundred from the sale of the hereditary property, I deposited it in the strongbox;
these were lost without my fault. The question was asked whether I can demand from the heir, whenever one should appear, either the loaned money, fifty, or the ten which I expended. Julianus writes that the question turns on this, that we should consider whether I had a just cause for setting aside the hundred: for if I ought to have paid both myself and the other creditors of the estate,
I shall bear the risk not only of sixty but also of the remaining forty, yet I shall retain the ten which I spent—that is, only ninety are to be restored.

si vero iusta causa fuerit, propter quam integra centum custodirentur, veluti si periculum erat, ne praedia in publicum committerentur, ne poena traiecticiae pecuniae augeretur aut ex compromisso committeretur: non solum decem, quae in hereditaria negotia impenderim, sed etiam quinquaginta quae mihi debita sunt ab herede me consequi posse.

If, however, there was a just cause on account of which the full hundred were kept intact—for example, if there was danger that the estates might be committed to the public, that the penalty for money sent across (traiecticia pecunia) be increased, or that a forfeit be incurred under a compromissum—then I can obtain from the heir not only the ten which I have expended on the affairs of the inheritance, but also the fifty which are owed to me.

Dig. 3.5.13

Digest 3.5.13

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 10 on the edict.

Si filius familias negotia gessisse proponatur, aequissimum erit in patrem quoque actionem dari, sive peculium habet sive in patris sui vertit: et si ancilla, simili modo.

If a son of the family is alleged to have transacted business, it will be most equitable that an action be granted also against the father, whether he has a peculium or has turned it to his father’s account; and if a maidservant, in a similar way.

Dig. 3.5.14

Digest 3.5.14

Paulus 9 ad ed.

Paulus 9 On the Edict.

Pomponius libro vicensimo sexto in negotiis gestis initio cuiusque temporis condicionem spectandam ait. quid enim, inquit, si pupilli negotia coeperim gerere et inter moras pubes factus sit? vel servi aut filii familias et interea liber aut pater familias effectus sit?

Pomponius, in the twenty-sixth book On Affairs Managed (negotia gesta), says that the condition at the beginning of each time is to be regarded. For what, he says, if I have begun to manage the affairs of a ward, and in the interval he has become of age? or of a slave or of a filius familias, and in the meantime he has become free or a paterfamilias?

hoc ego verius esse didici, nisi si ab initio quasi unum negotium gesturus accessero, deinde alio animo ad alterum accessero eo tempore, quo iam pubes vel liber vel pater familias effectus est: hic enim quasi plura negotia gesta sunt et pro qualitate personarum et actio formatur et condemnatio moderatur.

I have learned that this is truer, unless if from the beginning I have approached as if about to conduct a single transaction, then with a different intent I have approached another at the time when he has already become of age, or free, or a paterfamilias: for here as if several transactions have been conducted, and both the action is formed and the condemnation is moderated according to the quality of the persons.

Dig. 3.5.15

Digest 3.5.15

Paulus 7 ad plaut.

Paulus 7 on plautius.

Sed et cum aliquis negotia mea gerat, non multa negotia sunt, sed unus contractus, nisi si ab initio ad unum negotium accessit, ut finito eo discederet: hoc enim casu si nova voluntate aliquid quoque adgredi coeperit, alius contractus est.

But also when someone manages my affairs, there are not many transactions, but a single contract, unless from the beginning he had engaged for one affair so that, when that was finished, he would depart: for in this case, if with a new will he should also begin to undertake something else, it is another contract.

Dig. 3.5.16

Digest 3.5.16

Ulpianus 35 ad ed.

Ulpian, 35 On the Edict.

Eum actum, quem quis in servitute egit, manumissus non cogitur reddere. plane si quid conexum fuit, ut separari ratio eius quod in servitute gestum est ab eo quod in libertate gessit non possit: constat venire in iudicium vel mandati vel negotiorum gestorum et quod in servitute gestum est. denique si tempore servitutis aream emerit et in ea insulam aedificaverit eaque corruerit, deinde manumissus fundum locaverit: sola locatio fundorum in iudicio negotiorum gestorum deducetur, quia ex superioris temporis administratione nihil amplius in iudicio deduci potest quam id, sine quo ratio libertatis tempore administratorum negotiorum expediri non potest.

The act which someone performed in servitude, when manumitted he is not compelled to render (an account of). clearly, if something was connected, such that the reckoning of that which was transacted in servitude cannot be separated from that which he transacted in liberty: it is agreed that there comes into judgment, whether of mandate or of business managed (negotiorum gestorum), even that which was transacted in servitude. finally, if in the time of servitude he bought a building-lot and on it built an insula (apartment-block) and it collapsed, then, after being manumitted, he leased the estate (fundus): only the leasing of the estate will be brought into the action of business managed, because from the administration of the earlier time nothing more can be brought into the action than that without which the account of the business administered in the time of liberty cannot be settled.

Dig. 3.5.17

Digest 3.5.17

Paulus 9 ad ed.

Paul, Book 9 on the Edict.

Proculus et pegasus bonam fidem eum, qui in servitute gerere coepit, praestare debere aiunt: ideoque quantum, si alius eius negotia gessisset, servare potuisset, tantum eum, qui a semet ipso non exegerit, negotiorum gestorum actione praestaturum, si aliquid habuit in peculio, cuius retentione id servari potest. idem neratius.

Proculus and Pegasus say that he who began to manage while in slavery ought to exhibit good faith; and therefore, as much as could have been preserved if someone else had managed his affairs, so much that man, who did not exact it from himself, will have to make good by the action for business managed, if he had anything in his peculium, by the retention of which that can be preserved. The same [says] Neratius.

Dig. 3.5.18pr.

Digest 3.5.18, preface.

Paulus 2 ad ner.

Paulus, 2 on Neratius.

Adquin natura debitor fuit etiam si in peculio nihil habuit, et si postea habuit, sibi postea solvere debet in eodem actu perseverans: sicut is, qui temporali actione tenebatur, etiam post tempus exactum negotiorum gestorum actione id praestare cogitur.

And indeed he was a debtor by natural obligation even if he had nothing in the peculium; and if afterwards he had, he ought thereafter to pay to him, persevering in the same act: just as he, who was bound by a temporal action,
even after the time has elapsed, is compelled to render it by the action for the management of affairs.

Dig. 3.5.18.1

Digest 3.5.18.1

Paulus 2 ad ner.

Paulus, Book 2 on Neratius.

Scaevola noster ait putare se, quod sabinus scribit debere a capite rationem reddendum sic intellegi, ut appareat, quid reliquum fuerit tunc, cum primum liber esse coeperit, non ut dolum aut culpam in servitute admissam in obligationem revocet: itaque si inveniatur vel malo more pecunia in servitute erogata, liberabitur.

Our Scaevola says that he thinks that what Sabinus writes—that an account ought to be rendered “from the head” (from the principal)—is to be understood thus: that it should appear what remained at the time when he first began to be free, not so as to call back into the obligation fraud or fault committed in servitude: and so, if it be found that even after a bad fashion money was expended in servitude, he will be released.

Dig. 3.5.18.2

Digest 3.5.18.2

Paulus 2 ad ner.

Paulus, Book 2 on Neratius.

Si libero homini, qui bona fide mihi serviebat, mandem, ut aliquid agat, non fore cum eo mandati actionem labeo ait, quia non libera voluntate exsequitur rem sibi mandatam, sed quasi ex necessitate servili: erit igitur negotiorum gestorum actio, quia et gerendi negotii mei habuerit affectionem et is fuit, quem obligare possem.

If I give a mandate to a free man who in good faith was serving me, to do something, Labeo says that there will not be an action of mandate with him, because he does not execute the matter entrusted to him by a free will, but as if from a servile necessity: therefore there will be an action of negotiorum gestorum, because both he had the disposition for managing my business and he was someone whom I could obligate.

Dig. 3.5.18.3

Digest 3.5.18.3

Paulus 2 ad ner.

Paulus, Book 2, on Neratius.

Cum me absente negotia mea gereres, imprudens rem meam emisti et ignorans usucepisti: mihi negotiorum gestorum ut restituas obligatus non es. sed si, antequam usucapias, cognoscas rem meam esse, subicere debes aliquem, qui a te petat meo nomine, ut et mihi rem et tibi stipulationem evictionis committat: nec videris dolum malum facere in hac subiectione: ideo enim hoc facere debes, ne actione negotiorum gestorum tenearis.

While I was absent, as you were managing my affairs, you unwittingly bought my property and, in ignorance, acquired it by usucapion: you are not obliged to me, under negotiorum gestorum, to restore it. But if, before you usucapt,
you come to know that the thing is mine, you ought to put forward someone who may demand from you in my name, so that both the thing may be committed to me and the stipulation of eviction to you: nor would you seem to be committing dolus malus in this
subjection; for you ought to do this, lest you be held by the action of negotiorum gestorum.

Dig. 3.5.18.4

Digest 3.5.18.4

Paulus 2 ad ner.

Paul, Book 2, On Neratius.

Non tantum sortem, verum etiam usuras ex pecunia aliena perceptas negotiorum gestorum iudicio praestabimus, vel etiam quas percipere potuimus. contra quoque usuras, quas praestavimus vel quas ex nostra pecunia percipere potuimus quam in aliena negotia impendimus, servabimus negotiorum gestorum iudicio.

Not only the principal, but also the usuries (interest) received from another’s money we will make good by the action for business transacted, and even those which we could have received.
Conversely, the usuries (interest) which we have paid, or which we could have received from our own money that we expended on another’s business, we will likewise recover by the action for business transacted.

Dig. 3.5.18.5

Digest 3.5.18.5

Paulus 2 ad ner.

Paulus, book 2 to Neratius.

Dum apud hostes esset titius, negotia eius administravi, postea reversus est: negotiorum gestorum mihi actio competit, etiamsi eo tempore quo gerebantur dominum non habuerunt.

While titius was among the enemy, I administered his business affairs; afterward he returned: the action of negotiorum gestorum is available to me, even if at the time when they were being conducted they did not
have an owner.

Dig. 3.5.19

Digest 3.5.19

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 10 on the Edict.

Sin autem apud hostes constitutus decessit, et successori et adversus successorem eius negotiorum gestorum directa et contraria competit.

But if, however, he died while positioned among the enemy, both the direct and the contrary actio of negotiorum gestorum are competent both to the successor and against his successor.

Dig. 3.5.20pr.

Digest 3.5.20pr.

Paulus 9 ad ed.

Paulus 9 on the Edict.

Nam et servius respondit, ut est relatum apud alfenum libro trigensimo nono digestorum: cum a lusitanis tres capti essent et unus ea condicione missus, uti pecuniam pro tribus adferret, et nisi redisset, ut duo pro eo quoque pecuniam darent, isque reverti noluisset et ob hanc causam illi pro tertio quoque pecuniam solvissent: servius respondit aequum esse praetorem in eum reddere iudicium.

For Servius also answered, as is related by Alfenus in the thirty-ninth book of the Digest: when three had been captured by the Lusitanians and one was sent on this condition, that he bring money for the three, and, unless he returned, that the two should pay money for him as well, and he was unwilling to return and for this cause they paid the money also for the third: Servius answered that it was equitable for the praetor to grant an action against him.

Dig. 3.5.20.1

Digest 3.5.20.1

Paulus 9 ad ed.

Paul, 9, on the Edict.

Qui negotia hereditaria gerit, quodammodo sibi hereditatem seque ei obligat: ideoque nihil refert an etiam pupillus heres existat, quia id aes alienum cum ceteris hereditariis oneribus ad eum transit.

He who manages hereditary business, in a certain way takes the inheritance upon himself and obligates himself to it: and therefore it makes no difference whether even a pupil exists as heir, because that debt, along with the other hereditary burdens, passes to him.

Dig. 3.5.20.2

Digest 3.5.20.2

Paulus 9 ad ed.

Paulus, On the Edict, 9.

Si vivo titio negotia eius administrare coepi, intermittere mortuo eo non debeo: nova tamen inchoare necesse mihi non est, vetera explicare ac conservare necessarium est. ut accidit, cum alter ex sociis mortuus est: nam quaecumque prioris negotii explicandi causa geruntur, nihilum refert, quo tempore consummentur, sed quo tempore inchoarentur.

If, while Titius was alive, I began to administer his business, I ought not, on his death, to discontinue: however, it is not necessary for me to inchoate new matters; it is necessary to complete and conserve the old. As happens when one of the partners has died: for whatever things are done for the sake of settling the prior business, it makes no difference at what time they are consummated, but at what time they were begun.

Dig. 3.5.20.3

Digest 3.5.20.3

Paulus 9 ad ed.

Paulus, book 9 on the Edict.

Mandatu tuo negotia mea lucius titius gessit: quod is non recte gessit, tu mihi actione negotiorum gestorum teneris non in hoc tantum, ut actiones tuas praestes, sed etiam quod imprudenter eum elegeris, ut quidquid detrimenti neglegentia eius fecit, tu mihi praestes.

By your mandate Lucius Titius managed my business: because he did not manage it rightly, you are held to me by the action of business transacted not only in this respect, that you furnish your actions, but also because you chose him imprudently, so that whatever detriment his negligence has caused, you make it good to me.

Dig. 3.5.21

Digest 3.5.21

Gaius 3 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius, Book 3 on the Provincial Edict.

Sive hereditaria negotia sive ea, quae alicuius essent, gerens aliquis necessario rem emerit, licet ea interierit, poterit quod impenderit iudicio negotiorum gestorum consequi: veluti si frumentum aut vinum familiae paraverit idque casu quodam interierit, forte incendio ruina. sed ita scilicet hoc dici potest, si ipsa ruina vel incendium sive vitio eius acciderit: nam cum propter ipsam ruinam aut incendium damnandus sit, absurdum est eum istarum rerum nomine, quae ita consumptae sunt, quicquam consequi.

Whether someone, managing hereditary affairs or those which belonged to another, has of necessity purchased a thing, although it has perished, he will be able to recover what he expended by the action for the management of affairs: for instance, if he has procured grain or wine for the household and it has perished by some casualty, say by fire or by a collapse. But of course this can be said only if the collapse itself or the fire did not occur through his fault: for since on account of the collapse or the fire itself he must be condemned, it is absurd that, in respect of those things which were thus consumed, he should obtain anything.

Dig. 3.5.22

Digest 3.5.22

Paulus 20 ad ed.

Paulus, 20 on the Edict.

Si quis negotia aliena gerens indebitum exegerit, restituere cogitur: de eo autem, quod indebitum solvit, magis est ut sibi imputare debeat.

If someone, managing another’s affairs, has exacted what was not due, he is compelled to restore it; but as to that which he paid as not due, it is rather that he ought to impute it to himself.

Dig. 3.5.23

Digest 3.5.23

Paulus 24 ad ed.

Paulus 24 on the Edict.

Si ego hac mente pecuniam procuratori dem, ut ea ipsa creditoris fieret, proprietas quidem per procuratorem non adquiritur, potest tamen creditor etiam invito me ratum habendo pecuniam suam facere, quia procurator in accipiendo creditoris dumtaxat negotium gessit: et ideo creditoris ratihabitione liberor.

If I give money to the procurator with this intention, that that very money become the creditor’s, ownership indeed is not acquired through the procurator; nevertheless the creditor can, even with me unwilling, by ratifying make the money his own, because the procurator, in receiving, managed only the creditor’s business: and for that reason I am freed by the creditor’s ratihabition.

Dig. 3.5.24

Digest 3.5.24

Paulus 27 ad ed.

Paulus, On the Edict, book 27.

Si quis negotia aliena gerens plus quam oportet impenderit, reciperaturum eum id, quod praestari debuerit.

If anyone, while managing another’s affairs, has expended more than is proper, he will recover that which ought to have been provided.

Dig. 3.5.25

Digest 3.5.25

Modestinus 1 resp.

Modestinus, Responses 1

Cum alicui civitati per fideicommissum restitui iussa esset hereditas, magistratus actores horum bonorum titium et seium et gaium idoneos creaverunt: postmodum hi actores inter se diviserunt administrationem bonorum idque egerunt sine auctoritate et sine consensu magistratuum. post aliquod tempus testamentum, per quod restitui civitati hereditas fideicommissa esset, irritum probatum est pro tribunali atque ita ab intestato sempronius legitimus heres defuncti extitit: sed ex his actoribus unus non solvendo decessit et nemo heres eius extitit. quaero, si sempronius conveniet actores horum bonorum, periculum inopis defuncti ad quos pertinet?

When an inheritance had been ordered, by fideicommissum, to be restored to a certain community, the magistrates appointed as suitable stewards of these goods Titius and Seius and Gaius: afterward these stewards divided among themselves the administration of the goods, and they did this without the authority and without the consent of the magistrates. After some time the testament, by which the inheritance had been ordered to be restored to the community by fideicommissum, was proved void at the tribunal, and thus Sempronius emerged as the lawful heir ab intestato of the deceased: but of these stewards one died insolvent and no one became his heir. I ask, if Sempronius shall sue the stewards of these goods, upon whom does the risk of the indigent deceased fall?

herennius modestinus respondit, quod ab uno ex actoribus ob ea quae solus gessit negotiorum gestorum actione servari non potest, ad damnum eius cui legitima hereditas quaesita est pertinere.

herennius modestinus responded, that what cannot be recovered by the action for business transacted from one of the agents on account of those matters which he alone conducted pertains, as loss, to the person to whom the legitimate inheritance has accrued.

Dig. 3.5.26pr.

Digest 3.5.26, beginning.

Modestinus 2 resp.

Modestinus, Responses, Book 2.

Ex duobus fratribus uno quidem suae aetatis, alio vero minore annis, cum haberent communia praedia rustica, maior frater in saltu communi habenti habitationes paternas ampla aedificia aedificaverat: cumque eundem saltum cum fratre divideret, sumptus sibi quasi re meliore ab eo facta desiderabat fratre minore iam legitimae aetatis constituto. herennius modestinus respondit ob sumptus nulla re urguente, sed voluptatis causa factos eum de quo quaeritur actionem non habere.

Of two brothers, one indeed of full age, the other however younger in years, since they had rustic estates in common, the elder brother in the common woodland, where the paternal dwellings were, had built ample buildings: and when he was dividing that same woodland with his brother, he was demanding for himself the expenses, as for a thing made better, from the younger brother, now established as of lawful age. Herennius Modestinus responded that, for expenses made with nothing compelling the matter, but for the sake of pleasure, the person in question has no action.

Dig. 3.5.26.1

Digest 3.5.26.1

Modestinus 2 resp.

Modestinus, Responses 2.

Titium, si pietatis respectu sororis aluit filiam, actionem hoc nomine contra eam non habere respondi.

I responded that Titius, if he maintained his sister’s daughter out of respect for pietas, has no action against her under this title.

Dig. 3.5.27

Digest 3.5.27

Iavolenus 8 ex cass.

Javolenus, 8 from Cassius.

Si quis mandatu titii negotia seii gessit, titio mandati tenetur lisque aestimari debet, quanto seii et titii interest: titii autem interest, quantum is seio praestare debet, cui vel mandati vel negotiorum gestorum nomine obligatus est. titio autem actio competit cum eo, cui mandavit aliena negotia gerenda, et antequam ipse quicquam domino praestet, quia id ei abesse videtur in quo obligatus est.

If someone, at Titius’s mandate, has managed Seius’s business, Titius is held on mandate, and the lawsuit ought to be assessed by how much it is of interest to Seius and to Titius: Titius’s interest, moreover, is as much as he must render to Seius, to whom he is obligated under the head either of mandate or of the management of affairs (negotiorum gestorum). Titius, moreover, has an action against the one to whom he entrusted the managing of another’s affairs, even before he himself pays anything to the owner, because he is deemed to be lacking by the amount in which he is bound.

Dig. 3.5.28

Digest 3.5.28

Callistratus 3 ed. monit.

Callistratus, Book 3, Monitory Edict.

Cum pater testamento postumo tutorem dederit isque tutelam interim administraverit nec postumus natus fuerit, cum eo non tutelae, sed negotiorum gestorum erit agendum: quod si natus fuerit postumus, tutelae erit actio et in eam utrumque tempus veniet, et quo, antequam nasceretur infans, gessit et quo, posteaquam natus sit.

When a father by testament has appointed a tutor for a posthumous child, and that man has in the meantime administered the guardianship, and no posthumous child has been born, with him one must proceed not by the action on guardianship but by the action for business transacted: but if a posthumous child has been born, there will be an action on guardianship, and into it will come both spans of time—both that during which he acted before the infant was born, and that after the child has been born.

Dig. 3.5.29

Digest 3.5.29

Iulianus 3 Dig.

Julianus 3 Dig.

Ex facto quaerebatur: quendam ad siliginem emendam curatorem decreto ordinis constitutum: eidem alium subcuratorem constitutum siliginem miscendo corrupisse atque ita pretium siliginis, quae in publicum empta erat, curatori adflictum esse: quaque actione curator cum subcuratore experiri possit et consequi id, ut ei salvum esset, quod causa eius damnum cepisset. valerius severus respondit adversus contutorem negotiorum gestorum actionem tutori dandam: idem respondit, ut magistratui adversus magistratum eadem actio detur, ita tamen, si non sit conscius fraudis, secundum quae etiam in subcuratore idem dicendum est.

From the facts it was asked: that a certain curator had been appointed by decree of the council to buy fine wheat; that a different subcurator appointed under the same had spoiled the fine wheat by mixing it, and thus that the price of the fine wheat which had been bought for the public had been charged to the curator; by what action the curator could proceed against the subcurator and obtain this, that he be held harmless for that which, by his agency, had incurred loss. valerius severus answered that, against a co‑tutor, the action for the management of affairs should be given to the tutor; the same answered that to a magistrate against a magistrate the same action is given, yet only if he is not privy to the fraud, according to which the same must also be said in regard to the subcurator.

Dig. 3.5.30pr.

Digest 3.5.30, preface.

Papinianus 2 resp.

Papinian, Responses, Book 2.

Liberto vel amico mandavit pecuniam accipere mutuam: cuius litteras creditor secutus contraxit et fideiussor intervenit: etiamsi pecunia non sit in rem eius versa, tamen dabitur in eum negotiorum gestorum actio creditori vel fideiussori, scilicet ad exemplum institoriae actionis.

He gave a mandate to a freedman or a friend to receive money as a loan: the creditor, following his letter, entered into the contract, and a surety intervened: even if the money has not been turned to his account, nevertheless an action for the management of affairs will be granted against him to the creditor or the surety, namely on the model of the institorial action.

Dig. 3.5.30.1

Digest 3.5.30.1

Papinianus 2 resp.

Papinian, Responses 2.

Inter negotia sempronii, quae gerebat, ignorans titii negotium gessit: ob eam quoque speciem sempronio tenebitur, sed ei cautionem indemnitatis officio iudicis praeberi necesse est adversus titium, cui datur actio. idem in tutore iuris est.

While managing Sempronius’s affairs, which he was conducting, he unknowingly managed Titius’s affair: on that ground also he will be liable to Sempronius; but it is necessary, by the office of the judge, that a security of indemnity be furnished to him against Titius, to whom an action is given. The same is the law in the case of a tutor.

Dig. 3.5.30.2

Digest 3.5.30.2

Papinianus 2 resp.

Papinian, Responses 2.

Litem in iudicium deductam et a reo desertam frustratoris amicus ultro egit, causas absentiae eius allegans iudici: culpam contraxisse non videbitur, quod sententia contra absentem dicta ipse non provocavit. ulpianus notat: hoc verum est, quia frustrator condemnatus est: ceterum si amicus, cum absentem defenderet condemnatus, negotiorum gestorum aget, poterit ei imputari, si cum posset non appellasset.

The friend of the frustrator, of his own accord, conducted a lawsuit that had been brought into court and abandoned by the defendant, alleging to the judge the causes of his absence: he will not be seen to have incurred blame from the fact that he himself did not appeal from a sentence pronounced against one absent. ulpianus notes: this is true, because the frustrator was condemned; but if the friend, while defending the absent man, was condemned, he will bring an action of negotiorum gestorum, and it can be imputed to him if, when he could, he did not appeal.

Dig. 3.5.30.3

Digest 3.5.30.3

Papinianus 2 resp.

Papinian, Responses 2.

Qui aliena negotia gerit, usuras praestare cogitur eius scilicet pecuniae, quae purgatis necessariis sumptibus superest.

He who manages another’s affairs is compelled to provide interest, namely, of that money which, the necessary expenses having been cleared, remains.

Dig. 3.5.30.4

Digest 3.5.30.4

Papinianus 2 resp.

Papinian, responses, book 2.

Libertos certam pecuniam accipere testator ad sumptum monumenti voluit: si quid amplius fuerit erogatum, iudicio negotiorum gestorum ab herede non recte petetur nec iure fideicommissi, cum voluntas finem erogationis fecerit.

The testator wished the freedmen to receive a certain sum of money for the expense of the monument: if anything more shall have been expended, it will not be rightly sought from the heir by the action of negotiorum gestorum, nor by right
of the fideicommissum, since the intention has set the limit of the expenditure.

Dig. 3.5.30.5

Digest 3.5.30.5

Papinianus 2 resp.

Papinian Responses 2.

Tutoris heres impubes filius ob ea, quae tutor eius in rebus pupillae paternae gessit, non tenetur, sed tutor proprio nomine iudicio negotiorum gestorum convenietur.

The underage son, heir of the tutor, is not held liable on account of those things which his tutor transacted in the affairs of his father’s female ward; but the tutor will be sued in his own name by the action of negotiorum gestorum.

Dig. 3.5.30.6

Digest 3.5.30.6

Papinianus 2 resp.

Papinian, Responses 2.

Quamquam mater filii negotia secundum patris voluntatem pietatis fiducia gerat, tamen ius actoris periculo suo litium causa constituendi non habebit, quia nec ipsa filii nomine recte agit aut res bonorum eius alienat vel debitorem impuberis accipiendo pecuniam liberat.

Although the mother, in reliance on dutiful affection, manages the son’s affairs according to the father’s will, nevertheless she will not have the actor’s right to institute suits at her own risk, because she neither rightly acts in the son’s name nor alienates things of his estate, nor by receiving money does she release the debtor of the impubes (underage boy).

Dig. 3.5.30.7

Digest 3.5.30.7

Papinianus 2 resp.

Papinian, book 2 of responses.

Uno defendente causam communis aquae sententia praedio datur: sed qui sumptus necessarios ac probabiles in communi lite fecit, negotiorum gestorum actionem habet.

With one person defending the case of the common water, the judgment is awarded to the estate; but he who has incurred necessary and reasonable expenses in the common suit has the action of negotiorum gestorum.

Dig. 3.5.31pr.

Digest 3.5.31pr.

Papinianus 3 resp.

Papinian, Responses 3.

Fideiussor imperitia lapsus alterius quoque contractus, qui personam eius non contingebat, pignora vel hypothecas suscepit et utramque pecuniam creditori solvit, existimans indemnitati suae confusis praediis consuli posse. ob eas res iudicio mandati frustra convenietur et ipse debitorem frustra conveniet, negotiorum autem gestorum actio utrique necessaria erit: in qua lite culpam aestimari satis est, non etiam casum, quia praedo fideiussor non videtur. creditor ob id factum ad restituendum iudicio, quod de pignore dato redditur, cum videatur ius suum vendidisse, non tenebitur.

A surety, having slipped through inexperience, also undertook the pledges or hypothecs of another’s contract, which did not pertain to his person, and paid the creditor both sums of money, thinking
that his indemnity could be provided for by a confusion of the estates. For these matters he will be sued by the action of mandate in vain, and he himself will sue the debtor in vain; but the action of management of affairs will be necessary for both,
in which litigation it is enough that fault be assessed, not also accident, because the surety is not considered a plunderer. The creditor, on account of that act, will not be held to restitution by the judgment which is rendered concerning a pledge given,
since he appears to have sold his right.

Dig. 3.5.31.1

Digest 3.5.31.1

Papinianus 3 resp.

Papinian, Responses, Book 3.

Ignorante virgine mater a sponso filiae res donatas suscepit: quia mandati vel depositi cessat actio, negotiorum gestorum agitur.

With the maiden unaware, the mother received from the daughter's betrothed the things given as a gift: since the action of mandate or of deposit does not lie, one proceeds by the action for management of affairs (negotiorum gestorum).

Dig. 3.5.32

Digest 3.5.32

Papinianus 10 resp.

Papinian, Responses, 10.

Heres viri defuncti uxorem, quae res viri tempore nuptiarum in sua potestate habuit, compilatae hereditatis postulare non debet. prudentius itaque faciet, si ad exhibendum et negotiorum gestorum, si negotia quoque viri gessit, cum ea fuerit expertus.

The heir of the deceased husband ought not to bring against the wife—who, at the time of the marriage, had the husband’s property in her own power—an action for a plundered inheritance. He will act more prudently, therefore, if, after he has proceeded against her by an ad exhibendum and by a negotiorum gestorum (if she also transacted the husband’s business).

Dig. 3.5.33

Digest 3.5.33

Paulus 1 quaest.

Paulus, Question 1.

Nesennius apollinaris iulio paulo salutem. avia nepotis sui negotia gessit: defunctis utrisque aviae heredes conveniebantur a nepotis heredibus negotiorum gestorum actione: reputabant heredes aviae alimenta praestita nepoti. respondebatur aviam iure pietatis de suo praestitisse: nec enim aut desiderasse, ut decernerentur alimenta, aut decreta essent.

Nesennius apollinaris to Julius Paulus, greetings. the grandmother managed her grandson’s affairs: both having died, the heirs of the grandmother were being sued by the heirs of the grandson by the action for business transacted: the heirs of the grandmother were reckoning the maintenance furnished to the grandson. it was answered that the grandmother, by the right of piety, had provided it from her own resources: for she had neither sought that maintenance be decreed, nor had it been decreed to be.

praeterea constitutum esse dicebatur, ut si mater aluisset, non posset alimenta, quae pietate cogente de suo praestitisset, repetere. ex contrario dicebatur tunc hoc recte dici, ut de suo aluisse mater probaretur: at in proposito aviam, quae negotia administrabat, verisimile esse de re ipsius nepotis eum aluisse. tractatum est, numquid utroque patrimonio erogata videantur.

Moreover, it was said to have been established that, if a mother had supported (him), she could not reclaim the maintenance which, with pietas compelling, she had provided from her own means. Conversely, it was said that this is rightly stated only when it is proven that the mother had supported him from her own resources; but in the present case, that the grandmother, who administered the affairs, it is plausible that she supported him from the property of the grandson himself. It was discussed whether perhaps the sums seem to have been disbursed from both patrimonies.

quaero quid tibi iustius videatur. respondi: haec disceptatio in factum constitit: nam et illud, quod in matre constitutum est, non puto ita perpetuo observandum. quid enim si etiam protestata est se filium ideo alere, ut aut ipsum aut tutores eius conveniret?

I ask what seems to you more just. I replied: this disceptation rests upon fact; for even that which has been constituted regarding the mother, I do not think is to be observed thus
perpetually. For what, indeed, if she has even protested that she maintains her son for this reason, in order that she might bring suit against either him or his tutors?

pone peregre patrem eius obisse et matrem, dum in patriam revertitur, tam filium quam familiam eius exhibuisse: in qua specie etiam in ipsum pupillum negotiorum gestorum dandam actionem divus pius antoninus constituit. igitur in re facti facilius putabo aviam vel heredes eius audiendos, si reputare velint alimenta, maxime si etiam in ratione impensarum ea rettulisse aviam apparebit. illud nequaquam admittendum puto, ut de utroque patrimonio erogata videantur.

Suppose his father died abroad, and that the mother, while returning
to the fatherland, provided both for the son and for his household: in which case the deified Antoninus Pius also established that an action of management of affairs (negotiorum gestorum) be granted even against the ward himself. Therefore, on the matter of fact I will more readily think the grandmother, or her heirs, should be heard, if they wish to reckon the alimenta, especially if it will appear that the grandmother also entered these in the account of expenditures. This I think must by no means be admitted, that they seem to have been disbursed out of both patrimonies.

Dig. 3.5.34pr.

Digest 3.5.34, at the beginning.

Scaevola 1 quaest.

Scaevola, Questions, Book 1.

Divortio facto negotia uxoris gessit maritus: dos non solum dotis actione, verum negotiorum gestorum servari potest. haec ita, si in negotiis gestis maritus dum gerit facere potuit: alias enim imputari non potest, quod a se non exegerit. sed et posteaquam patrimonium amiserit, plena erit negotiorum gestorum actio, quamvis si dotis actione maritus conveniatur, absolvendus est.

With divorce effected, the husband managed the wife’s affairs: the dowry can be preserved not only by the action for dowry, but also by an action of the management of affairs (negotiorum gestorum). This is so, if, in the affairs managed, the husband, while managing, was able to do it: otherwise it cannot be imputed to him that he did not exact it from himself. But even after he has lost his patrimony, the action of the management of affairs will be complete, although, if the husband is sued by the action for dowry, he must be absolved.

sed hic quidam modus servandus est, ut ita querellae locus sit " quantum facere potuit, quamvis postea amiserit", si illo tempore ei solvere potuit: non enim e vestigio in officio deliquit, si non protinus res suas distraxit ad pecuniam redigendam: praeterire denique aliquid temporis debebit, quo cessasse videatur. quod si interea priusquam officium impleat, res amissa est, perinde negotiorum gestorum non tenetur, ac si numquam facere possit. sed et si facere possit maritus, actio negotiorum gestorum inducitur, quia forte periculum est, ne facere desinat.

But here a certain measure must be observed, so that there be room for complaint thus: "as much as he was able to do, although afterward he lost it," if at that time he was able to pay it: for he did not at once fail in his duty, if he did not immediately sell off his goods to be reduced into money: in fine, some time ought to pass, whereby he may seem to have delayed. If, however, in the meantime, before he fulfills the duty, the property is lost, he is not held under the action for management of affairs, just as if he could never do it. But even if the husband can do it, the action for management of affairs is introduced, because perhaps there is a danger lest he cease to do it.

Dig. 3.5.34.1

Digest 3.5.34.1

Scaevola 1 quaest.

Scaevola 1 Questions.

Illum autem non credimus teneri, qui gerit negotia debitoris, ad reddendum pignus, cum pecunia ei debeatur nec fuerit quod sibi possit exsolvere.

However, we do not consider him who manages the debtor’s affairs to be held to return the pledge, when money is owed to him and there has not been that from which he could pay himself.

Dig. 3.5.34.2

Digest 3.5.34.2

Scaevola 1 quaest.

Scaevola, Book 1 of Questions.

Sed nec redhibitoriae speciem venire in negotiorum gestorum actionem et per hoc sex mensibus exactis perire, si vel mancipium in rebus non invenit: vel eo invento quod accessionum nomine additum est, vel quod deterior homo factus esset, vel quod per eum esset adquisitum non ex re emptoris, nec invenit nec recepisset: nec esset in ipsis emptoris negotiis quae gerebat, unde sibi in praesenti redderet.

But neither should the form of a redhibitory action come under the action for affairs transacted and by this be lost when six months have elapsed, if either he did not find the slave among the goods: or, on finding it, that which had been added under the name of accessions, or that the man had become worse, or that what had been acquired through him, not out of the buyer’s property, he neither found nor would have received: nor was there in the very buyer’s affairs which he was managing anything whence he could render back to himself on the spot.

Dig. 3.5.34.3

Digest 3.5.34.3

Scaevola 1 quaest.

Scaevola 1 Questions.

Ceterum si ex alia causa perpetuae obligationis, cum sit locuples, debeat, non est imputandum, quod non solverit, utique si neque usurarum ratio querellam movet. diversumque est in tutore debitore, quia ibi interfuit ex priore obligatione solvi, ut deberetur ex tutelae actione.

Moreover, if from another cause of a perpetual obligation, since he is well-off, he ought to pay, it is not to be imputed that he has not paid, especially if the reckoning of interest does not stir a complaint.
And it is different in the case of a guardian who is a debtor, because there it mattered that payment be made on the prior obligation, so that it would be owed under the action of guardianship.

Dig. 3.5.35

Digest 3.5.35

Paulus 4 quaest.

Paulus, Questions, Book 4.

Si liber homo bona fide mihi serviens mutuam pecuniam sumpserit eamque in rem meam verterit, qua actione id, quod in rem nostram vertit, reddere debeam, videndum est: non enim quasi amici, sed quasi domini negotium gessit. sed negotiorum gestorum actio danda est: quae desinit competere, si creditori eius soluta sit.

If a free man, serving me in good faith, has taken borrowed money and has turned it to my interest, it is to be considered by what action I must render that which he turned to our interest: for he managed the business not as if of a friend, but as if of a master. But the action for business transacted (negotiorum gestorum) is to be granted: which ceases to be available, if payment has been made to his creditor.

Dig. 3.5.36pr.

Digest 3.5.36 pr.

Paulus 1 sent.

Paulus, Sentences, 1.

Litis contestatae tempore quaeri solet, an pupillus, cuius sine tutoris auctoritate negotia gesta sunt, locupletior sit ex ea re factus, cuius patitur actionem.

At the time of the joinder of issue it is usually inquired whether a pupil (ward), whose affairs have been transacted without the authority of his tutor, has been made more wealthy—enriched—from that matter for which he is undergoing an action.

Dig. 3.5.36.1

Digest 3.5.36.1

Paulus 1 sent.

Paul, Sentences, book 1.

Si pecuniae quis negotium gerat, usuras quoque praestare cogitur et periculum eorum nominum, quae ipse contraxit: nisi fortuitis casibus debitores ita suas fortunas amiserunt, ut tempore litis ex ea actione contestatae solvendo non essent.

If someone manages a money-matter, he is compelled to render interest as well and to bear the risk of those credits (“names”) which he himself contracted; unless through fortuitous cases the debtors have so lost their fortunes that, at the time of the issue being joined in that action, they were not solvent.

Dig. 3.5.36.2

Digest 3.5.36.2

Paulus 1 sent.

Paulus, Sentences 1.

Pater si emancipati filii res a se donatas administravit, filio actione negotiorum gestorum tenebitur.

If a father has administered property which he himself had donated to his emancipated son, he will be liable to the son by the action of business transacted (negotiorum gestorum).

Dig. 3.5.37

Digest 3.5.37

Tryphonus 2 disp.

Tryphonus, Disputations 2.

Qui sine usuris pecuniam debebat, creditoris sui gessit negotia: quaesitum est, an negotiorum gestorum actione summae illius usuras praestare debeat. dixi, si a semet ipso exigere eum oportuit, debiturum usuras: quod si dies solvendae pecuniae tempore quo negotia gerebat nondum venerat, usuras non debiturum: sed die praeterito si non intulit rationibus creditoris cuius negotia gerebat eam pecuniam a se debitam, merito usuras bonae fidei iudicio praestaturum. sed quas usuras debebit, videamus: utrum eas, quibus aliis idem creditor faenerasset, an et maximas usuras: quoniam ubi quis eius pecuniam, cuius tutelam negotiave administrat, aut magistratus municipii publicam in usus suos convertit, maximas usuras praestat, ut est constitutum a divis principibus.

He who owed money without interest managed his creditor’s affairs: the question was raised whether, by the action for management of affairs, he ought to render interest on that sum. I said that if it was proper for him to exact it from himself,
he will owe interest; but if, at the time when he was managing the affairs, the day for paying the money had not yet come, he will not owe interest; but after the day has passed, if he did not enter
into the accounts of the creditor, whose affairs he was managing, the money owed by himself, he will rightly render interest in a good‑faith judgment. But what interest will he owe? Let us see: whether that at which
the same creditor would have lent to others, or even the highest interest; since where someone converts to his own uses the money of him whose guardianship or business he administers, or a magistrate of a municipality converts public money to his own uses,
he renders the highest interest, as has been established by the deified emperors.

sed istius diversa causa est, qui non sibi sumpsit ex administratione nummos, sed ab amico accepit et ante negotiorum administrationem. nam illi, de quibus constitutum est, cum gratuitam certe integram et abstinentem omni lucro praestare fidem deberent, licentia, qua videntur abuti, maximis usuris vice cuiusdam poenae subiciuntur: hic bona ratione accepit ab alio mutuum et usuris, quia non solvit, non quia ex negotiis quae gerebat ad se pecuniam transtulit, condemnandus est. multum autem refert, incipiat nunc debitum an ante nomen fuerit debitoris, quod satis est ex non usurario facere usurarium.

but the case of this man is different, who did not take moneys for himself from the administration, but received them from a friend, and before the administration of the business. for those, about whom it has been established, since they ought certainly to furnish a gratuitous, entire faith abstinent from all profit, by the license which they seem to abuse they are subjected to the highest interest by way of a kind of penalty: this man, on good reason, accepted a loan (mutuum) from another, and he is to be condemned to interest because he did not pay, not because from the business which he was conducting he transferred money to himself. but it makes much difference whether the debt begins now, or whether earlier there had been the debtor’s “nomen,” which is sufficient to make what was non-usury-bearing into usury-bearing.

Dig. 3.5.38

Digest 3.5.38

Gaius 3 de verb. oblig.

Gaius 3 on verbal obligations

Solvendo quisque pro alio licet invito et ignorante liberat eum: quod autem alicui debetur, alius sine voluntate eius non potest iure exigere. naturalis enim simul et civilis ratio suasit alienam condicionem meliorem quidem etiam ignorantis et inviti nos facere posse, deteriorem non posse.

By paying, anyone on behalf of another—though he be unwilling and unaware—releases him; but what is owed to someone, another cannot, without his consent, by right exact. For natural and at the same time civil reason has persuaded that we can make another’s condition better—even of one who is unaware and unwilling—but cannot make it worse.

Dig. 3.5.39

Digest 3.5.39

Paulus 10 ad sab.

Paulus, 10 on Sabinus.

Si communes aedes tecum habeam et pro tua parte damni infecti vicino cavero, dicendum est quod praestitero negotiorum gestorum actione potius quam communi dividundo iudicio posse me petere, quia potui partem meam ita defendere, ut socii partem defendere non cogerer.

If I have buildings in common with you and, for your share, I shall give security to the neighbor for damnum infectum, it must be said that what I have furnished I can seek by the action of business transacted (negotiorum gestorum) rather than by the judgment for dividing common property (communi dividundo), because I could defend my own share in such a way that I would not be compelled to defend the partner’s share.

Dig. 3.5.40

Digest 3.5.40

Paulus 30 ad ed.

Paulus, 30 to the Edict.

Qui servum meum me ignorante vel absente in noxali causa defenderit, negotiorum gestorum in solidum mecum, non de peculio aget.

Whoever, without my knowledge or in my absence, has defended my slave in a noxal cause will proceed against me by the action of negotiorum gestorum in solidum, not de peculio.

Dig. 3.5.41

Digest 3.5.41

Paulus 32 ad ed.

Paulus, 32 on the Edict.

Si servi mei rogatu negotia mea susceperis, si dumtaxat admonitus a servo meo id feceris, erit inter nos negotiorum gestorum actio: si vero quasi mandatu servi, etiam de peculio et de in rem verso agere te posse responsum est.

If at the request of my slave you have undertaken my business—provided only that you did this when admonished by my slave—there will be between us an action of negotiorum gestorum; but if, rather, as though by a mandate of the slave, it has been answered that you can also sue de peculio and de in rem verso.

Dig. 3.5.42

Digest 3.5.42

Labeo 6 post. epit. a iav.

Labeo, book 6 of the Later Writings, epitomized by Iavolenus.

Cum pecuniam eius nomine solveres, qui tibi nihil mandaverat, negotiorum gestorum actio tibi competit, cum ea solutione debitor a creditore liberatus sit: nisi si quid debitoris interfuit eam pecuniam non solvi.

When you paid money in the name of one who had given you no mandate, the action of negotiorum gestorum is available to you, since by that payment the debtor has been released from the creditor—unless it was of interest to the debtor that that money not be paid.

Dig. 3.5.43

Digest 3.5.43

Ulpianus 6 disp.

Ulpian, Disputations 6.

Is, qui amicitia ductus paterna pupillis tutorem petierit vel suspectos tutores postulavit, nullam adversus eos habet actionem secundum divi severi constitutionem.

He who, led by friendship with the father, has sought a guardian for the wards or has petitioned that certain guardians be declared suspect, has no action against them according to the constitution of the deified Severus.

Dig. 3.5.44pr.

Digest 3.5.44pr.

Ulpianus 4 opin.

Ulpian, Opinions 4.

Quae utiliter in negotia alicuius erogantur, in quibus est etiam sumptus honeste ad honores per gradus pertinentes factus, actione negotiorum gestorum peti possunt.

What is usefully disbursed on someone’s business, among which is also an expenditure honorably made for honors pertaining through the ranks, can be sought by the action for business transacted.

Dig. 3.5.44.1

Digest 3.5.44.1

Ulpianus 4 opin.

Ulpian, Opinions, 4.

Qui pure testamento libertatem acceperunt, actus, quem viventibus dominis administraverunt, rationem reddere non compelluntur.

Those who have received liberty purely by testament are not compelled to render an account of the business which they administered while their masters were living.

Dig. 3.5.44.2

Digest 3.5.44.2

Ulpianus 4 opin.

Ulpian, Opinions 4.

Titius pecuniam creditoribus hereditariis solvit existimans sororem suam defuncto heredem testamento extitisse. quamvis animo gerendi sororis negotia id fecisset, veritate tamen filiorum defuncti, qui sui heredes patri sublato testamento erant, gessisset: quia aequum est in damno eum non versari, actione negotiorum gestorum id eum petere placuit.

Titius paid money to the creditors of the estate, supposing that his sister had become heir to the deceased by testament. although he did this with the intention of managing his sister’s affairs, in truth
he had managed the affairs of the deceased’s sons, who were sui heirs to their father, the testament having been set aside: because it is equitable that he not be involved in loss, it was decided that he may seek that by the action for the management of affairs.
it was resolved.

Dig. 3.5.45pr.

Digest 3.5.45, beginning.

Africanus 7 quaest.

Africanus 7 Questions.

Mandasti filio meo, ut tibi fundum emeret: quod cum cognovissem, ipse eum tibi emi. puto referre, qua mente emerim: nam si propter ea, quae tibi necessaria esse scirem, et te eius voluntatis esse, ut emptum habere velles, agemus inter nos negotiorum gestorum, sicut ageremus, si aut nullum omnino mandatum intercessisset, aut titio mandasses et ego, quia per me commodius negotium possim conficere, emissem. si vero propterea emerim, ne filius mandati iudicio teneatur, magis est, ut ex persona eius et ego tecum mandati agere possim et tu mecum actionem habeas de peculio, quia et si titius id mandatum suscepisset et, ne eo nomine teneretur, ego emissem, agerem cum titio negotiorum gestorum, et ille tecum et tu cum illo mandati.

You gave a mandate to my son to buy you an estate: when I learned this, I myself bought it for you. I think it makes a difference with what intention I bought: for if on account of those things which I knew to be necessary for you, and that you were of such a will as to wish to have it bought, we shall proceed between ourselves by an action on business transacted, just as we would proceed if either no mandate at all had intervened, or you had given a mandate to Titius and
I, because I could more conveniently bring the business to completion by my own agency, had bought it. But if I bought it for this reason, lest my son be held by an action on mandate, it is rather the case that, in his person, I too can sue you on mandate
and that you have against me an action de peculio; for even if Titius had undertaken that mandate and, in order not to be held under that title, I had bought it, I would sue Titius by an action on business transacted, and he would proceed with you, and you with him, on mandate.

idem est, et si filio meo mandaveris, ut pro te fideiuberet, et ego pro te fideiusserim.

it is the same, too, if you have mandated my son to stand surety on your behalf, and I have stood surety on your behalf.

Dig. 3.5.45.1

Digest 3.5.45.1

Africanus 7 quaest.

Africanus 7 questions.

Si proponatur te titio mandasse, ut pro te fideiuberet, meque, quod is aliqua de causa impediretur quo minus fideiuberet, liberandae fidei eius causa fideiussisse, negotiorum gestorum mihi competit actio.

If it is put forward that you mandated Titius to stand surety for you, and that I, because he was hindered for some reason from becoming surety, in order to free his credit stood as surety, the action for management of affairs (negotiorum gestorum) lies to me.

Dig. 3.5.46pr.

Digest 3.5.46pr.

Paulus 1 sent.

Paulus, Sentences 1.

Actio negotiorum gestorum illi datur, cuius interest hoc iudicio experiri.

The action for business transacted is given to him whose interest it is to proceed in this suit.

Dig. 3.5.46.1

Digest 3.5.46.1

Paulus 1 sent.

Paul, Sentences 1.

Nec refert directa quis an utili actione agat vel conveniatur, quia in extraordinariis iudiciis, ubi conceptio formularum non observatur, haec suptilitas supervacua est, maxime cum utraque actio eiusdem potestatis est eundemque habet effectum.

Nor does it matter whether one proceeds or is sued by a direct action or by a useful action, because in extraordinary judgments, where the conception of formulas is not observed, this subtlety is superfluous, especially since both actions are of the same power and have the same effect.

Dig. 3.5.47

Digest 3.5.47

Papinianus 3 quaest.

Papinian, Questions 3.

Ignorante quoque sorore si frater negotium eius gerens dotem a viro stipulatus sit, iudicio negotiorum gestorum ut virum liberaret iure convenitur.

Even if the sister is ignorant, if the brother, managing her business, has stipulated the dowry from the husband, he is sued by the action of negotiorum gestorum, so that he may release the husband at law.

Dig. 3.5.48

Digest 3.5.48

Africanus 8 quaest.

Africanus 8 Questions.

Si rem, quam servus venditus subripuisset a me venditore, emptor vendiderit eaque in rerum natura esse desierit, de pretio negotiorum gestorum actio mihi danda sit, ut dari deberet, si negotium, quod tuum esse existimares, cum esset meum, gessisses: sicut ex contrario in me tibi daretur, si, cum hereditatem quae ad me pertinet tuam putares, res tuas proprias legatas solvisses, quandoque de ea solutione liberarer.

If the purchaser has sold the thing which a sold slave had filched from me the vendor, and it has ceased to exist in the nature of things, an action of negotiorum gestorum for the price should be granted to me, as it ought to be granted, if you had transacted a business which you supposed to be yours when it was mine: just as conversely it would be granted to you against me, if, when you thought the inheritance which pertains to me was yours, you had paid legacies out of your own property, whenever by that payment I should be released.

Dig. 3.6.0. De calumniatoribus.

Dig. 3.6.0. On calumniators.

Dig. 3.6.1pr.

Digest 3.6.1pr.

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, 10, on the Edict.

In eum qui, ut calumniae causa negotium faceret vel non faceret, pecuniam accepisse dicetur, intra annum in quadruplum eius pecuniae, quam accepisse dicetur, post annum simpli in factum actio competit.

Against one who shall be said to have accepted money so that, for the sake of calumny, he might do or not do a matter, within a year an action in factum lies for fourfold of that money which he shall be said to have accepted; after a year, for the single sum.

Dig. 3.6.1.1

Digest 3.6.1.1

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, On the Edict, Book 10.

Hoc autem iudicium non solum in pecuniariis causis, sed et ad publica crimina pertinere pomponius scribit, maxime cum et lege repetundarum teneatur, qui ob negotium faciendum aut non faciendum per calumniam pecuniam accepit.

But Pomponius writes that this judgment pertains not only to pecuniary causes, but also to public crimes, especially since by the law of extortions he is held liable who, for a business to be done or not to be done, accepted money through chicanery.

Dig. 3.6.1.2

Digest 3.6.1.2

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 10, on the Edict.

Qui autem accepit pecuniam sive ante iudicium sive post iudicium acceptum, tenetur.

But the one who has received money, whether before judgment or after judgment has been received, is liable.

Dig. 3.6.1.3

Digest 3.6.1.3

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 10 on the edict.

Sed et constitutio imperatoris nostri, quae scripta est ad cassium sabinum, prohibuit iudici vel adversario in publicis vel privatis vel fiscalibus causis pecuniam dare, et ex hac causa litem perire iussit. nam tractari potest, si adversarius non per calumniam transigendi animo accepit, an constitutio cessat? et puto cessare sicuti hoc quoque iudicium: neque enim transactionibus est interdictum, sed sordidis concussionibus.

But also the constitution of our emperor, which was written to Cassius Sabinus, forbade giving money to a judge or to an adversary in public or private or fiscal cases, and from this cause ordered the suit to perish. For it can be discussed whether, if the adversary accepted not by way of calumny, but with an intention of settling, the constitution ceases [to apply]? And I think it ceases, just as this action also: for it is not transactions (settlements) that are interdicted, but sordid extortions.

Dig. 3.6.1.4

Digest 3.6.1.4

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 10 on the Edict.

Pecuniam autem accepisse dicemus etiam si aliquid pro pecunia accepimus.

Moreover, we shall say that money has been received even if we have received something in lieu of money.

Dig. 3.6.2

Digest 3.6.2

Paulus 10 ad ed.

Paulus 10 on the Edict.

Quin etiam si quis obligatione liberatus sit, potest videri cepisse: idemque si gratuita pecunia utenda data sit, aut minoris locata venditave res sit. nec refert, ipse pecuniam acceperit an alii dari iusserit vel acceptum suo nomine ratum habuerit.

Nay even if someone has been liberated from an obligation, he can be deemed to have taken; and the same if money has been given gratuitously to be used, or if a thing has been leased for less or sold for less. Nor does it matter whether he himself received the money
or ordered it to be given to another, or ratified as accepted in his own name.

Dig. 3.6.3pr.

Digest 3.6.3pr.

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian 10 on the edict.

Et generaliter idem erit, si quid omnino compendii sensit propter hoc, sive ab adversario sive ab alio quocumque.

And generally the same will be [the rule], if he has perceived any advantage at all on account of this, whether from the adversary or from anyone whatsoever.

Dig. 3.6.3.1

Digest 3.6.3.1

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, 10 on the Edict.

Si igitur accepit ut negotium faceret, sive fecit sive non fecit, et qui accepit ne faceret etsi fecit, tenetur.

If, therefore, he accepted to do the business, whether he did it or did not do it, and he who accepted not to do it, even if he did it, is liable.

Dig. 3.6.3.2

Digest 3.6.3.2

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, in the 10th book on the Edict.

Hoc edicto tenetur etiam is qui depectus est: depectus autem dicitur turpiter pactus.

This edict binds also him who has compounded; by “compounded” is meant one who has shamefully made a pact.

Dig. 3.6.3.3

Digest 3.6.3.3

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 10 on the Edict.

Illud erit notandum, quod qui dedit pecuniam, ut negotium quis pateretur, non habebit ipse repetitionem: turpiter enim fecit: sed ei dabitur petitio, propter quem datum est ut calumnia ei fiat. quare si quis et a te pecuniam accepit, ut mihi negotium faceret, et a me, ne mihi faceret, duobus iudiciis mihi tenebitur.

It should be noted that he who gave money so that someone should suffer litigation will not himself have repetition; for he acted disgracefully; but a petition will be given to him on whose account it was given, since it was given so that calumny be done to him. Therefore, if someone both received money from you to bring an action against me, and from me not to bring it against me, he will be liable to me in two actions.

Dig. 3.6.4

Digest 3.6.4

Gaius 4 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 4 on the provincial edict.

Haec actio heredi quidem non competit, quia sufficere ei debet, quod eam pecuniam quam defunctus dedit repetere potest.

This action indeed does not lie for the heir, because it ought to suffice him that he can reclaim that money which the deceased gave.

Dig. 3.6.5pr.

Digest 3.6.5pr.

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 10 on the Edict.

In heredem autem competit in id quod ad eum pervenit. nam est constitutum turpia lucra heredibus quoque extorqueri, licet crimina extinguantur: ut puta ob falsum vel iudici ob gratiosam sententiam datum et heredi extorquebitur et si quid aliud scelere quaesitum.

But against the heir it lies only to the extent that has come to him. For it is established that shameful gains are to be extorted from heirs as well, although crimes are extinguished: for example, on account of forgery, or that which was given to a judge for a favorable sentence,
will be extorted also from the heir, and likewise whatever else has been acquired by crime.

Dig. 3.6.5.1

Digest 3.6.5.1

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, 10 on the edict.

Sed etiam praeter hanc actionem condictio competit, si sola turpitudo accipientis versetur: nam si et dantis, melior causa erit possidentis. quare si fuerit condictum, utrum tollitur haec actio, an vero in triplum danda sit? an exemplo furis et in quadruplum actionem damus et condictionem?

But also, besides this action, a condiction is available, if the turpitude lies solely with the recipient: for if with the giver as well, the possessor’s case will be better. Wherefore, if a condiction has been brought, whether is this action extinguished, or rather is it to be given for triple? Or, by the example of the thief, do we grant both the action for quadruple and the condiction?

sed puto sufficere alterutram actionem. ubi autem condictio competit, ibi non est necesse post annum dare in factum actionem.

but I think that one or the other action suffices. where, however, the condictio is competent, there it is not necessary, after a year, to grant an in factum action.

Dig. 3.6.6

Digest 3.6.6

Gaius 4 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius, book 4 on the Provincial Edict.

Annus autem in personam quidem eius, qui dedit pecuniam ne secum ageretur, ex eo tempore cedit, ex quo dedit, si modo potestas ei fieret experiundi. in illius vero personam, cum quo ut agatur alius pecuniam dedit, dubitari potest, utrum ex die datae pecuniae numerari debeat, an potius ex quo cognovit datam esse: quia qui nescit, is videtur experiundi potestatem non habere. et verius est ex eo annum numerari, ex quo cognovit.

The year, moreover, as to the person of him who gave money that suit not be brought against him, runs from the time from which he gave it, provided that he had the power of bringing proceedings. But as to the person of him, against whom another gave money that action be brought, it can be doubted whether it ought to be counted from the day the money was given, or rather from the time when he learned that it had been given: because he who does not know is considered not to have the power of bringing proceedings. And the truer view is that the year is counted from the time when he learned.

Dig. 3.6.7pr.

Digest 3.6.7 pr.

Paulus 10 ad ed.

Paul, book 10 on the Edict.

Si quis ab alio acceperit pecuniam ne mihi negotium faciat, si quidem mandatu meo datum est, vel a procuratore meo omnium rerum, vel ab eo qui negotium meum gerere volebat et ratum habui: ego dedisse intellegor. si autem non mandatu meo alius licet misericordiae causa dederit ne fiat neque ratum habui, tunc et ipsum repetere et me in quadruplum agere posse.

If someone has received money from another not to bring an action against me, if indeed it was given at my mandate, or by my procurator of all things, or by one who wished to manage my business and I held it ratified: I am understood to have given it. But if, not at my mandate, another, even for the sake of mercy, has given it so that it not be done, and I did not ratify it, then both he can recover it and I can sue for fourfold.

Dig. 3.6.7.1

Digest 3.6.7.1

Paulus 10 ad ed.

Paulus, Book 10 on the Edict.

Si ut filio familias negotium fieret acceptum est, etiam ^ et^ patri actio danda est. item si filius familias pecuniam acceperit, ut faceret negotium vel non faceret, in ipsum iudicium dabitur: et si alius non meo mandatu ei dederit ne fiat, tunc etiam ipsum repetere et me in quadruplum agere posse.

If it has been accepted that business be conducted with the son-in-power, an action must be given also to the father. Likewise, if the son-in-power has received money so that he would do the business or not do it, an action will be granted against him:
and if someone else, not by my mandate, has given to him that it not be done, then he too can reclaim the same, and I can bring suit for fourfold.

Dig. 3.6.7.2

Digest 3.6.7.2

Paulus 10 ad ed.

Paulus, 10 on the Edict.

Cum publicanus mancipia retineret dataque ei pecunia esset quae non deberetur, et ipse ex hac parte edicti in factum actione tenetur.

When a publican was retaining slaves and money had been given to him which was not owed, he too is held liable under this part of the edict by an action in factum.

Dig. 3.6.8

Digest 3.6.8

Ulpianus 4 opin.

Ulpian, Opinions 4.

Si ab eo, qui innocens fuit, sub specie criminis alicuius, quod in eo probatum non est, pecuniam acceptam is cuius de ea re notio est edoctus fuerit: id quod illicite extortum est secundum edicti formam, quod de his est, qui pecuniam ut negotium facerent aut non facerent accepisse dicerentur, restitui iubeat et ei, qui id commisit, pro modo delicti poenam irroget.

If from one who was innocent, under the guise of some crime which has not been proved against him, money has been taken, and the one who has cognizance of that matter has been informed: let him, according to the form of the edict, which concerns those who are said to have received money so that they should do or not do a transaction, order that what was illicitly extorted be restored, and impose upon the one who committed it a penalty according to the measure of the delict.

Dig. 3.6.9

Digest 3.6.9

Papinianus 2 de adult.

Papinian 2 on adultery.

De servo qui accusatur, si postuletur, quaestio habetur: quo absoluto in duplum pretium accusator domino damnatur: sed et citra pretii aestimationem quaeritur de calumnia eius. separatum est etenim calumniae crimen a damno quod in servo propter quaestionem domino datum est.

Concerning a slave who is accused, if it is demanded, an inquiry is held; when this is concluded, the accuser is condemned to the master in double the price; but even apart from the valuation of the price, inquiry is made about his calumny thereof. for the crime of calumny is separate from the damage which, in the matter of the slave, has been given to the master on account of the inquiry.