Justinian: DIGESTA

4.8.0. On undertakings: those who have accepted an arbitration to pronounce a sentence.
Dig. 4.9.0. Shipmasters, innkeepers, and stablekeepers, that they restore the things received.

Dig. 4.1.0. De in integrum restitutionibus.

Dig. 4.1.0. On restitutions in integrum.

Dig. 4.1.1

Digest 4.1.1

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Utilitas huius tituli non eget commendatione, ipse enim se ostendit. nam sub hoc titulo plurifariam praetor hominibus vel lapsis vel circumscriptis subvenit, sive metu sive calliditate sive aetate sive absentia inciderunt in captionem.

The utility of this title needs no commendation, for it shows itself. For under this title the praetor in many ways comes to the aid of persons either who have lapsed or who have been overreached, whether through fear or through cunning or by reason of age or absence they have fallen into a trap.

Dig. 4.1.2

Digest 4.1.2

Paulus 1 sent.

Paulus Sentences 1.

Sive per status mutationem aut iustum errorem.

Either through a change of status or a just error.

Dig. 4.1.3

Digest 4.1.3

Modestinus 8 pand.

Modestinus 8 Pandects.

Omnes in integrum restitutiones causa cognita a praetore promittuntur, scilicet ut iustitiam earum causarum examinet, an verae sint, quarum nomine singulis subvenit.

All restitutions in integrum are promised by the praetor, the cause having been heard, namely so that he may examine the justice of those causes—whether they are true—on account of which he affords relief to individuals.

Dig. 4.1.4

Digest 4.1.4

Callistratus 1 ed. monit.

Callistratus book 1 of the Monitory Edict.

Scio illud a quibusdam observatum, ne propter satis minimam rem vel summam, si maiori rei vel summae praeiudicetur, audiatur is qui in integrum restitui postulat.

I know that this has been observed by some: that he who petitions to be restored in full is not to be heard on account of a quite minimal matter or sum, if prejudice would thereby be done to a greater matter or sum.

Dig. 4.1.5

Digest 4.1.5

Paulus 7 ad ed.

Paulus 7 on the Edict.

Nemo videtur re exclusus, quem praetor in integrum se restituturum polliceatur.

No one is regarded as excluded from the matter, whom the praetor promises that he will restore to the original condition.

Dig. 4.1.6

Digest 4.1.6

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the edict.

Non solum minoris, verum eorum quoque, qui rei publicae causa afuerunt, item omnium, qui ipsi potuerunt restitui in integrum, successores in integrum restitui possunt, et ita saepissime est constitutum. sive igitur heres sit sive is cui hereditas restituta est sive filii familias militis successor, in integrum restitui poterit. proinde et si minor in servitutem redigatur vel ancilla fiat, dominis eorum dabitur non ultra tempus statutum in integrum restitutio.

Not only of a minor, but also of those who were absent for the sake of the commonwealth, likewise the successors of all who themselves could be restored in integrum, can be restored in integrum; and so it has been most frequently established. Therefore, whether it be the heir, or the one to whom the inheritance has been restored, or the successor of a filius familias who is a soldier, he can be restored in integrum. Accordingly, even if a minor be reduced into servitude or a girl become an ancilla, in integrum restitution will be given to their masters, not beyond the time prescribed.

sed et si forte hic minor erat captus in hereditate quam adierit, iulianus libro septimo decimo digestorum scribit abstinendi facultatem dominum posse habere non solum aetatis beneficio, verum et si aetas non patrocinetur: quia non apiscendae hereditatis gratia legum beneficio usi sunt, sed vindictae gratia.

But also, if by chance this minor was taken captive within the inheritance which he had entered upon, Julian, in book 17 of the Digest, writes that the master can have the faculty of abstaining not only by the benefit of age, but even if age does not afford protection: because they have used the benefit of the laws not for the sake of acquiring the inheritance, but for the sake of vindication.

Dig. 4.1.7pr.

Digest 4.1.7pr.

Marcellus 3 Dig.

Marcellus 3 Digest.

Divus antoninus marcio avito praetori de succurrendo ei, qui absens rem amiserat, in hanc sententiam rescripsit: " etsi nihil facile mutandum est ex sollemnibus, tamen ubi aequitas evidens poscit, subveniendum est. itaque si citatus non respondit et ob hoc more pronuntiatum est, confestim autem pro tribunali te sedente adiit: existimari potest non sua culpa sed parum exaudita voce praeconis defuisse, ideoque restitui potest. "

The deified Antoninus wrote back to Marcius Avitus, the praetor, about aiding one who, being absent, had lost the case, to this effect: " even if nothing of the solemn forms should easily be changed, nevertheless where evident equity demands, help must be given. And so, if when summoned he did not answer and for this reason judgment was pronounced by custom, but immediately thereafter, as you were sitting before the tribunal, he approached: it can be thought that he failed to appear not by his own fault but because the crier’s voice was too little heard, and therefore he can be restored. "

Dig. 4.1.7.1

Digest 4.1.7.1

Marcellus 3 Dig.

Marcellus Digest 3

Nec intra has solum species consistet huius generis auxilium: etenim deceptis sine culpa sua, maxime si fraus ab adversario intervenerit, succurri oportebit, cum etiam de dolo malo actio competere soleat, et boni praetoris est potius restituere litem, ut et ratio aequitatis postulabit, quam actionem famosam constituere, ad quam tunc demum descendendum est, cum remedio locus esse non potest.

Nor will the relief of this kind stand confined within these forms alone: for to those deceived without their own fault, especially if fraud by the adversary has intervened, relief ought to be afforded, since even an action for dolus malus is wont to be available; and it is the part of a good praetor rather to restore the suit, as the principle of equity will demand, than to constitute an infaming action, to which one should only then descend when there can be no room for a remedy.

Dig. 4.1.8

Digest 4.1.8

Macer 2 de appellat.

Macer 2 on appeals.

Inter minores viginti quinque annis et eos qui rei publicae causa absunt hoc interest, quod minores annis etiam qui per tutores curatoresve suos defensi sunt, nihilo minus in integrum contra rem publicam restituuntur, cognita scilicet causa: ei vero qui rei publicae causa absit, ceteris quoque qui in eadem causa habentur, si per procuratores suos defensi sunt, hactenus in integrum restitutione subveniri solet, ut appellare his permittatur.

Between minors under twenty-five years and those who are absent for the sake of the Republic, this is the difference: minors in years, even if they have been defended by their tutors or curators, are nonetheless restored in integrum even against the Republic, the cause having of course been examined; but he who is absent for the sake of the Republic, and likewise the others who are held to be in the same case, if they have been defended by their procurators, are commonly aided by restitution in integrum only to this extent, that they are permitted to appeal.

Dig. 4.2.0. Quod metus causa gestum erit.

Dig. 4.2.0. What has been transacted by reason of fear.

Dig. 4.2.1

Digest 4.2.1

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Ait praetor: " quod metus causa gestum erit, ratum non habebo " . olim ita edicebatur " quod vi metusve causa " : vis enim fiebat mentio propter necessitatem impositam contrariam voluntati: metus instantis vel futuri periculi causa mentis trepidatio. sed postea detracta est vis mentio ideo, quia quodcumque vi atroci fit, id metu quoque fieri videtur.

The praetor says: " what has been done because of fear, I will not hold as ratified ". Formerly it used to be edicted thus: " what by force or by fear’s cause ": for mention of force was made on account of a necessity imposed contrary to the will; fear is a trepidation of the mind because of an imminent or future danger. But afterward mention of force was removed for this reason, because whatever is done by atrocious force seems to be done also through fear.

Dig. 4.2.2

Digest 4.2.2

Paulus 1 sent.

Paulus Book 1 of the Sentences.

Vis autem est maioris rei impetus, qui repelli non potest.

Force, moreover, is the impetus of a greater thing, which cannot be repelled.

Dig. 4.2.3pr.

Digest 4.2.3pr.

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Continet igitur haec clausula et vim et metum, et si quis vi compulsus aliquid fecit, per hoc edictum restituitur.

Therefore this clause contains both force and fear, and if anyone, compelled by force, has done something, he is restored through this edict.

Dig. 4.2.3.1

Digest 4.2.3.1

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the edict.

Sed vim accipimus atrocem et eam, quae adversus bonos mores fiat, non eam quam magistratus recte intulit, scilicet iure licito et iure honoris quem sustinet. ceterum si per iniuriam quid fecit populi romani magistratus vel provinciae praeses, pomponius scribit hoc edictum locum habere: si forte, inquit, mortis aut verberum terrore pecuniam alicui extorserit.

But we understand “violence” as atrocious, and as that which is done against good morals, not that which a magistrate has rightly applied, namely by lawful right and by the right of the office which he sustains. Moreover, if a magistrate of the Roman people or the governor of a province has done something wrongfully, Pomponius writes that this edict has application: “if perhaps,” he says, “under the terror of death or of beatings he has extorted money from someone.”

Dig. 4.2.4

Digest 4.2.4

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the Edict.

Ego puto etiam servitutis timorem similiumque admittendum.

I think that even the fear of servitude and of similar things is to be admitted.

Dig. 4.2.5

Digest 4.2.5

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Metum accipiendum labeo dicit non quemlibet timorem, sed maioris malitatis.

Labeo says that fear is to be taken not as just any terror, but as of a greater evil.

Dig. 4.2.6

Digest 4.2.6

Gaius 4 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 4 on the provincial edict.

Metum autem non vani hominis, sed qui merito et in homine constantissimo cadat, ad hoc edictum pertinere dicemus.

But we will say that not the fear of a fickle man, but the kind which would rightly befall even a most steadfast man, pertains to this edict.

Dig. 4.2.7pr.

Digest 4.2.7, preface.

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Nec timorem infamiae hoc edicto contineri pedius dicit libro septimo, neque alicuius vexationis timorem per hoc edictum restitui. proinde si quis meticulosus rem nullam frustra timuerit, per hoc edictum non restituitur, quoniam neque vi neque metus causa factum est.

Nor, Pedius says in the seventh book, is the fear of infamy contained by this edict, nor is the fear of any vexation restored through this edict. Accordingly, if some timorous person has groundlessly feared when there was no matter, he is not restored under this edict, since the deed was done neither by force nor by reason of fear.

Dig. 4.2.7.1

Digest 4.2.7.1

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Proinde si quis in furto vel adulterio deprehensus vel in alio flagitio vel dedit aliquid vel se obligavit, pomponius libro vicensimo octavo recte scribit posse eum ad hoc edictum pertinere: timuit enim vel mortem vel vincula. quamquam non omnem adulterum liceat occidere, vel furem, nisi se telo defendat: sed potuerunt vel non iure occidi, et ideo iustus fuerit metus. sed et si, ne prodatur ab eo qui deprehenderit, alienaverit, succurri ei per hoc edictum videtur, quoniam si proditus esset, potuerit ea pati quae diximus.

Accordingly, if someone apprehended in theft or in adultery or in another flagitious act either gave something or bound himself, Pomponius in the twenty-eighth book rightly writes that he can pertain to this edict: for he feared either death or bonds. Although it is not permitted to kill every adulterer, or thief, unless he defends himself with a weapon; yet they could have been killed even not lawfully, and therefore the fear was just. But also if, lest he be betrayed by him who apprehended him, he has alienated (his property), he seems to be aided by this edict, since, if he had been betrayed, he could have suffered those things which we have said.

Dig. 4.2.8pr.

Digest 4.2.8 pr.

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the Edict.

Isti quidem et in legem iuliam incidunt, quod pro comperto stupro acceperunt. praetor tamen etiam ut restituant intervenire debet: nam et gestum est malo more, et praetor non respicit, an adulter sit qui dedit, sed hoc solum, quod hic accepit metu mortis illato.

These men indeed also fall under the Julian law, because they accepted as the price for a discovered stuprum. Nevertheless the praetor ought also to intervene so that they restore it: for it was done in bad fashion, and the praetor does not regard whether the giver is an adulterer, but this alone, that he accepted it under the duress of fear of death brought upon him.

Dig. 4.2.8.1

Digest 4.2.8.1

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the Edict.

Si is accipiat pecuniam, qui instrumenta status mei interversurus est nisi dem, non dubitatur quin maximo metu compellat, utique si iam in servitutem petor et illis instrumentis perditis liber pronuntiari non possum.

If he should take money—he who is going to tamper with the documents of my status unless I give it—there is no doubt that he compels by the greatest fear, especially if I am already being claimed into slavery, and with those documents lost I cannot be pronounced free.

Dig. 4.2.8.2

Digest 4.2.8.2

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the Edict.

Quod si dederit ne stuprum patiatur vir seu mulier, hoc edictum locum habet, cum viris bonis iste metus maior quam mortis esse debet.

But if he has paid so that a man or a woman may not suffer rape, this edict has application, since for good men that fear ought to be greater than fear of death.

Dig. 4.2.8.3

Digest 4.2.8.3

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the Edict.

Haec, quae diximus ad edictum pertinere, nihil interest in se quis veritus sit an in liberis suis, cum pro affectu parentes magis in liberis terreantur.

These things, which we have said pertain to the edict, it makes no difference whether one feared for himself or for his own children, since, on account of affection, parents are more terrified on behalf of their children.

Dig. 4.2.9pr.

Digest 4.2.9, beginning.

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the edict.

Metum autem praesentem accipere debemus, non suspicionem inferendi eius: et ita pomponius libro vicensimo octavo scribit. ait enim metum illatum accipiendum, id est si illatus est timor ab aliquo. denique tractat, si fundum meum dereliquero audito, quod quis cum armis veniret, an huic edicto locus sit?

However, we ought to take fear as present, not a suspicion of its being brought on; and so Pomponius writes in the twenty-eighth book. For he says that “inflicted fear” is to be understood, that is, if fear has been inflicted by someone. Finally, he discusses whether, if I have abandoned my estate upon hearing that someone was coming with arms, there is scope for this edict?

et refert labeonem existimare edicto locum non esse et unde vi interdictum cessare, quoniam non videor vi deiectus, qui deici non expectavi sed profugi. aliter atque si, posteaquam armati ingressi sunt, tunc discessi: huic enim edicto locum facere. idem ait, et si forte adhibita manu in meo solo per vim aedifices, et interdictum quod vi aut clam et hoc edictum locum habere, scilicet quoniam metu patior id te facere.

and he reports that Labeo judges there is no place for the edict and that the interdict “unde vi” does not apply, since I do not seem to have been cast out by force, I who did not wait to be cast out but fled. otherwise than if, after armed men had entered, I then departed: for in that case this edict would have place. he says the same, too, that if perchance, with force applied, you build on my soil by force, both the interdict “quod vi aut clam” and this edict have place—namely, because through fear I allow you to do that.

sed et si per vim tibi possessionem tradidero, dicit pomponius hoc edicto locum esse.

but also, if I have delivered possession to you by force, Pomponius says that this edict has place.

Dig. 4.2.9.1

Digest 4.2.9.1

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian book 11 on the edict.

Animadvertendum autem, quod praetor hoc edicto generaliter et in rem loquitur nec adicit a quo gestum: et ideo sive singularis sit persona, quae metum intulit, vel populus vel curia vel collegium vel corpus, huic edicto locus erit. sed licet vim factam a quocumque praetor complectatur, eleganter tamen pomponius ait, si quo magis te de vi hostium vel latronum vel populi tuerer vel liberarem, aliquid a te accepero vel te obligavero, non debere me hoc edicto teneri, nisi ipse hanc tibi vim summisi: ceterum si alienus sum a vi, teneri me non debere, ego enim operae potius meae mercedem accepisse videor.

It must be noted, however, that the praetor by this edict speaks generally and in rem and does not add by whom the act was done; and therefore whether the person who brought in fear is a single individual, or the People, or a curia, or a collegium, or a corporate body, this edict will have application. But although the praetor comprehends force done by anyone whatsoever, yet Pomponius elegantly says: if, in order the more to protect you or to free you from the vis of enemies or of robbers or of the populace, I have received something from you or have bound you under obligation, I ought not to be held by this edict, unless I myself sent this force upon you; but if I am a stranger to the force, I ought not to be held, for I seem rather to have received the wage of my service.

Dig. 4.2.9.2

Digest 4.2.9.2

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian book 11 on the Edict.

Idem pomponius scribit quosdam bene putare etiam servi manumissionem vel aedificii depositionem, quam quis coactus fecit, ad restitutionem huius edicti porrigendam esse.

The same Pomponius writes that certain people rightly think that even the manumission of a slave or the demolition of a building, which someone carried out under compulsion, ought to be brought within the restitution provided by this edict.

Dig. 4.2.9.3

Digest 4.2.9.3

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Sed quod praetor ait ratum se non habiturum, quatenus accipiendum est videamus. et quidem aut imperfecta res est, licet metus intervenerit, ut puta stipulationem numeratio non est secuta, aut perfecta, si post stipulationem et numeratio facta est aut per metum accepto debitor liberatus est vel quid simile contigerit quod negotium perficeret. et pomponius scribit in negotiis quidem perfectis et exceptionem interdum et actionem competere, in imperfectis autem solam exceptionem.

But as to what the praetor says, that he will not hold it ratified, let us see to what extent it is to be taken. And indeed, either the matter is imperfect, although fear (duress) has intervened—for instance, the numeration (counting out/payment) has not followed the stipulation—or it is perfect, if after the stipulation even the numeration has been made, or the debtor has been released by acceptilation under duress, or something similar has occurred which would perfect the transaction. And Pomponius writes that in transactions that are indeed perfect both an exception at times and an action lie; whereas in imperfect ones, only an exception.

sed ex facto scio, cum campani metu cuidam illato extorsissent cautionem pollicitationis, rescriptum esse ab imperatore nostro posse eum a praetore in integrum restitutionem postulare, et praetorem me adsidente interlocutum esse, ut sive actione vellet adversus campanos experiri, esse propositam, sive exceptione adversus petentes, non deesse exceptionem. ex qua constitutione colligitur, ut sive perfecta sive imperfecta res sit, et actio et exceptio detur.

but from an actual case I know that, when the Campanians, fear having been brought upon a certain person, had extorted a security for a promise, there was a rescript from our emperor that he could petition the praetor for in integrum restitution, and that the praetor, with me sitting beside, gave an interlocutory ruling that, whether he wished to proceed by an action against the Campanians, an action was available, or by an exception against the claimants, an exception was not lacking. from which constitution it is gathered that, whether the matter be perfect or imperfect, both an action and an exception are granted.

Dig. 4.2.9.4

Digest 4.2.9.4

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the edict.

Volenti autem datur et in rem actio et in personam rescissa acceptilatione vel alia liberatione.

However, to the willing party there is granted both an action in rem and an action in personam, the acceptilation or other liberation having been rescinded.

Dig. 4.2.9.5

Digest 4.2.9.5

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 11 on the Edict.

Iulianus libro tertio digestorum putat eum, cui res metus causa tradita est, non solum reddere, verum et de dolo repromittere debere.

Julian, in the third book of the Digests, thinks that he to whom a thing has been delivered by reason of fear ought not only to restore it, but also to repromise concerning fraud.

Dig. 4.2.9.6

Digest 4.2.9.6

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Licet tamen in rem actionem dandam existimemus, quia res in bonis est eius, qui vim passus est, verum non sine ratione dicetur, si in quadruplum quis egerit, finiri in rem actionem vel contra.

Nevertheless, we consider that an action in rem should be granted, because the thing is in the goods (patrimony) of the one who has suffered violence; but it will not without reason be said that, if someone has sued for the quadruple, the action in rem is brought to an end—or the other way around.

Dig. 4.2.9.7

Digest 4.2.9.7

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 On the Edict.

Ex hoc edicto restitutio talis facienda est, id est in integrum, officio iudicis, ut, si per vim res tradita est, retradatur et de dolo sicut dictum est repromittatur, ne forte deterior res sit facta. et si acceptilatione liberatio intervenit, restituenda erit in pristinum statum obligatio, usque adeo, ut iulianus scribat libro quarto digestorum, si pecunia debita fuit, quae accepta per vim facta est, nisi vel solvatur vel restituta obligatione iudicium accipiatur, quadruplo eum condemnandum. sed et si per vim stipulanti promisero, stipulatio accepto facienda erit.

From this edict such a restitution is to be made, that is, in integrum, by the duty of the judge, such that, if a thing has been delivered by force, it shall be given back, and a promise against fraud, as has been said, shall be promised anew, lest perhaps the thing has been made worse. And if a liberation has intervened by acceptilation, the obligation must be restored to its pristine state—so far that Julian writes in the fourth book of the Digest, that, if money was owed which, having been received, was obtained by force, unless either it be paid, or, the obligation having been restored, an action be taken, he must be condemned fourfold. But also, if under force I have promised to one stipulating, the stipulatio must be undone by acceptilation.

sed et si usus fructus vel servitutes amissae sunt, restituendae erunt.

But also, if the usufruct or servitudes have been lost, they must be restored.

Dig. 4.2.9.8

Digest 4.2.9.8

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 to the edict.

Cum autem haec actio in rem sit scripta nec personam vim facientis coercerat, sed adversus omnes restitui velit quod metus causa factum est: non immerito iulianus a Marcello notatus est scribens, si fideiussor vim intulit, ut accepto liberetur, in reum non esse restituendam actionem, sed fideiussorem, nisi adversus reum quoque actionem restituat, debere in quadruplum condemnari. sed est verius, quod Marcellus notat: etiam adversus reum competere hanc actionem, cum in rem sit scripta.

when, moreover, this action is written in rem and does not restrain itself to the person of the one using violence, but wills that what was done by reason of fear be restored against all: not without reason was Julian noted by Marcellus for writing that, if a surety applied violence so that by acceptilation he might be freed, the action is not to be restored against the principal debtor, but the surety, unless he also restores the action against the debtor, ought to be condemned in the fourfold. but what Marcellus notes is truer: that this action also lies against the debtor, since it is written in rem.

Dig. 4.2.10

Digest 4.2.10

Gaius 4 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 4 On the Provincial Edict.

Illud verum est, si ex facto debitoris metum adhibentis fideiussores acceptilatione liberati sunt, etiam adversus fideiussores agi posse, ut se reponant in obligationem. si metu a te coactus acceptam tibi stipulationem fecerim, arbitratu iudicis, apud quem ex hoc edicto agitur, non solum illud continetur, ut in tua persona redintegretur obligatio, sed ut fideiussores quoque vel eosdem vel alios non minus idoneos adhibeas: praeterea ut et pignora quae dederas in eandem causam restituas.

That is true: if, by the act of the debtor applying fear, the sureties were released by acceptilation, it is possible also to proceed against the sureties, so that they be replaced in the obligation. If, compelled by fear by you, I have made to you an acceptilation of the stipulation, then, at the arbitrament of the judge before whom action is brought under this edict, not only is this included—that the obligation be renewed in your person—but also that you furnish sureties as well, either the same or others no less suitable; moreover, that you restore likewise the pledges which you had given for the same cause.

Dig. 4.2.11

Digest 4.2.11

Paulus not. ad iul. 4 Dig.

Paulus notes on Julian, Digest 4.

Si quis alius sine malitia fideiussoris ut fideiussori accepto fieret vim fecit, non tenebitur fideiussor, ut rei quoque obligationem restituat.

If someone else, without the surety’s malice, used force so that a discharge by acceptilation be made to the surety, the surety will not be held to restore the obligation of the principal debtor as well.

Dig. 4.2.12pr.

Digest 4.2.12 pr.

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Sed et partus ancillarum et fetus pecorum et fructus restitui et omnem causam oportet: nec solum eos qui percepti sunt, verum si plus ego percipere potui et per metum impeditus sum, hoc quoque praestabit.

But the births of maidservants and the offspring of livestock and the fruits must be restored, and the whole account; and not only those which have been perceived (i.e., gathered), but if I could have perceived more and was impeded through fear, he shall make good this as well.

Dig. 4.2.12.1

Digest 4.2.12.1

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the edict.

Quaeri poterit, an etiam ei qui vim fecerat passo vim restitui praetor velit per hoc edictum ea quae alienavit. et pomponius scribit libro vicensimo octavo non oportere ei praetorem opem ferre: nam cum liceat, inquit, vim vi repellere, quod fecit passus est. quare si metu te coegerit sibi promittere, mox ego eum coegero metu te accepto liberare, nihil esse quod ei restituatur.

It can be asked whether, even for one who had used force, when he has suffered force, the praetor would wish by this edict that there be restored the things which he alienated. And Pomponius writes in the twenty-eighth book that the praetor ought not to bring aid to him: for since it is permitted, he says, to repel force with force, what he did he has suffered. Wherefore, if he compelled you through fear to promise to him, and soon I compelled him through fear to release you by acceptilation, there is nothing that should be restored to him.

Dig. 4.2.12.2

Digest 4.2.12.2

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Iulianus ait eum, qui vim adhibuit debitori suo ut ei solveret, hoc edicto non teneri propter naturam metus causa actionis quae damnum exigit: quamvis negari non possit in iuliam eum de vi incidisse et ius crediti amisisse.

Julian says that he who has applied force to his debtor so that he might pay him is not held by this edict, on account of the nature of the metus causa action, which exacts damages; although it cannot be denied that he has fallen under the Julian law on force and has lost the right to his credit.

Dig. 4.2.13

Digest 4.2.13

Callistratus 5 de cogn.

Callistratus 5 on cognitions.

Exstat enim decretum divi marci in haec verba: " optimum est, ut, si quas putas te habere petitiones, actionibus experiaris. cum marcianus diceret: vim nullam feci, caesar dixit: tu vim putas esse solum, si homines vulnerentur ? vis est et tunc, quotiens quis id, quod deberi sibi putat, non per iudicem reposcit. quisquis igitur probatus mihi fuerit rem ullam debitoris vel pecuniam debitam non ab ipso sibi sponte datam sine ullo iudice temere possidere vel accepisse, isque sibi ius in eam rem dixisse: ius crediti non habebit " .

For there exists indeed a decree of the deified Marcus in these words: " it is best that, if you think you have any petitions, you should try them by actions. when marcianus was saying: I used no force, caesar said: do you think force is only if men are wounded ? force exists also then, whenever someone reclaims, not through a judge, that which he thinks is owed to him. therefore whoever shall have been proved before me to possess or to have received rashly, without any judge, any thing of a debtor or money owed, not given to him by the debtor himself voluntarily, and to have asserted a right to that thing for himself: he shall not have the right of credit " .

Dig. 4.2.14pr.

Digest 4.2.14, preface.

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Item si, cum exceptione adversus te perpetua tutus essem, coegero te acceptum mihi facere, cessare hoc edictum, quia nihil tibi abest.

Likewise, if, although I was safe against you by a perpetual exception, I have compelled you to make an entry of “received” in my favor, this edict ceases, because nothing is lacking to you.

Dig. 4.2.14.1

Digest 4.2.14.1

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Si quis non restituat, in quadruplum in eum iudicium pollicetur: quadruplabitur autem omne quodcumque restitui oportuit. satis clementer cum reo praetor egit, ut daret ei restituendi facultatem, si vult poenam evitare. post annum vero in simplum actionem pollicetur, sed non semper, sed causa cognita.

If anyone does not restore, an action for fourfold is promised against him: moreover, whatever ought to have been restored will be quadrupled. The praetor acted quite clemently with the defendant, in that he gave him the faculty of restoring, if he wishes to evade the penalty. After a year, however, he promises an action for the simple amount, but not always, rather with the case having been cognized.

Dig. 4.2.14.2

Digest 4.2.14.2

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

In causae autem cognitione versatur, ut, si alia actio non sit, tunc haec detur: et sane cum per metum facta iniuria anno et quidem utili exoleverit, idonea esse causa debet, ut post annum actio haec dari debeat. alia autem actio esse sic potest: si is cui vis admissa est decesserit, heres eius habet hereditatis petitionem, quoniam pro possessore qui vim intulit possidet: propter quod heredi non erit metus causa actio, quamvis, si annus largiretur, etiam heres in quadruplum experiri possit. ideo autem successoribus datur, quoniam et rei habet persecutionem.

In the examination of the cause the matter turns on this: that, if there is no other action, then this one is given; and indeed, since an injury done through fear lapses by a year—and indeed a “useful” one—there ought to be an adequate cause for this action to be granted after a year. Another action, however, can exist thus: if the person against whom force was employed has died, his heir has the petition of the inheritance, since the one who inflicted the force is in possession as possessor; for which reason the heir will not have the action on account of fear, although, if the year were granted, even the heir could proceed for the fourfold. And it is for this reason that it is given to successors, since it also has pursuit of the thing.

Dig. 4.2.14.3

Digest 4.2.14.3

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the edict.

In hac actione non quaeritur, utrum is qui convenitur an alius metum fecit: sufficit enim hoc docere metum sibi illatum vel vim, et ex hac re eum qui convenitur, etsi crimine caret, lucrum tamen sensisse. nam cum metus habeat in se ignorantiam, merito quis non adstringitur ut designet, quis ei metum vel vim adhibuit: et ideo ad hoc tantum actor adstringitur, ut doceat metum in causa fuisse, ut alicui acceptam pecuniam faceret vel rem traderet vel quid aliud faceret. nec cuiquam iniquum videtur ex alieno facto alium in quadruplum condemnari, quia non statim quadrupli est actio, sed si res non restituatur.

In this action it is not inquired whether the one who is sued or someone else produced the fear: for it is sufficient to demonstrate this—that fear was brought upon him, or force; and from this that the one who is sued, although he is free of crime, has nevertheless derived profit. For since fear carries ignorance in itself, with good reason one is not constrained to designate who applied the fear or the force to him; and therefore the plaintiff is constrained only to this, to show that fear was the cause, so that he credited someone with money as received, or delivered a thing, or did something else. Nor does it seem unjust to anyone that one be condemned in the quadruple on account of another’s act, because the action is not immediately for the quadruple, but only if the thing is not restored.

Dig. 4.2.14.4

Digest 4.2.14.4

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Haec autem actio cum arbitraria sit, habet reus licentiam usque ad sententiam ab arbitro datam restitutionem, secundum quod supra diximus, rei facere: quod si non fecerit, iure meritoque quadrupli condemnationem patietur.

This action, moreover, since it is arbitrary, gives the defendant license, up to the sentence given by the arbiter, to make restitution of the thing, according to what we said above; but if he does not do it, by right and deservedly he will undergo condemnation to the quadruple.

Dig. 4.2.14.5

Digest 4.2.14.5

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the edict.

Aliquando tamen et si metus adhibitus proponatur, arbitrium absolutionem adfert. quid enim si metum quidem titius adhibuit me non conscio, res autem ad me pervenit, et haec in rebus humanis non est sine dolo malo meo: nonne iudicis officio absolvar? aut si servus in fuga est, aeque, si cavero iudicis officio me, si in meam potestatem pervenerit, restituturum, absolvi debebo.

Sometimes, however, even if it is alleged that fear was employed, the arbitrium affords absolution. For what if indeed Titius employed fear without my being aware, yet the thing came to me, and this, in human affairs, is not attended by any dolus malus on my part: shall I not be absolved by the judge’s office? Or if the slave is in flight, likewise, if I shall give security by the judge’s office that, if he comes into my power, I will restore him, I ought to be absolved.

unde quidam putant bona fide emptorem ab eo qui vim intulit comparantem non teneri nec eum qui dono accepit vel cui res legata est. sed rectissime viviano videtur etiam hos teneri, ne metus, quem passus sum, mihi captiosus sit. pedius quoque libro octavo scribit arbitrium iudicis in restituenda re tale esse, ut eum quidem qui vim admisit iubeat restituere, etiamsi ad alium res pervenit, eum autem ad quem pervenit, etiamsi alius metum fecit: nam in alterius praemium verti alienum metum non oportet.

whence some think that a good‑faith purchaser buying from him who used force is not held liable, nor he who received by gift or to whom the thing has been bequeathed. but most correctly it seems to Vivianus that even these are held, lest the fear (duress) which I suffered be a snare to me. Pedius likewise, in Book 8, writes that the discretion of the judge in restoring the thing is of this sort: that he should order him who admitted the violence to restore, even if the thing has come to another; and also the one to whom it has come, even if another caused the fear (duress): for another’s fear ought not to be converted into someone else’s reward.

Dig. 4.2.14.6

Digest 4.2.14.6

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Labeo ait, si quis per metum reus sit constitutus et fideiussorem volentem dederit, et ipse et fideiussor liberatur: si solus fideiussor metu accessit, non etiam reus, solus fideiussor liberabitur.

Labeo says that if someone has been constituted defendant through fear and has given a willing surety, both he and the surety are released; if only the surety acceded through fear, and not also the defendant, the surety alone will be released.

Dig. 4.2.14.7

Digest 4.2.14.7

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Quadruplatur autem id quanti ea res erit, id est cum fructibus et omni causa.

Moreover, the amount is quadrupled to what the thing will be worth, that is, with the fruits and in every respect.

Dig. 4.2.14.8

Digest 4.2.14.8

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Si quis per vim sisti promittendo postea fideiussorem adhibeat, is quoque liberatur.

If anyone, by force, promises to appear, and afterward brings in a surety, he too is released.

Dig. 4.2.14.9

Digest 4.2.14.9

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the edict.

Sed et si quis per vim stipulatus, cum acceptum non faceret, fuerit in quadruplum condemnatus, ex stipulatu eum agentem adversus exceptionem replicatione adiuvari iulianus putat, cum in quadruplo et simplum sit reus consecutus. labeo autem etiam post quadrupli actionem nihilo minus exceptione summovendum eum, qui vim intulit, dicebat: quod cum durum videbatur, ita temperandum est, ut tam tripli condemnatione plectatur, quam acceptilationem omnimodo facere compellatur.

But also, if someone, having stipulated by force, and, since he did not grant an acquittance, has been condemned in fourfold, Julianus thinks that, when he sues on the stipulation, he is aided by a replication against the exception, since in the fourfold the defendant has obtained even the simple amount. Labeo, however, said that even after the fourfold action he who employed force should nonetheless be removed by the exception; which, since it seemed harsh, must be tempered thus: that he be punished both by a condemnation in triple, and be compelled in every way to make the acceptilation.

Dig. 4.2.14.10

Digest 4.2.14.10

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Quatenus autem diximus quadruplo simplum inesse, si hoc disponendum est, ut in condemnatione quadrupli res quidem omnimodo contineatur et eius restitutio fiat, poenae autem usque ad triplum stetur.

And inasmuch as we have said that in the quadruple the simple is contained, if this is to be arranged, let it be thus: that in a condemnation for quadruple the thing itself in every way be included and its restitution be made, but as for the penalty, it shall stand at up to triple.

Dig. 4.2.14.11

Digest 4.2.14.11

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the edict.

Quid si homo sine dolo malo et culpa eius, qui vim intulit et condemnatus est, periit? in hoc casu a rei condemnatione ideo relaxabitur, si intra tempora iudicati actionis moriatur, quia tripli poena propter facinus satisfacere cogitur. pro eo autem, qui in fuga esse dicitur, cautio ab eo extorquenda est, quatenus et persequatur et omnimodo eum restituat: et nihilominus in rem vel ad exhibendum vel si qua alia ei competit actio ad eum recipiendum integra ei qui vim passus est servabitur, ita ut, si dominus eum quoquo modo receperit, is qui ex stipulatione convenitur exceptione tutus fiat.

What if the man has perished without guileful intent (dolus malus) or fault on the part of him who inflicted the force and has been condemned? In this case he will for that reason be released from condemnation as defendant, if the man dies within the time for the actio iudicati, because he is compelled to satisfy the triple penalty on account of the crime (facinus). But for one who is said to be in flight, a security (cautio) must be exacted from him, to the extent that he both pursue him and in every way restore him; and nonetheless the real action (in rem) or the action for production (ad exhibendum), or if any other action is competent to him for receiving him back, will be kept intact for him who has suffered the violence, with the result that, if the master shall in any way have received him, the one who is sued on the stipulation becomes safe by a defense (exceptio).

haec si post condemnationem: si autem ante sententiam homo sine dolo malo et culpa mortuus fuerit, tenebitur, et hoc fit his verbis edicti " neque ea res arbitrio iudicis restituetur". ergo si in fuga sit servus sine dolo malo et culpa eius cum quo agetur, cavendum est per iudicem, ut eum servum persecutus reddat. sed et si non culpa ab eo quocum agitur aberit, si tamen peritura res non fuit, si metum non adhibuisset, tenebitur reus: sicut in interdicto unde vi vel quod vi aut clam observatur. itaque interdum hominis mortui pretium recipit, qui eum venditurus fuit, si vim passus non esset.

these things if after condemnation: but if before judgment a man, without fraud or fault, has died, he will be liable, and this is effected by these words of the edict: " neque ea res at the arbitrament of the judge will be restored". therefore, if a slave be in flight without fraud or fault of him against whom action is brought, security must be exacted by the judge, that, having pursued that slave, he return him. but also, if the absence was not through the fault of him against whom action is brought, nevertheless, if the thing would not have perished had he not applied fear, the defendant will be liable: as is observed in the interdict “whence by force” or “because by force or secretly.” accordingly, the price of a dead man is sometimes recovered by him who would have sold him, if he had not suffered violence.

Dig. 4.2.14.12

Digest 4.2.14.12

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian book 11 on the Edict.

Qui vim intulit, cum possessionem a me sit consecutus, fur non est: quamvis qui rapuit, fur improbior esse videatur, ut iuliano placet.

He who has brought force, when he has obtained possession from me, is not a thief: although he who has snatched it seems to be a more depraved thief, as Julian holds.

Dig. 4.2.14.13

Digest 4.2.14.13

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian Book 11 on the Edict.

Eum qui metum fecit et de dolo teneri certum est, et ita pomponius, et consumi alteram actionem per alteram exceptione in factum opposita.

It is certain that he who caused fear is also held on account of fraud, and so Pomponius; and that one action is consumed by the other when an in-fact exception is opposed.

Dig. 4.2.14.14

Digest 4.2.14.14

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Iulianus ait quod interest quadruplari solum, et ideo eum, qui ex causa fideicommissi quadraginta debebat, si trecenta promiserit per vim et solverit, ducentorum sexaginta quadruplum consecuturum: in his enim cum effectu vim passus est.

Julian says that only the damages are to be quadrupled; and therefore the person who, on account of a fideicommissum, owed forty, if he has promised three hundred under duress and has paid it, will obtain fourfold of two hundred and sixty: for in these he suffered force with effect.

Dig. 4.2.14.15

Digest 4.2.14.15

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 On the Edict.

Secundum haec si plures metum adhibuerint et unus fuerit conventus, si quidem sponte rem ante sententiam restituerit, omnes liberati sunt: sed et si id non fecerit, sed ex sententia quadruplum restituerit, verius est etiam sic peremi adversus ceteros metus causa actionem.

Accordingly, if several have employed fear and one has been convened, if indeed he has voluntarily restored the thing before judgment, all are freed; but even if he has not done that, but has restored the quadruple by judgment, the truer view is that even so the action on account of fear is extinguished against the others.

Dig. 4.2.15

Digest 4.2.15

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the Edict.

Aut in id dabitur adversus ceteros actio, quod minus ab illo exactum sit.

Or an action will be given against the others for the amount by which less has been exacted from him.

Dig. 4.2.16pr.

Digest 4.2.16 pr.

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 On the Edict.

Quod diximus si plures metum admiserunt, idem dicendum erit et si ad alium res pervenit, alter metum adhibuit.

What we have said, if several have employed fear (duress), the same is to be said also if the thing has come to another and another has applied fear.

Dig. 4.2.16.1

Digest 4.2.16.1

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Sed si servi metum adhibuerint, noxalis quidem actio ipsorum nomine erit, poterit autem quis dominum ad quem res pervenerit convenire: qui conventus sive rem sive secundum quod iam dictum est quadruplum praestiterit, proderit et servis. si vero noxali conventus maluerit noxae dedere, nihilo minus ipse poterit conveniri, si ad eum res pervenit.

But if slaves have employed fear, a noxal action indeed will be in their name; however, one may proceed against the master to whom the thing has come: and the one sued, whether he has rendered the thing or, as has already been said, the quadruple, it will also be to the slaves’ benefit. But if, when sued noxally, he has preferred to surrender them for the wrong (to deliver them in noxa), nonetheless he himself can be proceeded against, if the thing has come to him.

Dig. 4.2.16.2

Digest 4.2.16.2

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Haec actio heredi ceterisque successoribus datur, quoniam rei habet persecutionem. in heredem autem et ceteros in id, quod pervenit ad eos, datur non immerito: licet enim poena ad heredem non transeat, attamen quod turpiter vel scelere quaesitum est, ut est et rescriptum, ad compendium heredis non debet pertinere.

This action is given to the heir and the other successors, since it has the pursuit of the thing. But against the heir and the others it is given to the extent that there has come to them, not without reason: for although the penalty does not pass to the heir, nevertheless what has been acquired disgracefully or by crime, as is also set out in a rescript, ought not to pertain to the heir’s profit.

Dig. 4.2.17

Digest 4.2.17

Paulus 1 quaest.

Paulus 1 questions.

Videamus ergo, si heres, ad quem aliquid pervenerit, consumpserit id quod pervenit, an desinat teneri, an vero sufficit semel pervenisse? et, si consumpto eo decesserit, utrum adversus heredem eius omnimodo competit actio, quoniam hereditariam suscepit obligationem, an non sit danda, quoniam ad secundum heredem nihil pervenit? et melius est omnimodo competere in heredem heredis actionem: sufficit enim semel pervenisse ad proximum heredem, et perpetua actio esse coepit: alioquin dicendum erit nec ipsum, qui consumpsit quod ad eum pervenit, teneri.

Let us see therefore, if an heir, to whom something has come, has consumed that which has come, whether he ceases to be held, or indeed whether it suffices that it has once come? and, if after consuming it he has deceased, whether the action lies in every way against his heir, since he assumed a hereditary obligation, or should not be given, since nothing has come to the second heir? and it is better that in every way the action lie against the heir of the heir: for it suffices that it has once come to the next heir, and the action has begun to be perpetual; otherwise it will have to be said that not even he himself, who consumed what came to him, is held.

Dig. 4.2.18

Digest 4.2.18

Iulianus 64 Dig.

Julian 64 Digest.

Si ipsa res, quae ad alium pervenit, interiit, non esse locupletiorem dicemus: sin vero in pecuniam aliamve rem conversa sit, nihil amplius quaerendum est, quis exitus sit, sed omnimodo locuples factus videtur, licet postea deperdat. nam et imperator titus antoninus claudio frontino de pretiis rerum hereditarium rescripsit ob id ipsum peti ab eo hereditatem posse, quia licet res quae in hereditate fuerant apud eum non sint, tamen pretium earum quo, locupletem eum vel saepius mutata specie faciendo, perinde obligat, ac si corpora ipsa in eadem specie mansissent.

If the very thing which came to another has perished, we will say that he is not more enriched; but if it has been converted into money or into some other thing, nothing further needs to be asked as to what the outcome is, but in every way he is considered to have been made enriched, even if he later loses it. For the Emperor Titus Antoninus also wrote back to Claudius Frontinus concerning the prices/values of things of an inheritance that on that very ground the inheritance can be claimed from him, because although the things which had been in the inheritance are not with him, nevertheless their price, which, making him enriched—even with the form repeatedly changed—obligates him to the same effect as if the very bodies had remained in the same form.

Dig. 4.2.19

Digest 4.2.19

Gaius 4 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 4 on the provincial edict.

Quod autem in heredem eatenus pollicetur actionem proconsul, quatenus ad eum pervenerit, intellegendum est ad perpetuo dandam actionem pertinere.

But as to the proconsul’s promising an action against the heir only to that extent, namely insofar as it has come to him, it must be understood to pertain to an action to be granted in perpetuity.

Dig. 4.2.20

Digest 4.2.20

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Quantum autem ad heredem pervenerit, litis contestatae tempore spectabitur, si modo certum sit aliquid pervenisse. idem et si ipsius qui vim intulit sic in corpus patrimonii pervenit aliquid, ut certum sit ad heredem perventurum, id est si debitor liberatus est.

But as to how much has come to the heir, it will be examined at the time of the litis contestatio, provided only that it is certain that something has come. The same [holds] also if something has thus come into the corpus of the patrimony of the very person who employed force, such that it is certain it will come to the heir—that is, if a debtor has been released.

Dig. 4.2.21pr.

Digest 4.2.21pr.

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the Edict.

Si mulier contra patronum suum ingrata facta sciens se ingratam, cum de suo statu periclitabatur, aliquid patrono dederit vel promiserit, ne in servitutem redigatur: cessat edictum, quia hunc sibi metum ipsa infert.

If a woman, having made herself ungrateful against her patron, knowing herself to be ungrateful, when she was in peril concerning her status, has given or promised something to the patron so that she not be reduced into servitude: the edict does not operate, because she herself brings this fear upon herself.

Dig. 4.2.21.1

Digest 4.2.21.1

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 On the Edict.

Quod metus causa gestum erit, nullo tempore praetor ratum habebit.

Whatever shall have been done by reason of fear, the praetor will at no time hold valid.

Dig. 4.2.21.2

Digest 4.2.21.2

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the Edict.

Qui possessionem non sui fundi tradidit, non quanti fundus, sed quanti possessio est, eius quadruplum vel simplum cum fructibus consequetur: aestimatur enim quod restitui oportet, id est quod abest: abest autem nuda possessio cum suis fructibus. quod et pomponius.

He who has delivered possession of an estate not his own—there will be recovered not the value of the estate, but the value of the possession, fourfold or single, together with the fruits: for what must be restored is assessed, that is, what is lacking; what is lacking, however, is the bare possession with its fruits. Which Pomponius also.

Dig. 4.2.21.3

Digest 4.2.21.3

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the edict.

Si dos metu promissa sit, non puto nasci obligationem, quia est verissimum nec talem promissionem dotis ullam esse.

If a dowry has been promised under fear, I do not think an obligation arises, because it is most true that there is no such promise of dowry at all.

Dig. 4.2.21.4

Digest 4.2.21.4

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paul 11 on the Edict.

Si metu coactus sim ab emptione locatione discedere, videndum est, an nihil sit acti et antiqua obligatio remaneat, an hoc simile sit acceptilationi, quia nulla ex bonae fidei obligatione possimus niti, cum finita sit dum amittitur: et magis est ut similis species acceptilationis sit, et ideo praetoria actio nascitur.

If I have been compelled by fear to withdraw from a purchase or a lease, it must be considered whether nothing has been effected and the prior obligation remains, or whether this is similar to an acceptilation, because we can rely on no obligation of good faith, since it is terminated when it is relinquished: and the more correct view is that it is a kind similar to an acceptilation, and therefore a praetorian action arises.

Dig. 4.2.21.5

Digest 4.2.21.5

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus Book 11 on the Edict.

Si metu coactus adii hereditatem, puto me heredem effici, quia quamvis si liberum esset noluissem, tamen coactus volui: sed per praetorem restituendus sum, ut abstinendi mihi potestas tribuatur.

If, compelled by fear, I entered upon the inheritance, I think I become heir, because although, if it had been free, I would not have wished, nevertheless, being compelled I willed; but I am to be restored by the praetor, so that the power of abstaining may be granted to me.

Dig. 4.2.21.6

Digest 4.2.21.6

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paul 11 on the Edict.

Si coactus hereditatem repudiem, duplici via praetor mihi succurrit aut utiles actiones quasi heredi dando aut actionem metus causa praestando, ut quam viam ego elegerim, haec mihi pateat.

If, being compelled, I repudiate an inheritance, the praetor comes to my aid by a double route: either by granting useful actions as if to an heir, or by furnishing the action on account of fear, so that whichever route I have chosen may be open to me.

Dig. 4.2.22

Digest 4.2.22

Paulus 1 sent.

Paulus book 1 of the Sentences.

Qui in carcerem quem detrusit, ut aliquid ei extorqueret, quidquid ob hanc causam factum est, nullius momenti est.

Whoever has thrust someone into prison, in order to extort something from him, whatever has been done on account of this cause is of no moment.

Dig. 4.2.23pr.

Digest 4.2.23, beginning.

Ulpianus 4 opin.

Ulpian 4 Opinions.

Non est verisimile compulsum in urbe inique indebitum solvisse eum, qui claram dignitatem se habere praetendebat, cum potuerit ius publicum invocare et adire aliquem potestate praeditum, qui utique vim eum pati prohibuisset: sed huiusmodi praesumptioni debet apertissimas probationes violentiae opponere.

It is not plausible that one who professed that he possessed illustrious dignity, having been compelled within the city, unjustly paid what was not owed, since he could have invoked the public law and approached someone endowed with authority, who would certainly have prevented him from suffering violence: but to a presumption of this kind he ought to oppose the most manifest proofs of violence.

Dig. 4.2.23.1

Digest 4.2.23.1

Ulpianus 4 opin.

Ulpian 4 Opinions.

Si iusto metu perterritus cognitionem, ad quam ut vinctus iret, potens adversarius minabatur, id quod habere licebat compulsus vendidit, res suae aequitati per praesidem provinciae restituitur.

If, terrified by just fear, at the hearing (cognitio) to which a powerful adversary was threatening that he should go as though bound, he was compelled to sell that which it was lawful for him to have, his case is restored in equity by the president of the province.

Dig. 4.2.23.2

Digest 4.2.23.2

Ulpianus 4 opin.

Ulpian 4 Opinions.

Si faenerator inciviliter custodiendo athletam et a certaminibus prohibendo cavere compulerit ultra quantitatem debitae pecuniae, his probatis competens iudex rem suae aequitati restitui decernat.

If a usurer, by incivilly keeping an athlete under guard and by prohibiting him from contests, has compelled him to give security beyond the quantity of the money due, these things having been proved, let the competent judge decree that the matter be restored to his equity.

Dig. 4.2.23.3

Digest 4.2.23.3

Ulpianus 4 opin.

Ulpian Opinions 4.

Si quis, quod adversario non debebat, delegante eo per vim, apparitione praesidis interveniente, sine notione iudicis, coactus est dare, iudex inciviliter extorta restitui ab eo, qui rei damnum praestiterit, iubeat. quod si debitis satisfecit simplici iussione et non cognitione habita, quamvis non extra ordinem exactionem fieri, sed civiliter oportuit, tamen quae solutioni debitarum ab eo quantitatium profecerunt, revocare incivile est.

If anyone, for what he did not owe to his adversary, was compelled to give—at that man’s delegation, by force, with the governor’s apparitors intervening—without the judge’s cognizance, the judge should order that what was extorted contrary to civil procedure be restored by the one who has inflicted damage upon the defendant. But if he satisfied debts by a simple order and not after a hearing, although the exaction ought not to have been made extra ordinem but by civil process, nevertheless it is contrary to civil procedure to revoke those things which have gone toward the payment of the amounts owed by him.

Dig. 4.3.0. De dolo malo.

Digest 4.3.0. On malicious fraud.

Dig. 4.3.1pr.

Digest 4.3.1, preface.

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Hoc edicto praetor adversus varios et dolosos, qui aliis offuerunt calliditate quadam, subvenit, ne vel illis malitia sua sit lucrosa vel istis simplicitas damnosa.

By this edict the praetor gives relief against various and deceitful persons, who have harmed others by a certain cunning, lest either their malice be lucrative to those or the simplicity of these be damaging.

Dig. 4.3.1.1

Digest 4.3.1.1

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the edict.

Verba autem edicti talia sunt: " quae dolo malo facta esse dicentur, si de his rebus alia actio non erit et iusta causa esse videbitur, iudicium dabo. "

But the words of the edict are as follows: " which things shall be said to have been done by malicious fraud, if concerning these matters there will be no other action and a just cause shall seem to exist, I will grant an action. "

Dig. 4.3.1.2

Digest 4.3.1.2

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the edict.

Dolum malum servius quidem ita definiit machinationem quandam alterius decipiendi causa, cum aliud simulatur et aliud agitur. labeo autem posse et sine simulatione id agi, ut quis circumveniatur: posse et sine dolo malo aliud agi, aliud simulari, sicuti faciunt, qui per eiusmodi dissimulationem deserviant et tuentur vel sua vel aliena: itaque ipse sic definiit dolum malum esse omnem calliditatem fallaciam machinationem ad circumveniendum fallendum decipiendum alterum adhibitam. labeonis definitio vera est.

Malicious deceit servius indeed thus defined as a certain machination for the purpose of deceiving another, when one thing is simulated and another is done. labeo, however, says that it can also be done without simulation, that someone be circumvented; and that, without malicious deceit, one thing can be done, another simulated, just as those do who by such dissimulation render service and protect either their own or another’s. And so he himself thus defined malicious deceit to be every cleverness, fallacy, machination applied to circumventing, misleading, deceiving another. labeo’s definition is true.

Dig. 4.3.1.3

Digest 4.3.1.3

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Non fuit autem contentus praetor dolum dicere, sed adiecit malum, quoniam veteres dolum etiam bonum dicebant et pro sollertia hoc nomen accipiebant, maxime si adversus hostem latronemve quis machinetur.

However, the praetor was not content to say “dolus,” but added “malus,” since the ancients even called dolus “good” and took this name to mean cleverness, especially if someone should machinate against an enemy or a brigand.

Dig. 4.3.1.4

Digest 4.3.1.4

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Ait praetor: " si de his rebus alia actio non erit. " merito praetor ita demum hanc actionem pollicetur, si alia non sit, quoniam famosa actio non temere debuit a praetore decerni, si sit civilis vel honoraria, qua possit experiri: usque adeo, ut et pedius libro octavo scribit, etiam si interdictum sit quo quis experiri, vel exceptio qua se tueri possit, cessare hoc edictum. idem et pomponius libro vicensimo octavo: et adicit, et si stipulatione tutus sit quis, eum actionem de dolo habere non posse, ut puta si de dolo stipulatum sit.

The praetor says: “if concerning these matters there will be no other action.” With good reason the praetor promises this action only if there is no other, since an infaming action ought not lightly to be decreed by the praetor, if there is a civil or honorary one by which a person can proceed: indeed, as Pedius writes in book 8, even if there is an interdict by which someone may proceed, or an exception by which he can protect himself, this edict falls away. The same also from Pomponius in book 28; and he adds that, if someone is secure by a stipulation, he cannot have an action for dolus, for instance if one has stipulated concerning dolus.

Dig. 4.3.1.5

Digest 4.3.1.5

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 On the Edict.

Idem pomponius ait et si actionem in nos dari non oporteat, veluti si stipulatio tam turpis dolo malo facta sit, ut nemo daturus sit ex ea actionem, non debere laborare, ut habeam de dolo malo actionem, cum nemo sit adversus me daturus actionem.

The same Pomponius says that even if an action ought not to be granted against us—for example, if a stipulation has been made so disgraceful by malicious fraud that no one would grant an action on it—we ought not to labor to have an action for malicious fraud, since no one is going to grant an action against me.

Dig. 4.3.1.6

Digest 4.3.1.6

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Idem pomponius refert labeonem existimare, etiam si quis in integrum restitui possit, non debere ei hanc actionem competere: et si alia actio tempore finita sit, hanc competere non debere, sibi imputaturo eo qui agere supersedit: nisi in hoc quoque dolus malus admissus sit ut tempus exiret.

The same Pomponius reports that Labeo thinks that, even if someone can be restored in integrum, this action ought not to lie for him; and if another action has been ended by time, this one ought not to lie, for the one who refrained from suing must impute it to himself—unless in this too dolus malus was admitted so that the time might run out.

Dig. 4.3.1.7

Digest 4.3.1.7

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the edict.

Si quis cum actionem civilem haberet vel honorariam, in stipulatum deductam acceptilatione vel alio modo sustulerit, de dolo experiri non poterit, quoniam habuit aliam actionem: nisi in amittenda actione dolum malum passus est.

If someone, when he had a civil action or an honorary one, has brought it into stipulation and has removed it by acceptilation or in some other way, he will not be able to proceed on fraud, since he had another action—unless, in the loss of the action, he suffered dolus malus.

Dig. 4.3.1.8

Digest 4.3.1.8

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the edict.

Non solum autem si adversus eum sit alia actio, adversus quem de dolo quaeritur,

Not only, moreover, if there is another action against him, against whom inquiry is made concerning fraud,

Dig. 4.3.2

Digest 4.3.2

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the Edict.

Vel ab eo res servari poterit,

Or the property can be preserved by him,

Dig. 4.3.3

Digest 4.3.3

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Non habet hoc edictum locum, verum etiam si adversus alium.

This edict does not apply, indeed even if it is brought against someone else.

Dig. 4.3.4

Digest 4.3.4

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus book 11 on the Edict.

Sit actio vel si ab alio res mihi servari potest.

Let there be an action, or if the thing can be preserved for me by another.

Dig. 4.3.5

Digest 4.3.5

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Ideoque si quis pupillus a titio, tutore auctore colludente, circumscriptus sit, non debere eum de dolo actionem adversus titium habere, cum habeat tutelae actionem, per quam consequatur quod sua intersit. plane si tutor solvendo non sit, dicendum erit de dolo actionem dari ei.

And therefore, if any ward has been overreached by Titius, his tutor giving authorization and colluding, he ought not to have an action for fraud against Titius, since he has the action on guardianship, through which he may recover what is to his interest. Clearly, if the tutor is not solvent, it must be said that an action for fraud is granted to him.

Dig. 4.3.6

Digest 4.3.6

Gaius 4 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 4 on the provincial edict.

Nam is nullam videtur actionem habere, cui propter inopiam adversarii inanis actio est.

For he seems to have no action, whose action is inane on account of the adversary’s indigence.

Dig. 4.3.7pr.

Digest 4.3.7, beginning.

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 On the Edict.

Et eleganter pomponius haec verba " si alia actio non sit" sic excipit, quasi res alio modo ei ad quem ea res pertinet salva esse non poterit. nec videtur huic sententiae adversari, quod iulianus libro quarto scribit, si minor annis viginti quinque consilio servi circumscriptus eum vendidit cum peculio emptorque eum manumisit, dandam in manumissum de dolo actionem ( hoc enim sic accipimus carere dolo emptorem, ut ex empto teneri non possit) aut nullam esse venditionem, si in hoc ipso ut venderet circumscriptus est. et quod minor proponitur, non inducit in integrum restitutionem: nam adversus manumissum nulla in integrum restitutio potest locum habere.

and elegantly pomponius takes up these words " if there is no other action" thus, as if the thing could not otherwise be kept safe for him to whom that thing pertains. nor does what iulianus writes in the fourth book seem to be opposed to this opinion: if a person under twenty-five years, overreached by the counsel of a slave, sold him with his peculium and the purchaser manumitted him, a de dolo action is to be given against the manumitted ( for we thus understand it that the purchaser is free from fraud, so that he cannot be held ex empto) or that the sale is null, if in this very point—that he should sell—he was overreached. and the fact that a minor is put forward does not induce in integrum restitution: for against one manumitted no in integrum restitution can have place.

Dig. 4.3.7.1

Digest 4.3.7.1

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian Book 11 on the Edict.

Secundum quae et si poenali actione indemnitati eius consuli possit, dicendum erit cessare de dolo actionem.

According to which, even if his indemnity could be provided for by a penal action, it will have to be said that the action for fraud ceases.

Dig. 4.3.7.2

Digest 4.3.7.2

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Pomponius autem, etiam si popularis actio sit, cessare de dolo ait actionem.

Pomponius, however, says that, even if it be a popular action, the action de dolo ceases.

Dig. 4.3.7.3

Digest 4.3.7.3

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Non solum autem si alia actio non sit, sed et si dubitetur an alia sit, putat labeo de dolo dandam actionem et adfert talem speciem. qui servum mihi debebat vel ex venditione vel ex stipulatu, venenum ei dedit et sic eum tradidit: vel fundum, et dum tradit, imposuit ei servitutem vel aedificia diruit, arbores excidit vel extirpavit: ait labeo, sive cavit de dolo sive non, dandam in eum de dolo actionem, quoniam si cavit, dubium est, an competat ex stipulatu actio. sed est verius, si quidem de dolo cautum est, cessare actionem de dolo, quoniam est ex stipulatu actio: si non est cautum, in ex empto quidem actione cessat de dolo actio, quoniam est ex empto, in ex stipulatu de dolo actio necessaria est.

Not only, moreover, if there is no other action, but even if it is doubtful whether there is another, Labeo thinks an action for fraud (actio de dolo) should be given, and he adduces such a pattern: someone who owed me a slave either from a sale or from a stipulation gave him poison and so delivered him; or he owed me a farm, and while delivering it he imposed a servitude upon it, or tore down the buildings, or cut down or extirpated the trees. Labeo says that, whether he gave a guaranty against fraud or not, an action for fraud should be given against him, since, if he did give it, it is doubtful whether an action from stipulation (ex stipulatu) is available. But the truer view is this: if provision regarding fraud has indeed been made, the action for fraud ceases, since there is an action from stipulation; if no provision has been made, then in the action on purchase (ex empto) the action for fraud does cease, since there is an action ex empto, but in an action from stipulation the action for fraud is necessary.

Dig. 4.3.7.4

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Si servum usurarium proprietarius occidit, legis aquiliae actioni et ad exhibendum accedit, si possidens proprietarius occidit, ideoque cessat de dolo actio.

If the proprietor kills a slave lent for use, an action under the Aquilian law and the action ad exhibendum accrue; if the proprietor, being in possession, kills, and therefore the action for dolo ceases.

Dig. 4.3.7.5

Digest 4.3.7.5

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the edict.

Item si servum legatum heres ante aditam hereditatem occiderit, quoniam priusquam factus sit legatarii, interemptus est, cessat legis aquiliae actio: de dolo autem actio, quocumque tempore eum occiderit, cessat, quia ex testamento actio competit.

Likewise, if the heir kills a slave that has been bequeathed before the inheritance is entered upon, since he was slain before he became the legatee’s, the action of the Lex Aquilia does not lie; but the action for dolus, at whatever time he killed him, likewise does not lie, because an action ex testamento is available.

Dig. 4.3.7.6

Digest 4.3.7.6

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian book 11 on the Edict.

Si quadrupes tua dolo alterius damnum mihi dederit, quaeritur, an de dolo habeam adversus eum actionem. et placuit mihi, quod labeo scribit, si dominus quadrupedis non sit solvendo, dari debere de dolo, quamvis, si noxae deditio sit secuta, non puto dandam nec in id quod excedit.

If your quadruped, by another’s fraud, has caused me damage, the question is raised whether I have an action for fraud against him. And I approve what Labeo writes: if the owner of the quadruped is not solvent, an action for fraud ought to be given; although, if a noxal surrender has followed, I do not think it should be given, not even for what exceeds.

Dig. 4.3.7.7

Digest 4.3.7.7

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian book 11 on the edict.

Idem labeo quaerit, si compeditum servum meum ut fugeret solveris, an de dolo actio danda sit? et ait quintus apud eum notans: si non misericordia ductus fecisti, furti teneris: si misericordia, in factum actionem dari debere.

The same Labeo asks whether, if you released my slave who was in fetters so that he might flee, an action on deceit ought to be granted? And Quintus, noting this in his work on him, says: if you did it not led by mercy, you are liable for theft; if led by mercy, an in factum action ought to be granted.

Dig. 4.3.7.8

Digest 4.3.7.8

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Servus pactionis pro libertate reum domino dedit ea condicione, ut post libertatem transferatur in eum obligatio: manumissus non patitur in se obligationem transferri. pomponius scribit locum habere de dolo actionem. sed si per patronum stabit, quo minus obligatio transferatur, dicendum ait patronum exceptione a reo summovendum.

A slave, by a pact for liberty, delivered a defendant to his master on this condition: that after liberty the obligation be transferred onto himself; once manumitted, he does not allow the obligation to be transferred onto himself. Pomponius writes that an action on account of dolus (fraud) lies. But if it is owing to the patron that the obligation is not transferred, he says the patron is to be removed by an exception raised by the defendant.

ego moveor: quemadmodum de dolo actio dabitur, cum sit alia actio? nisi forte quis dicat, quoniam exceptione patronus summoveri potest, si agat cum reo, debere dici, quasi nulla actio sit quae exceptione repellitur, de dolo decernendam: atquin patronus tunc summovetur, si nolit expromissorem ipsum manumissum accipere. expromissori plane adversus manumissum dari debebit de dolo: aut si non sit solvendo expromissor, domino dabitur.

I am moved: how will an action for fraud be given, since there is another action? Unless perhaps someone should say that, since the patron can be removed by an exception if he brings suit against the defendant, it ought to be said that, as though there were no action that is repelled by an exception, a de dolo action should be decreed; but indeed the patron is then removed if he is unwilling to accept the expromissor, namely the manumitted man himself. Clearly, a de dolo action ought to be given to the expromissor against the manumitted man; or, if the expromissor is not solvent, it will be given to the master.

Dig. 4.3.7.9

Digest 4.3.7.9

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Si dolo malo procurator passus sit vincere adversarium meum, ut absolveretur, an de dolo mihi actio adversus eum qui vicit competat, potest quaeri. et puto non competere, si paratus sit reus transferre iudicium sub exceptione hac " si collusum est": alioquin de dolo actio erit danda, scilicet si cum procuratore agi non possit, quia non esset solvendo.

If by malicious fraud the procurator has allowed my adversary to win, so that he might be acquitted, it can be asked whether an action on fraud lies for me against the one who won. And I think it does not lie, if the defendant is prepared to transfer the case under this exception, " si collusum est": otherwise an action on fraud is to be granted, namely if one cannot proceed against the procurator, because he would not be solvent.

Dig. 4.3.7.10

Digest 4.3.7.10

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Idem pomponius refert caecidianum praetorem non dedisse de dolo actionem adversus eum, qui adfirmaverat idoneum esse eum, cui mutua pecunia dabatur, quod verum est: nam nisi ex magna et evidenti calliditate non debet de dolo actio dari.

The same Pomponius reports that the praetor Caecidianus did not give an action de dolo against the man who had affirmed that the person to whom money on loan (mutuum) was being given was suitable, which is true: for unless from great and evident callidity, an action de dolo ought not to be granted.

Dig. 4.3.8

Digest 4.3.8

Gaius 4 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 4 on the provincial edict.

Quod si cum scires eum facultatibus labi, tui lucri gratia adfirmasti mihi idoneum esse, merito adversus te, cum mei decipiendi gratia alium falso laudasti, de dolo iudicium dandum est.

But if, although you knew that he was slipping in his means, for the sake of your profit you affirmed to me that he was suitable, deservedly an action for fraud must be granted against you, since for the purpose of deceiving me you falsely praised another.

Dig. 4.3.9pr.

Digest 4.3.9pr.

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 On the Edict.

Si quis adfirmavit minimam esse hereditatem et ita eam ab herede emit, non est de dolo actio, cum ex vendito sufficiat.

If someone asserted that the inheritance was minimal and thus bought it from the heir, there is no action for fraud, since the action ex vendito suffices.

Dig. 4.3.9.1

Digest 4.3.9.1

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Si autem mihi persuaseris, ut repudiem hereditatem, quasi minus solvendo sit, vel ut optem servum, quasi melior eo in familia non sit: dico de dolo dandam, si callide hoc feceris.

But if you have persuaded me to repudiate an inheritance, on the ground that it is less than solvent, or to opt for a slave, on the ground that there is none better than he in the household: I say that an action de dolo is to be granted, if you have done this cunningly.

Dig. 4.3.9.2

Digest 4.3.9.2

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 On the Edict.

Item si tabulae testamenti, ne de inofficioso diceretur, diu suppressae sint, mox mortuo filio prolatae, heredes filii adversus eos qui suppresserunt et lege cornelia et de dolo posse experiri.

Likewise, if the tablets of a testament, so that no pleading on the inofficious (will) be made, have been long suppressed, and soon, the son having died, they are produced, the son’s heirs can proceed against those who suppressed them both under the Lex Cornelia and by an action de dolo.

Dig. 4.3.9.3

Digest 4.3.9.3

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Labeo libro trigensimo septimo posteriorum scribit, si oleum tuum quasi suum defendat titius, et tu hoc oleum deposueris apud seium, ut is hoc venderet et pretium servaret, donec inter vos deiudicetur cuius oleum esset, neque titius velit iudicium accipere: quoniam neque mandati neque sequestraria seium convenire potes nondum impleta condicione depositionis, de dolo adversus titium agendum. sed pomponius libro vicensimo septimo posse cum sequestre praescriptis verbis actione agi, vel si is solvendo non sit, cum titio de dolo. quae distinctio vera esse videtur.

Labeo in the thirty-seventh book of the Later Writings writes: if Titius defends your oil as though it were his own, and you have deposited this oil with Seius, that he should sell it and keep the price until it is adjudicated between you whose oil it is, and Titius is unwilling to accept the trial: since you cannot proceed against Seius either by the action on mandate or by the sequester-action, the condition of the deposit not yet having been fulfilled, an action for fraud must be brought against Titius. But Pomponius in the twenty-seventh book says that one can proceed against the sequester by the action with prescribed words; or, if he is not solvent, then against Titius by an action for fraud. This distinction seems to be true.

Dig. 4.3.9.4

Digest 4.3.9.4

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Et si servum pigneratum noxae mihi dederis per iudicem et sis absolutus: de dolo teneris, si apparuerit esse eum pigneri datum.

And if you have, through the judge, given to me in noxal surrender a pledged slave and have been absolved: you are liable for fraud, if it shall have appeared that he was given in pledge.

Dig. 4.3.9.4a

Digest 4.3.9.4a

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Haec de dolo actio noxalis erit: ideo labeo quoque libro trigensimo praetoris peregrini scribit de dolo actionem servi nomine interdum de peculio, interdum noxalem dari. nam si ea res est, in quam dolus commissus est, ex qua de peculio daretur actio, et nunc in peculio dandam: sin vero ea sit, ex qua noxalis, hoc quoque noxale futurum.

This actio de dolo will be noxal: therefore Labeo also, in the thirtieth book On the Peregrine Praetor, writes that an action for dolus in the slave’s name is sometimes granted de peculio, sometimes as noxal. For if the matter in which the dolus was committed is one from which an action de peculio would be given, then now too it should be given de peculio; but if rather it is one from which a noxal action would be given, this too will be noxal.

Dig. 4.3.9.5

Digest 4.3.9.5

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the edict.

Merito causae cognitionem praetor inseruit: neque enim passim haec actio indulgenda est. nam ecce in primis, si modica summa sit,

Rightly the praetor inserted an examination of the case: for this action is not to be indulged indiscriminately. For see, in the first place, if the sum be modest,

Dig. 4.3.10

Digest 4.3.10

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the edict.

Id est usque ad duos aureos,

That is, up to two aurei,

Dig. 4.3.11pr.

Digest 4.3.11, preface.

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Non debet dari.

It ought not to be given.

Dig. 4.3.11.1

Digest 4.3.11.1

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Et quibusdam personis non dabitur, ut puta liberis vel libertis adversus parentes patronosve, cum sit famosa. sed nec humili adversus eum qui dignitate excellet debet dari: puta plebeio adversus consularem receptae auctoritatis, vel luxurioso atque prodigo aut alias vili adversus hominem vitae emendatioris. et ita labeo.

And to certain persons it will not be given, for instance to children or freedmen against parents or patrons, since it is an infaming action. Nor ought it be given to a humble person against one who excels in dignity: for example, to a plebeian against a consular of acknowledged authority, or to a luxurious and prodigal person or otherwise base against a man of more amended life. And so Labeo.

quid ergo est ? in horum persona dicendum est in factum verbis temperandam actionem dandam, ut bonae fidei mentio fiat,

What then is it ? In the person of these it must be said that an action in fact, with the words to be tempered, should be given, so that mention of good faith be made,

Dig. 4.3.12

Digest 4.3.12

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the Edict.

Ne ex dolo suo lucrentur.

Let them not profit from their own fraud.

Dig. 4.3.13pr.

Digest 4.3.13, beginning.

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Heredibus tamen harum personarum, item adversus heredes de dolo actio erit danda.

Yet to the heirs of these persons, and likewise against the heirs, an action for fraud shall be granted.

Dig. 4.3.13.1

Digest 4.3.13.1

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Item in causae cognitione versari labeo ait, ne in pupillum de dolo detur actio, nisi forte nomine hereditario conveniatur. ego arbitror et ex suo dolo conveniendum, si proximus pubertati est, maxime si locupletior ex hoc factus est.

Likewise, Labeo says that, in the cognition of the cause, an action on dolus is not to be given against a pupil (minor), unless perhaps he is sued in the name of an inheritance. I judge that he also is to be convened on account of his own dolus, if he is nearest to puberty, especially if he has been made more wealthy from this.

Dig. 4.3.14

Digest 4.3.14

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11th on the edict.

Quid enim, si impetraverit a procuratore petitoris, ut ab eo absolveretur, vel si de tutore mentitus pecuniam accepit, vel alia similia admisit, quae non magnam machinationem exigunt?

For what then, if he has obtained from the procurator of the petitioner that he be absolved by him, or if, having lied about the tutor (guardian), he received money, or committed other similar acts, which do not require great machination?

Dig. 4.3.15pr.

Digest 4.3.15, beginning.

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Sed et ex dolo tutoris, si factus est locupletior, puto in eum dandam actionem, sicut exceptio datur.

But also from the dolus of a tutor, if he has become more wealthy, I think an action ought to be given against him, just as an exception (exceptio) is given.

Dig. 4.3.15.1

Digest 4.3.15.1

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the edict.

Sed an in municipes de dolo detur actio, dubitatur. et puto ex suo quidem dolo non posse dari: quid enim municipes dolo facere possunt? sed si quid ad eos pervenit ex dolo eorum, qui res eorum administrant, puto dandam.

But whether an action on account of dolus may be granted against the municipes is doubted. And I think that it cannot be granted for their own dolus: for what, indeed, can municipes do by dolus? But if anything has come to them from the dolus of those who administer their affairs, I think it should be granted.

de dolo autem decurionum in ipsos decuriones dabitur de dolo actio.

but concerning the deceit of the decurions, a de dolo action will be given against the decurions themselves.

Dig. 4.3.15.2

Digest 4.3.15.2

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Item si quid ex dolo procuratoris ad dominum pervenit, datur in dominum de dolo actio in quantum ad eum pervenit: nam procurator ex dolo suo procul dubio tenetur.

Likewise, if anything from the procurator’s fraud has come to the owner, an action for fraud is given against the owner to the extent that it has come to him: for the procurator, by reason of his own fraud, is without doubt held liable.

Dig. 4.3.15.3

Digest 4.3.15.3

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the edict.

In hanc actione designari oportet, cuius dolo factum sit, quamvis in metu non sit necesse.

In this action it must be designated whose dolus (fraud) it was by which the deed was done, although in fear it is not necessary.

Dig. 4.3.16

Digest 4.3.16

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the edict.

Item exigit praetor, ut comprehendatur, quid dolo malo factum sit: scire enim debet actor, in qua re circumscriptus sit, nec in tanto crimine vagari.

Likewise the praetor requires that it be set forth what was done by malicious fraud: for the plaintiff ought to know in what matter he has been overreached, and not to wander in so great a charge.

Dig. 4.3.17pr.

Digest 4.3.17, beginning.

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 On the Edict.

Si plures dolo fecerint et unus restituerit, omnes liberantur: quod si unus quanti ea res est praestiterit, puto adhuc ceteros liberari.

If several have acted by fraud and one has made restitution, all are discharged; but if one has paid the value of the thing, I think the others are still released.

Dig. 4.3.17.1

Digest 4.3.17.1

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Haec actio in heredem et ceteros successores datur dumtaxat de eo quod ad eos pervenit.

This action is granted against the heir and the other successors only for that which has come to them.

Dig. 4.3.18pr.

Digest 4.3.18pr.

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the Edict.

Arbitrio iudicis in hac quoque actione restitutio comprehenditur: et nisi fiat restitutio, sequitur condemnatio quanti ea res est. ideo autem et hic et in metus causa actione certa quantitas non adicitur, ut possit per contumaciam suam tanti reus condemnari, quanti actor in litem iuraverit: sed officio iudicis debet in utraque actione taxatione iusiurandum refrenari.

At the discretion of the judge, in this action also restitution is comprehended: and unless restitution is made, condemnation follows for as much as the thing is worth. For this reason too, both here and in the action on account of fear, no fixed quantity is added, so that through his contumacy the defendant may be condemned in as much as the plaintiff has sworn into the suit; but by the judge’s office the oath in each action ought to be restrained by a taxation (assessment).

Dig. 4.3.18.1

Digest 4.3.18.1

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 On the Edict.

Non tamen semper in hoc iudicio arbitrio iudicis dandum est: quid enim si manifestum sit restitui non posse ( veluti si servus dolo malo traditus defunctus sit) ideoque protinus condemnari debeat in id quod intersit actoris?

Not, however, must it always in this action be left to the judge’s discretion: for what if it is manifest that restitution cannot be made ( veluti if a slave delivered by malicious fraud has died), and therefore he ought immediately to be condemned to the extent of the plaintiff’s interest?

Dig. 4.3.18.2

Digest 4.3.18.2

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the Edict.

Si dominus proprietatis insulam, cuius usus fructus legatus erat, incenderit, non est de dolo actio, quoniam aliae ex hoc oriuntur actiones.

If the owner of the property set fire to the tenement, the usufruct of which had been legated, there is no de dolo action, since other actions arise from this.

Dig. 4.3.18.3

Digest 4.3.18.3

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the Edict.

De eo qui sciens commodasset pondera, ut venditor emptori merces adpenderet, trebatius de dolo dabat actionem. atquin si maiora pondera commodavit, id quod amplius mercis datum est repeti condictione potest, si minora, ut reliqua merx detur ex empto agi potest: nisi si ea condictione merx venit, ut illis ponderibus traderetur, cum ille decipiendi causa adfirmasset se aequa pondera habere.

Concerning one who knowingly lent weights so that a seller might weigh out goods to a buyer, Trebatius granted an action for fraud. And yet, if he lent heavier weights, that by which more of the goods was given can be recovered by a condictio; if lighter, it can be sued for ex empto that the remaining goods be delivered—unless the goods were sold on this condition, that they be handed over by those weights, when he, for the purpose of deceiving, had affirmed that he had equal (just) weights.

Dig. 4.3.18.4

Digest 4.3.18.4

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus book 11 on the edict.

Dolo cuius effectum est, ut lis temporibus legitimis transactis pereat: trebatius ait de dolo dandum iudicium, non ut arbitrio iudicis res restituatur, sed ut tantum actor consequatur, quanti eius interfuerit id non esse factum, ne aliter observantibus lex circumscribatur.

By whose dolus the effect is that a suit perishes with the lawful time-limits having elapsed: Trebatius says that an action on dolus should be granted, not so that the thing be restored at the arbitrament of the judge, but so that the plaintiff obtain only as much as it was in his interest that this not be done, lest the law be circumvented to the prejudice of those who observe it.

Dig. 4.3.18.5

Digest 4.3.18.5

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the Edict.

Si servum, quem tu mihi promiseras, alius occiderit, de dolo malo actionem in eum dandam plerique recte putant, quia tu a me liberatus sis: ideoque legis aquiliae actio tibi denegabitur.

If a slave, whom you had promised to me, has been killed by another, the majority rightly think that an action for dolus malus is to be given against him, because you have been released by me; and therefore an action under the Lex Aquilia will be denied to you.

Dig. 4.3.19

Digest 4.3.19

Papinianus 37 quaest.

Papinian 37 questions.

Si fideiussor promissum animal ante moram occiderit, de dolo actionem reddi adversus eum oportere neratius priscus et iulianus responderunt, quoniam debitore liberato per consequentias ipse quoque dimittitur.

If a surety kills the promised animal before default, Neratius Priscus and Julian answered that an action for dolus ought to be granted against him, since, the debtor having been released, by consequence he too is discharged.

Dig. 4.3.20pr.

Digest 4.3.20, proem.

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paul 11 on the Edict.

Servus tuus cum tibi deberet nec solvendo esset, hortatu tuo pecuniam mutuam a me accepit et tibi solvit: labeo ait de dolo malo actionem in te dandam, quia nec de peculio utilis sit, cum in peculio nihil sit, nec in rem domini versum videatur, cum ob debitum dominus acceperit.

Your slave, when he owed you and was not solvent, at your instigation received a loan of money from me and paid you: Labeo says that an action for dolus malus is to be given against you, because neither would the useful action de peculio lie, since there is nothing in the peculium, nor does it seem to have been turned to the master’s account, since the master received it on account of a debt.

Dig. 4.3.20.1

Digest 4.3.20.1

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the Edict.

Si persuaseris mihi nullam societatem tibi fuisse cum eo, cui heres sum, et ob id iudicio absolvi te passus sim: dandam mihi de dolo actionem iulianus scribit.

If you have persuaded me that you had no partnership with him of whom I am heir, and on that account I allowed you to be acquitted in the suit: Julian writes that an action for fraud is to be granted to me.

Dig. 4.3.21

Digest 4.3.21

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Quod si deferente me iuraveris et absolutus sis, postea periurium fuerit adprobatum, labeo ait de dolo actionem in eum dandam: pomponius autem per iusiurandum transactum videri, quam sententiam et Marcellus libro octavo digestorum probat: stari enim religioni debet.

But if, upon my tendering the oath, you have sworn and have been absolved, and afterward perjury is proven, Labeo says that an action for deceit should be given against him; Pomponius, however, holds that the matter appears to have been settled by the oath, which opinion Marcellus also approves in the eighth book of the Digesta: for the sanctity of the oath ought to be adhered to.

Dig. 4.3.22

Digest 4.3.22

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the edict.

Nam sufficit periurii poena.

For the penalty of perjury suffices.

Dig. 4.3.23

Digest 4.3.23

Gaius 4 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 4 on the provincial edict.

Si legatarius, cui supra modum legis falcidiae legatum est, heredi adhuc ignoranti substantiam hereditatis ultro iurando vel quadam alia fallacia persuaserit, tamquam satis abundeque ad solida legata solvenda sufficiat hereditas, atque eo modo solida legata fuerit consecutus: datur de dolo actio.

If a legatee, to whom a legacy has been left beyond the measure of the Lex Falcidia, has persuaded the heir—still ignorant of the substance of the inheritance—by taking an oath of his own accord or by some other deceit, as though the inheritance were sufficient and more than enough to pay the legacies in full (in solidum), and in that way has obtained the legacies in full: an action for fraud (de dolo) is granted.

Dig. 4.3.24

Digest 4.3.24

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Si dolo acciderit eius, qui verba faciebat pro eo, qui de libertate contendebat, quo minus praesente adversario secundum libertatem pronuntietur, puto statim de dolo dandam in eum actionem, quia semel pro libertate dictam sententiam retractari non oportet.

If by the fraud of him who was speaking on behalf of the one contending for liberty it has come about that a pronouncement in favor of liberty is made without the adversary being present, I think an action for fraud should at once be given against him, because a sentence once spoken for liberty ought not to be retracted.

Dig. 4.3.25

Digest 4.3.25

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paul 11 on the edict.

Cum a te pecuniam peterem eoque nomine iudicium acceptum est, falso mihi persuasisti, tamquam eam pecuniam servo meo aut procuratori solvisses, eoque modo consecutus es, ut consentiente me absolveris: quaerentibus nobis, an in te doli iudicium dari debeat, placuit de dolo actionem non dari, quia alio modo mihi succurri potest: nam ex integro agere possum et si obiciatur exceptio rei iudicatae, replicatione iure uti potero.

When I was seeking money from you and on that ground an action was taken up, you falsely persuaded me, as though you had paid that money to my slave or to my procurator, and in that way you achieved that, with my consenting, you were absolved. As we inquire whether an action for dolus ought to be granted against you, it was resolved that an action for dolus is not to be given, because I can be succored in another way: for I can sue afresh (ex integro), and if the exceptio of res judicata is objected, I will be able to use the replication in law.

Dig. 4.3.26

Digest 4.3.26

Gaius 4 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 4 on the provincial edict.

In heredem eatenus daturum se eam actionem proconsul pollicetur, quatenus ad eum pervenerit, id est quatenus ex ea re locupletior ad eum hereditas venerit.

The proconsul promises that he will grant that action against the heir to this extent, insofar as it has come to him, that is, insofar as from that matter the inheritance has come to him enriched.

Dig. 4.3.27

Digest 4.3.27

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paul 11 on the edict.

Dolove malo eius factum est, quo minus pervenerit.

Or was it done by his malicious fraud, whereby he did not arrive?

Dig. 4.3.28

Digest 4.3.28

Gaius 4 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 4 on the provincial edict.

Itaque si accepto lata sit tibi pecunia, omnimodo cum herede tuo agetur. at si res tibi tradita sit, si quidem mortuo te ea res extitit, agetur cum herede tuo, si minus, non agetur. sed utique in heredem perpetuo dabitur, quia non debet lucrari ex alieno damno.

Therefore, if money has been paid to you and received, in every case action will be brought against your heir. But if a thing has been delivered to you, then if, you having died, that thing still existed, action will be brought against your heir; if not, it will not be brought. But at any rate an action will be given perpetually against the heir, because he ought not to profit from another’s loss.

cui conveniens est, ut et in ipso, qui dolo commiserit, in id quod locupletior esset perpetuo danda sit in factum actio.

to which it is fitting that, also against the very person who committed it by deceit, a perpetual in factum action be granted for the amount by which he is enriched.

Dig. 4.3.29

Digest 4.3.29

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the Edict.

Sabinus putat calculi ratione potius quam maleficii heredem conveniri, denique famosum non fieri: ideoque in perpetuum teneri oportere.

Sabinus thinks that the heir should be convened by reason of the reckoning rather than for the malefice; and, in fine, that he does not become infamous; and therefore that he ought to be held liable in perpetuity.

Dig. 4.3.30

Digest 4.3.30

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Neque causae cognitio in heredis persona erit necessaria.

Nor will cognition of the cause be necessary in the person of the heir.

Dig. 4.3.31

Digest 4.3.31

Proculus 2 epist.

Proculus book 2 of the epistles.

Cum quis persuaserit familiae meae, ut de possessione decedat, possessio quidem non amittitur, sed de dolo malo iudicium in eum competit, si quid damni mihi accesserit.

When someone has persuaded my household to depart from the possession, the possession indeed is not lost; but a judgment for malicious fraud lies against him, if any damage has accrued to me.

Dig. 4.3.32

Digest 4.3.32

Scaevola 2 Dig.

Scaevola 2 Digest.

Filius legatum sibi servum per praeceptionem rogatus manumittere post certum tempus, posteaquam rationes ipsi et coheredibus fratribus reddidisset, ante diem et ante redditas rationes ad libertatem vindicta manumittendo perduxerat: quaesitum est, an ex fideicommisso fratribus tenetur, ut rationes eorum pro portionibus redderet. respondi, cum liberum fecisset, ex causa quidem fideicommissi non teneri: verum si ideo properasset manumittere, ne rationes fratribus redderet, posse de dolo actionem in eum exercere.

A son, having been asked to manumit a slave bequeathed to him by preemption (legatum per praeceptionem) after a fixed time—after he had rendered accounts to him and to his brothers, the coheirs—before the day and before the accounts were rendered, had led him to freedom by manumission by the vindicta. It was asked whether he is held from the fideicommissum to the brothers, to render the accounts to them according to their shares. I replied that, since he made him free, he is not held on the ground of the fideicommissum; but if he hastened to manumit for this reason, so as not to render accounts to the brothers, an action of fraud (actio de dolo) can be brought against him.

Dig. 4.3.33

Digest 4.3.33

Ulpianus 4 opin.

Ulpian 4 Opinions.

Rei, quam venalem possessor habebat, litem proprietatis adversarius movere coepit et posteaquam oportunitatem emptoris, cui venundari potuit, peremit, destitit: placuit possessori hoc nomine actionem in factum cum sua indemnitate competere.

For a thing which the possessor held as vendible, an adversary began to bring a suit of ownership; and after he destroyed the opportunity of a buyer to whom it could have been vended, he desisted: it was held that the possessor, on this ground, has an action in factum together with his indemnity.

Dig. 4.3.34

Digest 4.3.34

Ulpianus 42 ad sab.

Ulpian, 42 on Sabinus.

Si cum mihi permisisses saxum ex fundo tuo eicere vel cretam vel harenam fodere, et sumptum in hanc rem fecerim, et non patiaris me tollere: nulla alia quam de dolo malo actio locum habebit.

If, after you have permitted me to remove stone from your land or to dig chalk or sand, and I have incurred expense for this matter, and you do not allow me to carry it away: no action will lie other than the action for dolus malus.

Dig. 4.3.35

Digest 4.3.35

Ulpianus 30 ad ed.

Ulpian, 30 on the Edict.

Si quis tabulas testamenti apud se depositas post mortem testatoris delevit vel alio modo corruperit, heres scriptus habebit adversus eum actionem de dolo. sed et his, quibus legata data sunt, danda erit de dolo actio.

If anyone, after the death of the testator, has destroyed the testamentary tablets deposited with him, or has corrupted them in some other way, the instituted heir will have against him an action for fraud. But an action for fraud will also be given to those to whom legacies have been given.

Dig. 4.3.36

Digest 4.3.36

Marcianus 2 reg.

Marcianus Rules, book 2.

Si duo dolo malo fecerint, invicem de dolo non agent.

If two have acted with dolus malus, they will not bring an action against one another for fraud.

Dig. 4.3.37

Digest 4.3.37

Ulpianus 44 ad sab.

Ulpian 44 on Sabinus.

Quod venditor ut commendet dicit, sic habendum, quasi neque dictum neque promissum est. si vero decipiendi emptoris causa dictum est, aeque sic habendum est, ut non nascatur adversus dictum promissumve actio, sed de dolo actio.

That which a seller says in order to commend is to be held as though neither said nor promised. But if it was said for the purpose of deceiving the buyer, it is likewise to be held thus: that no action arises against the statement or the promise, but an action for fraud.

Dig. 4.3.38

Digest 4.3.38

Ulpianus 5 opin.

Ulpian 5 Opinions.

Quidam debitor epistulam quasi a titio mitti creditori suo effecit, ut ipse liberetur: hac epistula creditor deceptus aquiliana stipulatione et acceptilatione liberavit debitorem: postea epistula falsa vel inani reperta creditor maior quidem annis viginti quinque de dolo habebit actionem, minor autem in integrum restituetur.

A certain debtor contrived that a letter be sent to his creditor as if by Titius, so that he himself might be released: by this letter the creditor, deceived, by an Aquilian stipulation and acceptilation released the debtor: afterwards, the letter having been found false or void, the creditor who is over twenty-five years old will have an action for fraud (actio de dolo), but a minor will be restored in integrum.

Dig. 4.3.39

Digest 4.3.39

Gaius 27 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 27 on the provincial edict.

Si te titio optuleris de ea re quam non possidebas in hoc ut alius usucapiat, et iudicatum solvi satisdederis: quamvis absolutus sis, de dolo malo tamen teneberis: et ita sabino placet.

If you have offered yourself to Titius concerning a matter which you did not possess, for the purpose that another may acquire it by usucapion, and you have furnished surety that the judgment be paid: although you have been acquitted, nevertheless you will be held liable for malicious fraud; and so it pleases Sabinus.

Dig. 4.3.40

Digest 4.3.40

Furius 1 ad ed.

Furius 1 on the Edict.

Is, qui decepit aliquem, ut hereditatem non idoneam adiret, de dolo tenebitur, nisi fortasse ipse creditor erat et solus erat: tunc enim sufficit contra eum doli mali exceptio.

He who has deceived someone, so that he might enter upon an unsuitable inheritance, will be held liable for dolus (fraud), unless perhaps he himself was a creditor and the sole one: for then the exceptio doli mali (defense of fraud) is sufficient against him.

Dig. 4.4.0. De minoribus viginti quinque annis.

Dig. 4.4.0. On minors under twenty-five years.

Dig. 4.4.1pr.

Digest 4.4.1pr.

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 On the Edict.

Hoc edictum praetor naturalem aequitatem secutus proposuit, quo tutelam minorum suscepit. nam cum inter omnes constet fragile esse et infirmum huiusmodi aetatium consilium et multis captionibus suppositum, multorum insidiis expositum: auxilium eis praetor hoc edicto pollicitus est et adversus captiones opitulationem.

This edict the praetor, following natural equity, published, whereby he undertook the guardianship of minors. For since it is agreed among all that the judgment of ages of this sort is fragile and feeble and subjected to many captious devices, exposed to the snares of many, the praetor by this edict promised them aid and assistance against such captious devices.

Dig. 4.4.1.1

Digest 4.4.1.1

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Praetor edicit: " quod cum minore quam viginti quinque annis natu gestum esse dicetur, uti quaeque res erit, animadvertam".

The praetor issues an edict: "As to whatever will be said to have been transacted with one less than 25 years of age, as each matter may be, I will take cognizance."

Dig. 4.4.1.2

Digest 4.4.1.2

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Apparet minoribus annis viginti quinque eum opem polliceri: nam post hoc tempus compleri virilem vigorem constat.

It appears that he promises aid to those under twenty‑five years: for after this time it is agreed that virile vigor is complete.

Dig. 4.4.1.3

Digest 4.4.1.3

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Et ideo hodie in hanc usque aetatem adulescentes curatorum auxilio reguntur, nec ante rei suae administratio eis committi debebit, quamvis bene rem suam gerentibus.

And therefore today, even to this very age, adolescents are governed with the aid of curators, nor ought the administration of their own affairs to be entrusted to them beforehand, although they may be managing their affairs well.

Dig. 4.4.2

Digest 4.4.2

Ulpianus 19 ad l. iul. et pap.

Ulpian 19 on the Julian and Papian law.

Nec per liberos suos rem suam maturius a curatoribus recipiat. quod enim legibus cavetur, ut singuli anni per singulos liberos remittantur, ad honores pertinere divus severus ait, non ad rem suam recipiendam.

Nor may he, through his own children, receive his property back earlier from the curators. For what is provided by the laws, that single years are remitted—one for each child—the deified Severus says pertains to honors, not to the recovery of one’s own property.

Dig. 4.4.3pr.

Digest 4.4.3, preface.

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Denique divus severus et imperator noster huiusmodi consulum vel praesidum decreta quasi ambitiosa esse interpretati sunt, ipsi autem perraro minoribus rerum suarum administrationem extra ordinem indulserunt: et eodem iure utimur.

Finally, the deified Severus and our emperor interpreted decrees of consuls or governors of this sort as, so to speak, ambitious (canvassing); but they themselves very rarely indulged those of lower rank with the administration of their affairs extra ordinem, and we use the same law.

Dig. 4.4.3.1

Digest 4.4.3.1

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Si quis cum minore contraxerit et contractus inciderit in tempus quo maior efficitur: utrum initium spectamus an finem? et placet, ut est et constitutum, si quis maior factus comprobaverit, quod minor gesserat, restitutionem cessare. unde illud non ineleganter celsus epistularum libro undecimo et digestorum secundo tractat, ex facto a flavio respecto praetore consultus.

If someone has contracted with a minor, and the contract falls into the time when he becomes of full age: do we look to the beginning or to the end? And it is the accepted view, as it has also been established, that if someone, after becoming of full age, has ratified what he had transacted as a minor, restitution ceases. Whence Celsus treats that point not inelegantly in the eleventh book of his Letters and the second of his Digesta, having been consulted on a case by the praetor Flavius Respectus.

minor annis viginti quinque, annos forte viginti quattuor agens, iudicium tutelae heredi tutoris dictaverat: mox factum ut ( non finito iudicio iam eo maiore effecto viginti quinque annis) tutoris heres absolutus proponeretur: in integrum restitutio desiderabatur. celsus igitur respecto suasit non facile hunc quondam minorem in integrum restitui, sed si ei probaretur calliditate adversarii id actum, ut maiore eo facto liberaretur: neque enim extremo, inquit, iudicii die videtur solum deceptus hic minor, sed totum hoc structum, ut maiore eo facto liberaretur. idem tamen confitetur, si levior sit suspicio adversarii quasi dolose versati, non debere hunc in integrum restitui.

a minor under 25 years, perhaps being 24 years of age, had brought the action of guardianship against the heir of his tutor: soon it happened that (with the trial not finished, now he having become of full age at 25 years) the tutor’s heir was proposed for acquittal: restitution in integrum was desired. Celsus therefore advised Respectus not easily to restore this onetime minor in integrum, but only if it were proved to him that by the adversary’s cunning this had been contrived, namely that, he having become of full age, the adversary would be freed: for, says he, it is not only on the last day of the trial that this minor appears to have been deceived, but the whole affair was structured so that, he having become of full age, the adversary would be freed. He nevertheless admits the same, that if the suspicion be slighter that the adversary acted as though with dolus, this man ought not to be restored in integrum.

Dig. 4.4.3.2

Digest 4.4.3.2

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Scio etiam illud aliquando incidisse. minor viginti quinque annis miscuerat se paternae hereditati maiorque factus exegerat aliquid a debitoribus paternis, mox desiderabat restitui in integrum, quo magis abstineret paterna hereditate: contradicebatur ei, quasi maior factus comprobasset, quod minori sibi placuit: putavimus tamen restituendum in integrum initio inspecto. idem puto, et si alienam adiit hereditatem.

I also know that this too has sometimes occurred. A minor under twenty-five years had involved himself in his paternal inheritance, and, having become of full age, had exacted something from the father’s debtors; soon he desired to be restored in integrum, so that he might the more abstain from the paternal inheritance: objection was made to him, as though, having become of full age, he had confirmed what had pleased him as a minor: nevertheless we thought that he should be restored in integrum, the inception having been inspected. I think the same, even if he entered upon an alien inheritance.

Dig. 4.4.3.3

Digest 4.4.3.3

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Minorem autem viginti quinque annis natu videndum, an etiam die natalis sui adhuc dicimus ante horam qua natus est, ut si captus sit restituatur? et cum nondum compleverit, ita erit dicendum, ut a momento in momentum tempus spectetur. proinde et si bissexto natus est, sive priore sive posteriore die celsus scripsit nihil referre: nam id biduum pro uno die habetur et posterior dies kalendarum intercalatur.

But as to one younger by birth than twenty-five years, it must be considered whether even on his birthday we still say, before the hour at which he was born, that, if he has been overreached, he is to be restored; and since he has not yet completed it, it must be said thus, that time is to be regarded from moment to moment. Accordingly, even if he was born in a bissextile year, Celsus wrote that it makes no difference whether on the earlier or the later day: for that two-day span is held as one day, and the later day before the Kalends is the intercalated one.

Dig. 4.4.3.4

Digest 4.4.3.4

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Sed utrum solis patribus familiarum an etiam filiis familiarum succurri debeat, videndum. movet dubitationem, quod, si quis dixerit etiam filiis familiarum in re peculiari subveniendum, efficiet, ut per eos etiam maioribus subveniatur, id est patribus eorum: quod nequaquam fuit praetori propositum: praetor enim minoribus auxilium promisit, non maioribus. ego autem verissimam arbitror sententiam existimantium, filium familias minorem annis in integrum restitui posse ex his solis causis quae ipsius intersint, puta si sit obligatus.

But whether relief ought to be given only to patres familiarum or also to filii familiarum must be considered. A doubt is stirred because, if someone should say that even to filii familiarum relief must be afforded in a peculium matter, he will bring it about that through them relief is afforded even to the maiores, that is, to their fathers—which was by no means the praetor’s purpose: for the praetor promised aid to minors, not to maiores. I, however, judge truest the opinion of those who consider that a filius familias, a minor in years, can be restored in full only for those causes which concern himself, for instance if he is obligated.

proinde si iussu patris obligatus sit, pater utique poterit in solidum conveniri: filius autem cum et ipse possit vel in potestate manens conveniri, vel etiam emancipatus vel exheredatus in id quod facere potest, et quidem in potestate manens etiam invito patre ex condemnatione conveniri: auxilium impetrare debebit, si ipse conveniatur. sed an hoc auxilium patri quoque prosit, ut solet interdum fideiussori eius prodesse, videamus: et non puto profuturum. si igitur filius conveniatur, postulet auxilium: si patrem conveniat creditor, auxilium cessat: excepta mutui datione: in hanc enim si iussu patris mutuam pecuniam accepit, non adiuvatur.

Accordingly, if he has been bound by his father’s order, the father can of course be sued for the whole; but the son too can be sued, either while remaining under paternal power, or even, if emancipated or disinherited, to the extent that he can perform—and indeed, while in paternal power, he can be sued even against the father’s will on the basis of a judgment: he ought to obtain relief if he himself is sued. But whether this relief also benefits the father, as it sometimes is wont to benefit his surety, let us consider: and I do not think it will benefit him. Therefore, if the son is sued, let him request relief; if the creditor sues the father, the relief ceases—except in the case of the giving of a mutuum: for in this case, if by his father’s order he received money by way of mutuum, he is not helped.

proinde et si sine iussu patris contraxit et captus est, si quidem pater de peculio conveniatur, filius non erit restituendus: si filius conveniatur, poterit restitui. nec eo movemur, quasi intersit filii peculium habere: magis enim patris quam filii interest, licet aliquo casu ad filium peculium spectet: ut puta si patris eius bona a fisco propter debitum occupata sunt: nam peculium ei ex constitutione claudii separatur.

accordingly also if he has contracted without the father’s order and has been taken in execution, if indeed the father is sued de peculio, the son will not be restored; if the son is sued, he can be restored. nor are we moved by this, as though it were to the son’s interest to have a peculium: for it is more to the father’s than to the son’s interest, although in some case the peculium may pertain to the son: for example, if his father’s goods have been seized by the fisc on account of a debt: for the peculium is separated for him by the constitution of Claudius.

Dig. 4.4.3.5

Digest 4.4.3.5

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Ergo etiam filiam familias in dote captam, dum patri consentit stipulanti dotem non statim quam dedit, vel adhibenti aliquem qui dotem stipularetur, puto restituendam, quoniam dos ipsius filiae proprium patrimonium est.

Therefore even a daughter-in-power, taken in with respect to the dowry, while she consents to her father’s stipulating for the dowry not immediately upon his having given it, or to his bringing in someone who would stipulate the dowry, I think must be restored, since the dowry is the daughter’s own patrimony.

Dig. 4.4.3.6

Digest 4.4.3.6

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the edict.

Si quis minor viginti quinque annis adrogandum se dedit et in ipsa adrogatione se circumventum dicat ( finge enim a praedone eum hominem locupletem adrogatum): dico debere eum audiri in integrum se restituentem.

If someone under twenty‑five years gave himself to be adrogated, and says that in the adrogation itself he was circumvented ( for imagine him, a wealthy man, adrogated by a predator): I say he ought to be heard, seeking restitution in integrum.

Dig. 4.4.3.7

Digest 4.4.3.7

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the edict.

Si quid minori fuerit filio familias legatum post mortem patris vel fideicommissum relictum et captus est, forte dum consentit patri paciscenti, ne legatum peteretur: potest dici in integrum restituendum, quoniam ipsius interest propter spem legati, quod ei post mortem patris competit. sed et si ei legatum sit aliquid quod personae eius cohaeret, puta ius militiae, dicendum est posse eum restitui in integrum: interfuit enim eius non capi, cum hanc patri non adquireret, sed ipse haberet.

If anything has been left by legacy to a minor filius familias after the death of his father or a fideicommissum has been left, and he has been taken in, perhaps while he consents to his father making a pact that the legacy should not be demanded: it can be said that he is to be restored in integrum, since it is to his interest on account of the hope of the legacy, which accrues to him after his father’s death. But also if something has been bequeathed to him which coheres to his person, for instance the right of military service (ius militiae), it must be said that he can be restored in integrum: for it was to his interest not to be taken in, since he would not acquire this for his father, but would have it himself.

Dig. 4.4.3.8

Digest 4.4.3.8

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 On the Edict.

Et si heres sit institutus, si a patre in diebus centum sit emancipatus: mox patrem debuerit certiorare nec fecerit cum posset: qui eum emancipasset, si cognovisset: dicendum erit posse eum restitui in integrum parato patre eum emancipare.

And if he has been instituted heir, if within one hundred days he has been emancipated by his father: he ought forthwith to have informed his father and did not do so when he could: the one who had emancipated him, if he had known: it must be said that he can obtain restitutio in integrum, with the father ready to emancipate him.

Dig. 4.4.3.9

Digest 4.4.3.9

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Pomponius adicit ex his causis, ex quibus in re peculiari filii familias restituuntur, posse et patrem quasi heredem nomine filii post obitum eius impetrare cognitionem.

Pomponius adds that, on those grounds on which sons under paternal power are restored in the matter of the peculium, the father also, as a quasi-heir, may obtain a cognition in the name of the son after his death.

Dig. 4.4.3.10

Digest 4.4.3.10

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Si autem filius familias sit, qui castrense peculium habeat, procul dubio ex his, quae ad castrense peculium spectant, in integrum restituendus erit quasi in proprio patrimonio captus.

If, however, he be a son of the household who has a castrense peculium, without doubt he must be restored in full, in respect of those things which pertain to the castrense peculium, as if he had been taken in his own patrimony.

Dig. 4.4.3.11

Digest 4.4.3.11

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Servus autem minor annis viginti quinque nullo modo restitui poterit, quoniam domini persona spectatur, qui sibi debebit imputare, cur minori rem commisit. quare et si per impuberem contraxerit, idem erit dicendum, ut et Marcellus libro secundo digestorum scribit. et si forte libera peculii administratio minori servo sit concessa, maior dominus ex hac causa non restituetur.

However, a slave under twenty‑five years of age will in no way be able to be restored, since the person of the master is considered, who ought to impute to himself why he entrusted the matter to a minor. Wherefore even if he has contracted through an impubes, the same must be said, as Marcellus also writes in the second book of the Digest. And if by chance the free administration of a peculium has been granted to a younger slave, a master of full age will not be restored on this ground.

Dig. 4.4.4

Digest 4.4.4

Africanus 7 quaest.

Africanus 7 questions.

Etenim quodcumque servus ita gerit, voluntate domini gerere intellegendus est. et magis hoc apparebit, si aut de institoria actione quaeratur, aut si proponatur maiorem annis viginti quinque negotium aliquod gerendum minori mandasse et illum in ea re deceptum esse.

For indeed whatever a slave thus conducts, he is to be understood to conduct by the will of the master. et this will appear more clearly, if either inquiry is made concerning the institorial action, or if it be proposed that someone older than twenty-five years entrusted the managing of some business to a minor and that he was deceived in that matter.

Dig. 4.4.5

Digest 4.4.5

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Si tamen is servus fuit, cui fideicommissaria libertas debebatur praesens, et fuit captus, cum re mora ei fit, poterit dici praetorem ei succurrere oportere.

If, however, the slave to whom fideicommissary liberty was owed was present, and was taken captive, since delay arises to him by reason of the thing, it can be said that the praetor ought to succor him.

Dig. 4.4.6

Digest 4.4.6

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian, 10 on the Edict.

Minoribus viginti quinque annis subvenitur per in integrum restitutionem non solum, cum de bonis eorum aliquid minuitur, sed etiam cum intersit ipsorum litibus et sumptibus non vexari.

Minors under 25 years are aided by restitutio in integrum not only when something is diminished from their goods, but also when it is in their interest not to be harassed by suits and expenses.

Dig. 4.4.7pr.

Digest 4.4.7 pr.

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Ait praetor: " gestum esse dicetur". gestum sic accipimus qualiterqualiter, sive contractus sit, sive quid aliud contigit.

The praetor says: " it will be said to have been done". done we take thus in whatever manner, whether a contract has been made, or something else has happened.

Dig. 4.4.7.1

Digest 4.4.7.1

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the edict.

Proinde si emit aliquid, si vendidit, si societatem coit, si mutuam pecuniam accepit, et captus est, ei succurretur.

Accordingly, if he buys anything, if he has sold, if he enters into partnership, if he has received money on loan, and is taken captive, he will be succored.

Dig. 4.4.7.2

Digest 4.4.7.2

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Sed et si ei pecunia a debitore paterno soluta sit vel proprio et hanc perdidit, dicendum est ei subveniri, quasi gestum sit cum eo. et ideo si minor conveniat debitorem, adhibere debet curatores, ut ei solvatur pecunia: ceterum non ei compelletur solvere. sed hodie solet pecunia in aedem deponi, ut pomponius libro vicensimo octavo scribit, ne vel debitor ultra usuris oneretur vel creditor minor perdat pecuniam, aut curatoribus solvi, si sunt. permittitur etiam ex constitutione principum debitori compellere adulescentem ad petendos sibi curatores.

But also, if money has been paid to him by his father’s debtor or by his own debtor and he has lost it, it must be said that relief is afforded to him, as though business had been transacted with him. And therefore, if a minor proceeds against a debtor, he ought to bring in his curators, so that the money may be paid to him; otherwise the debtor will not be compelled to pay him. But nowadays money is customarily deposited in a temple, as Pomponius writes in the twenty-eighth book, lest either the debtor be burdened further with interest or the minor creditor lose the money, or else it is paid to the curators, if there are any. It is also permitted by a constitution of the emperors for the debtor to compel the youth to seek curators for himself.

quid tamen: si praetor decernat solvendam pecuniam minori sine curatoribus et solverit, an possit esse securus? dubitari potest: puto autem, si allegans minorem esse compulsus sit ad solutionem, nihil ei imputandum: nisi forte quasi adversus iniuriam appellandum quis ei putet. sed credo praetorem hunc minorem in integrum restitui volentem auditurum non esse.

What then? If the praetor decrees that money be paid to a minor without curators and it is paid, can the payer be secure? It can be doubted; however, I think that, if, alleging minority, he was compelled to make the payment, nothing should be imputed to him—unless perhaps someone would think he ought to appeal as against an injury. But I believe the praetor would not listen to this minor wishing to be restored in integrum.

Dig. 4.4.7.3

Digest 4.4.7.3

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Non solum autem in his ei succurritur, sed etiam in interventionibus, ut puta si fideiussorio nomine se vel rem suam obligavit. pomponius autem videtur adquiescere distinguentibus: arbiter ad fideiussores probandos constitutus eum probavit an vero ipse adversarius? mihi autem semper succurrendum videtur, si minor sit et se circumventum doceat.

Not only, moreover, is succor afforded to him in these cases, but also in intercessions, for instance if in a fideiussory capacity he bound himself or his own property. pomponius, moreover, seems to acquiesce in those who draw a distinction: was it an arbiter appointed for the approving of sureties who approved him, or rather the adversary himself? to me, however, it always seems that succor should be afforded, if he is a minor and shows that he was circumvented.

Dig. 4.4.7.4

Digest 4.4.7.4

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the edict.

Sed et in iudiciis subvenitur, sive dum agit sive dum convenitur captus sit.

But aid is also afforded in legal proceedings, whether he was taken captive while bringing an action or while being sued.

Dig. 4.4.7.5

Digest 4.4.7.5

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Sed et si hereditatem minor adiit minus lucrosam, succurritur ei ut se possit abstinere: nam et hic captus est. idem et in bonorum possessione vel alia successione. non solum autem filius, qui se miscuit paternae hereditati, sed et si aliquis sit ex necessariis minor annis, simili modo restitutionem impetrabit, veluti si servus sit cum libertate institutus: dicendum enim erit, si se miscuit, posse ei subveniri aetatis beneficio, ut habeat bonorum suorum separationem.

But also, if a minor has entered upon an inheritance that is less lucrative, aid is afforded him so that he may be able to abstain; for here too he has been ensnared. The same [applies] in bonorum possessio or in another succession. And not only the son who has mixed himself with the paternal inheritance, but also, if anyone of the necessary heirs is under age, he will in like manner obtain restitution, for example if a slave has been instituted heir together with liberty: for it must be said that, if he has mixed himself, he can be helped by the benefit of age, so that he may have a separation of his goods.

plane qui post aditam hereditatem restituitur, debet praestare, si quid ex hereditate in rem eius pervenit nec periit per aetatis inbecillitatem.

plainly, he who is restored after having entered upon the inheritance must make good whatever from the inheritance has come into his estate and has not perished through the imbecility of age.

Dig. 4.4.7.6

Digest 4.4.7.6

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Hodie certo iure utimur, ut et in lucro minoribus succurratur.

Today we employ a settled law, so that even in profit minors are succored.

Dig. 4.4.7.7

Digest 4.4.7.7

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Pomponius quoque libro vicensimo octavo scribit et si sine dolo cuiusquam legatum repudiaverit, vel in optionis legato captus sit dum elegit deteriorem, vel si duas res promiserit illam aut illam et pretiosiorem dederit, debere subveniri: et subveniendum est.

Pomponius too, in the twenty-eighth book, writes that even if he has repudiated a legacy without anyone’s fraud, or has been caught in a legacy of option while he chose the worse, or if he has promised two things, this or that, and has given the more precious, relief ought to be afforded: and relief must be afforded.

Dig. 4.4.7.8

Digest 4.4.7.8

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Quaesitum est ex eo, quod in lucro quoque minoribus subveniendum dicitur, si res eius venierit et existat qui plus liceatur, an in integrum propter lucrum restituendus sit? et cottidie praetores eos restituunt, ut rursum admittatur licitatio. idem faciunt et in his rebus, quae servari eis debent.

It has been asked, on the basis that even for profit assistance is to be given to minors, if his property has been sold and there exists someone who would bid more, whether he ought to be granted restitution in integrum on account of the profit? And the praetors restore them daily, so that the licitation may be admitted again. They do the same also in those matters which ought to be preserved for them.

quod circumspecte erit faciendum: ceterum nemo accedet ad emptionem rerum pupillarium, nec si bona fide distrahantur. et destricte probandum est in rebus, quae fortuitis casibus subiectae sunt, non esse minori adversus emptorem succurrendum, nisi aut sordes aut evidens gratia tutorum sive curatorum doceatur.

which will have to be done circumspectly: moreover, no one will approach the purchase of pupillary goods, not even if they are being sold in good faith. and it must be strictly proved, in things that are subject to fortuitous chances, that the minor is not to be succored against the buyer, unless either sordid dealing or evident favor of the tutors or curators is shown.

Dig. 4.4.7.9

Digest 4.4.7.9

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Restitutus autem cum se hereditati misceat vel eam adeat quam repudiavit, rursus restitui poterit, ut se abstineat: et hoc et rescriptum et responsum est.

However, when a restored person mixes himself with the inheritance or enters upon that which he repudiated, he can be restored again, so that he may abstain; and this has been both the subject of a rescript and of a response.

Dig. 4.4.7.10

Digest 4.4.7.10

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Sed quod papinianus libro secundo responsorum ait minori substitutum servum necessarium repudiante quidem hereditatem minore necessarium fore, et si fuerit restitutus minor, liberum nihilo minus remanere: si autem prius minor adiit hereditatem, mox abstentus est, substitutum pupillo servum cum libertate non posse heredem existere neque liberum esse: non per omnia verum est. nam si non est solvendo hereditas, abstinente se herede et divus pius rescripsit et imperator noster, et quidem in extraneo pupillo locum fore necessario substituto. et quod ait liberum manere, tale est, quasi non et heres maneat, cum pupillus impetrat restitutionem posteaquam abstentus est: cum enim pupillus heres non fiat, sed utiles actiones habeat, sine dubio heres manebit, qui semel extitit.

But as to what Papinian in the second book of his Responses says—that a slave substituted to a minor would be a necessary heir if the minor repudiates the inheritance, and that, if the minor is restored, he nonetheless remains free; but if the minor first entered upon the inheritance and soon after abstained, the slave substituted to the pupil cannot come to be heir with freedom nor be free—this is not true in all respects. For if the inheritance is not solvent, both the deified Pius and our emperor have written by rescript that, the heir abstaining, there is room for the necessary substitute, and indeed in the case of a pupil who is an extraneous heir. And as to his saying that he remains free, it is as though he did not also remain heir when the pupil obtains restitution after he has abstained; for since the pupil does not become heir, but has useful actions, without doubt he who once came to be heir will remain heir.

Dig. 4.4.7.11

Digest 4.4.7.11

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Item si non provocavit intra diem, subvenitur ut provocet: finge enim hoc desiderare.

Likewise, if he has not appealed within the day, relief is afforded so that he may appeal: for suppose that he desires this.

Dig. 4.4.7.12

Digest 4.4.7.12

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 11 on the Edict.

Item et in eremodiciis ei subvenitur. constat autem omnis aetatis hominibus restaurationem eremodicii praestari, si se doceant ex iusta causa afuisse.

Likewise, assistance is afforded to him also in eremodicium cases. Moreover, it is established that to people of every age restoration in eremodicium is granted, if they show that they were absent for a just cause.

Dig. 4.4.8

Digest 4.4.8

Hermogenianus 1 iuris epit.

Hermogenianus 1 Epitome of Law.

Minor etiam si quasi contumax condemnatus sit, in integrum restitutionis auxilium implorabit.

A minor also, even if he has been condemned as if contumacious, will implore the aid of restitutio in integrum.

Dig. 4.4.9pr.

Digest 4.4.9 pr.

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Si ex causa iudicati pignora minoris capta sint et distracta, mox restitutus sit adversus sententiam praesidis vel procuratoris caesaris, videndum, an ea revocari debeant, quae distracta sunt: nam illud certum est pecuniam ex causa iudicati solutam ei restituendam. sed interest ipsius corpora potius habere: et puto interdum permittendum, id est si grande damnum sit minoris.

If, on account of a judgment, the pledges of a minor have been seized and sold, and soon thereafter he has been restored against the sentence of the governor or of the procurator of Caesar, it must be considered whether those things that were sold ought to be recalled; for this is certain: money paid on account of a judgment must be restored to him. But it is in his interest to have the very things (corpora) rather; and I think it should sometimes be permitted—that is, if the minor would suffer great loss.

Dig. 4.4.9.1

Digest 4.4.9.1

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian Book 11 on the edict.

In dotis quoque modo mulieri subvenitur, si ultra vires patrimonii vel totum patrimonium circumscripta in dotem dedit.

In the matter of the dowry as well, aid is afforded to the woman, if, having been overreached, she gave in dowry beyond the vires of her patrimony, or even her whole patrimony.

Dig. 4.4.9.2

Digest 4.4.9.2

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the edict.

Nunc videndum minoribus utrum in contractibus captis dumtaxat subveniatur, an etiam delinquentibus: ut puta dolo aliquid minor fecit in re deposita vel commodata vel alias in contractu, an ei subveniatur, si nihil ad eum pervenit? et placet in delictis minoribus non subveniri. nec hic itaque subvenietur.

Now it must be seen whether relief is afforded to minors only in contracts concluded, or also to them when delinquents: for instance, if a minor did something in fraud (dolus) in a deposited thing or in a loan for use (commodatum) or otherwise in a contract, is relief afforded him, if nothing has come to him? And it is the settled view that in delicts relief is not afforded to minors. Nor, therefore, will relief be afforded here.

nam et si furtum fecit vel damnum iniuria dedit, non ei subvenietur. sed si, cum ex damno dato confiteri possit ne dupli teneatur, maluit negare: in hoc solum restituendus sit, ut pro confesso habeatur. ergo et si potuit pro fure damnum decidere magis quam actionem dupli vel quadrupli pati, ei subvenietur.

for even if he committed theft or gave damage unjustly, relief will not be afforded to him. but if, when he could by confessing to the wrongful damage avoid being held for the double, he preferred to deny, let him be restored only to this extent: that he be held as having confessed. therefore, also if he could have settled the loss as a thief rather than undergo an action for the double or the fourfold, relief will be afforded to him.

Dig. 4.4.9.3

Digest 4.4.9.3

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Si mulier, cum culpa divertisset, velit sibi subveniri, vel si maritus, puto restitutionem non habendam: est enim delictum non modicum. nam et si adulterium minor commisit, ei non subvenitur.

If a woman, having separated while at fault, should wish aid to be afforded to herself, or if the husband, I think restitution is not to be granted: for the delict is not a small one. For even if a minor has committed adultery, no aid is afforded to the minor.

Dig. 4.4.9.4

Digest 4.4.9.4

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Papinianus ait, si maior annis viginti minor viginti quinque se in servitutem venire patiatur, id est si pretium participatus est, non solere restitui: sed hoc merito, quoniam res nec capit restitutionem cum statum mutat.

Papinian says that, if someone greater than 20 years but less than 25 allows himself to come into slavery, that is, if he has participated in the price, he is not wont to be restored: and this deservedly, since the matter does not admit of restitution when it changes status.

Dig. 4.4.9.5

Digest 4.4.9.5

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the edict.

Si in commissum incidisse vectigalis dicatur, erit in integrum restitutio. quod sic erit accipiendum, si non dolus ipsorum interveniat: ceterum cessabit restitutio.

If it is asserted that a vectigalis (rent‑paying tenant) has fallen into forfeiture, there will be restitutio in integrum. This is to be understood thus: if no fraud on their part has intervened; otherwise, restitution will not be granted.

Dig. 4.4.9.6

Digest 4.4.9.6

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Adversus libertatem quoque minori a praetore subveniri impossibile est,

It is also impossible for aid to be given by the praetor to a minor against liberty,

Dig. 4.4.10

Digest 4.4.10

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the Edict.

Nisi ex magna causa hoc a principe fuerit consecutus.

Unless he has obtained this from the emperor for a weighty cause.

Dig. 4.4.11pr.

Digest 4.4.11, beginning.

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Verum vel de dolo vel utilis actio erit in id quod minoris interfuit non manumitti: proinde quidquid hic haberet, si non manumisisset, id ei nunc praestabitur. sed et nomine earum rerum, quas dominicas servus manumissus supprimebat, competunt adversus eum actiones ad exhibendum et furti et condictio, videlicet quoniam et manumissus eas contrectabat. ceterum ex delicto in servitutem facto domino adversus eum post libertatem actio non competit: et hoc rescripto divi severi continetur.

But there will be either an action for fraud (de dolo) or a useful action (actio utilis) for the amount by which it was of lesser interest that he not be manumitted; accordingly, whatever he would have had here if he had not manumitted, that will now be made good to him. But also, with respect to those things belonging to the master which the manumitted slave was suppressing, actions lie against him ad exhibendum and for theft, and a condictio, namely because he, even after manumission, was handling them. However, for a delict committed in servitude, an action does not lie for the master against him after freedom; and this is contained in a rescript of the deified Severus.

Dig. 4.4.11.1

Digest 4.4.11.1

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Quid si minor viginti quinque annis, maior viginti hac lege vendiderit, ut manumittatur? ideo proposui maiorem viginti, quoniam et scaevola scribit libro quarto decimo quaestionum et magis est, ut sententia constitutionis divi marci ad aufidium victorinum hunc, id est minorem viginti annis non complectatur. quare videndum, an maiori viginti annis subveniatur: et si quidem ante desideret, quam libertas competat, audietur: sin vero postea, non possit.

What if someone under twenty-five years, but over twenty, has sold under this term, that the slave be manumitted? I have therefore proposed “over twenty,” since both Scaevola writes in the 14th book of the Questions, and it is rather the case that the opinion of the constitution of the deified Marcus to Aufidius Victorinus does not embrace this one, that is, one under twenty years. Wherefore it must be considered whether succor is afforded to one over twenty years; and if indeed he seeks it before liberty accrues, he will be heard; but if afterward, he cannot.

item quaeri potest, si is qui emit hac lege minor sit, an restitui possit. et si quidem nondum libertas competit, erit dicendum posse ei subveniri: sin vero posteaquam dies venit, voluntas maioris venditoris libertatem imponit.

Likewise it can be inquired, if he who buys under this law is a minor, whether he can be restored. And if indeed liberty is not yet competent, it must be said that relief can be afforded to him; but if, however, after the day has come, the will of the seller who is of full age imposes liberty.

Dig. 4.4.11.2

Digest 4.4.11.2

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Ex facto quaesitum est: adulescentes quidam acceperant curatorem salvianum quendam nomine: hic cum curam administrasset, beneficio principis urbicam procurationem erat adeptus et apud praetorem se a cura adulescentium excusaverat absentibus eis: adulescentes adierant praetorem desiderantes in integrum adversus eum restitui, quod esset contra constitutiones excusatus. cum enim susceptam tutelam non alii soleant deponere, quam qui trans mare rei publicae causa absunt vel hi qui circa principem sunt occupati, ut in consiliarii menandri arrii persona est indultum, meruisset autem salvianus excusationem, adulescentes quasi capti in integrum restitui a praetore desideraverant. aetrius severus quia dubitabat, ad imperatorem severum rettulit: ad quam consultationem successori eius venidio quieto rescripsit nullas partes esse praetoris: neque enim contractum proponi cum minore annis viginti quinque: sed principes intervenire et reducere hunc ad administrationem, qui perperam esset a praetore excusatus.

From the facts the question was raised: certain youths had received as curator a certain Salvianus by name. This man, after he had administered the care, by the benefice of the princeps had obtained a city procuration, and before the praetor had excused himself from the care of the youths, they being absent. The youths had approached the praetor, desiring to be restored in integrum against him, because he had been excused contrary to the constitutions. For indeed those who have undertaken a guardianship are not wont to lay it down except those who are across the sea for the sake of the commonwealth, or those who are occupied about the princeps, as an indult has been granted in the person of the counselor Menander Arrius; and although Salvianus had merited an excuse, the youths, as if taken at a disadvantage, had desired from the praetor to be restored in integrum. Aetrius Severus, because he doubted, referred the matter to the emperor Severus: to which consultation his successor Venidius Quietus wrote in reply that there were no parts for the praetor; for neither was a contract being proposed with one under twenty-five years; but the emperors intervene and bring back to the administration him who had been improperly excused by the praetor.

Dig. 4.4.11.3

Digest 4.4.11.3

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the edict.

Sciendum est autem non passim minoribus subveniri, sed causa cognita, si capti esse proponantur.

It should be known, moreover, that relief is not afforded to minors indiscriminately, but, the case having been examined, if they are alleged to have been taken in.

Dig. 4.4.11.4

Digest 4.4.11.4

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Item non restituetur, qui sobrie rem suam administrans occasione damni non inconsulte accidentis, sed fato velit restitui: nec enim eventus damni restitutionem indulget, sed inconsulta facilitas. et ita pomponius libro vicensimo octavo scripsit. unde Marcellus apud iulianum notat, si minor sibi servum necessarium comparaverit, mox decesserit, non debere eum restitui: neque enim captus est emendo sibi rem pernecessariam, licet mortalem.

Likewise, he will not be restored who, managing his property soberly, wishes to be restored on the occasion of a loss happening not through ill-advisedness, but by fate: for it is not the event of the loss that indulges restitution, but incautious facility. And thus Pomponius wrote in the twenty-eighth book. Whence Marcellus notes in Julian, that if a minor has purchased for himself a necessary slave, and he soon thereafter died, he ought not to be restored: for he was not taken in by buying for himself a very necessary thing, albeit mortal.

Dig. 4.4.11.5

Digest 4.4.11.5

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Si locupleti heres extitit et subito hereditas lapsa sit ( puta praedia fuerunt quae chasmate perierunt, insulae exustae sunt, servi fugerunt aut decesserunt): iulianus quidem libro quadragensimo sexto sic loquitur, quasi possit minor in integrum restitui. Marcellus autem apud iulianum notat cessare in integrum restitutionem: neque enim aetatis lubrico captus est adeundo locupletem hereditatem, et quod fato contingit, cuivis patri familias quamvis diligentissimo possit contingere. sed haec res adferre potest restitutionem minori, si adiit hereditatem, in qua res erant multae mortales vel praedia urbana, aes autem alienum grave, quod non prospexit posse evenire, ut demoriantur mancipia, praedia ruant, vel quod non cito distraxerit haec, quae multis casibus obnoxia sunt.

If an heir has come into a wealthy inheritance and suddenly the inheritance has collapsed (suppose there were estates (praedia) which perished by a chasm, apartment-blocks (insulae) have been burned, slaves fled or died): Julianus indeed in the forty-sixth book speaks as though a minor can be restored in integrum. Marcellus, however, notes in Julianus that restitution in integrum does not apply: for he was not ensnared by the slippery hazard of age in entering upon a wealthy inheritance, and what happens by fate can befall any paterfamilias, however most diligent. But this matter can bring restitution to a minor, if he entered upon an inheritance in which there were many perishable things or urban estates, yet a heavy debt (aes alienum grave), which he did not foresee could occur—that the mancipia might die, the estates might collapse—or because he did not quickly sell these things, which are liable to many mishaps.

Dig. 4.4.11.6

Digest 4.4.11.6

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the edict.

Item quaeritur, si minor adversus minorem restitui desiderat, an sit audiendus. et pomponius simpliciter scribit non restituendum. puto autem inspiciendum a praetore, quis captus sit: proinde si ambo capti sunt, verbi gratia minor minori pecuniam dedit et ille perdidit, melior est causa secundum pomponium eius, qui accepit et vel dilapidavit vel perdidit.

Likewise it is asked, if a minor desires to be restored against a minor, whether he is to be heard. And Pomponius writes simply that there should be no restoration. I, however, think it must be examined by the praetor who has been overreached: accordingly, if both were overreached—for example, a minor gave money to a minor and that one lost it—the better cause, according to Pomponius, is that of the one who received it and either dissipated it or lost it.

Dig. 4.4.11.7

Digest 4.4.11.7

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian Book 11 on the Edict.

Plane si minor annis cum filio familias maiore contraxerit, et iulianus libro quarto digestorum et Marcellus libro secundo digestorum scribit posse in integrum restitui, ut magis aetatis ratio quam senatus consulti habeatur.

Plainly, if a minor in years has contracted with a filiusfamilias who is of full age, both iulianus in book 4 of the digests and Marcellus in book 2 of the digests write that he can be restored in integrum, so that greater account is taken of age than of the senatus consultum.

Dig. 4.4.12

Digest 4.4.12

Gaius 4 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 4 on the provincial edict.

Si apud minorem mulier pro alio intercesserit, non est ei actio in mulierem danda, sed perinde atque ceteri per exceptionem summoveri debet: scilicet quia communi iure in priorem debitorem ei actio restituitur. haec si solvendo sit prior debitor: alioquin mulier non utetur senatus consulti auxilio.

If, before a minor, a woman has interceded on behalf of another, an action is not to be given to him against the woman, but he ought, just as the rest, to be removed by an exception: namely because by the common law the action is restored to him against the prior debtor. this, if the prior debtor is solvent; otherwise the woman will not make use of the aid of the senatorial decree (senatus consultum).

Dig. 4.4.13pr.

Digest 4.4.13, preface.

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

In causae cognitione versabitur, utrum soli ei succurrendum sit, an etiam his qui pro eo obligati sunt, ut puta fideiussoribus. itaque si cum scirem minorem et ei fidem non haberem, tu fideiusseris pro eo, non est aequum fideiussori in necem meam subveniri, sed potius ipsi deneganda erit mandati actio. in summa perpendendum erit praetori, cui potius subveniat, utrum creditori an fideiussori: nam minor captus neutri tenebitur.

the inquiry of the cause will turn on whether succor should be given to him alone, or also to those who are obligated on his behalf, for instance to the sureties. accordingly, if, when I knew him to be a minor and did not give him credit, you became surety for him, it is not equitable that relief be afforded to the surety to my ruin, but rather to him the action of mandate must be denied. in sum, it will have to be weighed by the praetor to whom he should rather extend relief, whether to the creditor or to the surety: for a minor who has been overreached will be liable to neither.

facilius in mandatore dicendum erit non debere ei subvenire: hic enim velut adfirmator fuit et suasor, ut cum minore contraheretur. unde tractari potest, minor in integrum restitutionem utrum adversus creditorem an et adversus fideiussorem implorare debeat. et puto tutius adversus utrumque: causa enim cognita et praesentibus adversariis vel si per contumaciam desint in integrum restitutiones perpendendae sunt.

It will be easier to say, in the case of the mandator, that help ought not to be given to him: for he was, as it were, the affirmator and persuader that one should contract with the minor. Whence it can be discussed whether the minor ought to implore in integrum restitution against the creditor, or also against the surety. And I think it safer against both: for, the case having been examined and the adversaries being present—or if they are absent through contumacy—the restitutions in integrum are to be weighed.

Dig. 4.4.13.1

Digest 4.4.13.1

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Interdum autem restitutio et in rem datur minori, id est adversus rei eius possessorem, licet cum eo non sit contractum. ut puta rem a minore emisti et alii vendidisti: potest desiderare interdum adversus possessorem restitui, ne rem suam perdat vel re sua careat, et hoc vel cognitione praetoria vel rescissa alienatione dato in rem iudicio. pomponius quoque libro vicensimo octavo scribit labeonem existimasse, si minor viginti quinque annis fundum vendidit et tradidit, si emptor rursus eum alienavit, si quidem emptor sequens scit rem ita gestam, restitutionem adversus eum faciendam: si ignoravit et prior emptor solvendo esset, non esse faciendam: sin vero non esset solvendo, aequius esse minori succurri etiam adversus ignorantem, quamvis bona fide emptor est.

Sometimes, however, restitution is also given in rem to a minor, that is, against the possessor of his property, although no contract has been concluded with him. For instance, you bought a thing from a minor and sold it to another: he can sometimes seek to be restored against the possessor, lest he lose his property or be without his property; and this either by praetorian cognition, or, the alienation having been rescinded, with an action in rem granted. Pomponius also, in his twenty-eighth book, writes that Labeo thought that, if a minor under twenty-five years sold and delivered an estate, and the buyer in turn alienated it, then, if indeed the subsequent buyer knows the matter was so conducted, restitution should be made against him; if he was ignorant and the prior buyer was solvent, it should not be made; but if in truth he was not solvent, it is more equitable for the minor to be succored even against the ignorant party, although he is a good‑faith buyer.

Dig. 4.4.14

Digest 4.4.14

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the Edict.

Plane quamdiu is qui a minore rem accepit aut heres eius idoneus sit, nihil novi constituendum est in eum, qui rem bona fide emerit, idque et pomponius scribit.

Plainly, so long as the one who received the thing from a minor, or his heir, is solvent, nothing new is to be established against him who has bought the thing in good faith; and Pomponius writes this as well.

Dig. 4.4.15

Digest 4.4.15

Gaius 4 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 4 on the Provincial Edict.

Sed ubi restitutio datur, posterior emptor reverti ad auctorem suum poterit: per plures quoque personas si emptio ambulaverit, idem iuris erit.

But when restitution is granted, the subsequent purchaser will be able to revert to his vendor: and if the purchase has passed through several persons as well, the same rule of law will apply.

Dig. 4.4.16pr.

Digest 4.4.16 pr.

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

In causae cognitione etiam hoc versabitur, num forte alia actio possit competere citra in integrum restitutionem. nam si communi auxilio et mero iure munitus sit, non debet ei tribui extraordinarium auxilium: ut puta cum pupillo contractum est sine tutoris auctoritate nec locupletior factus est.

In the cognition of the cause this also will be considered: whether perhaps another action can be competent without resort to restitution in integrum. For if he is fortified by common aid and by mere law, no extraordinary aid ought to be granted to him: for example, when a contract has been made with a pupil without the authority of his tutor and he has not been made wealthier.

Dig. 4.4.16.1

Digest 4.4.16.1

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the Edict.

Item relatum est apud labeonem, si minor circumscriptus societatem coierit vel etiam donationis causa, nullam esse societatem nec inter maiores quidem et ideo cessare partes praetoris: idem et ofilius respondit: satis enim ipso iure munitus est.

Likewise it is related in Labeo that, if a minor, having been overreached, has entered into a partnership, or even for the sake of a donation, there is no partnership—not even among those of full age—and therefore the praetor’s part ceases: Ofilius also replied the same; for he is sufficiently fortified by the law itself.

Dig. 4.4.16.2

Digest 4.4.16.2

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the edict.

Pomponius quoque refert libro vicensimo octavo, cum quidam heres rogatus esset fratris filiae complures res dare ea condicione, ut, si sine liberis decessisset, restitueret eas heredi et haec defuncto herede heredi eius cavisset se restituturam, aristonem putasse in integrum restituendam. sed et illud pomponius adicit, quod potuit incerti condici haec cautio etiam a maiore: non enim ipso iure, sed per condictionem munitus est.

Pomponius also reports in the twenty-eighth book that, when a certain heir had been asked to give several things to his brother’s daughter on this condition, that, if she should die without children, she would restore them to the heir, and that, when the heir died, she had given security to his heir that she would restore them, Aristo thought that she ought to be granted restitutio in integrum. But Pomponius also adds this: that this cautio could be pursued by a condictio incerti even by the elder; for it was not protected by the law itself, but by a condictio.

Dig. 4.4.16.3

Digest 4.4.16.3

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Et generaliter probandum est, ubi contractus non valet, pro certo praetorem se non debere interponere.

And generally it must be held that, where a contract is not valid, for certain the praetor ought not to interpose himself.

Dig. 4.4.16.4

Digest 4.4.16.4

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Idem pomponius ait in pretio emptionis et venditionis naturaliter licere contrahentibus se circumvenire.

The same pomponius says that, in the price of purchase and vendition, it is naturally permitted for the contracting parties to circumvent one another.

Dig. 4.4.16.5

Digest 4.4.16.5

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Nunc videndum, qui in integrum restituere possunt. et tam praefectus urbi quam alii magistratus pro iurisdictione sua restituere in integrum possunt, tam in aliis causis quam contra sententiam suam.

Now it must be considered who can grant restitution in integrum. and both the Prefect of the City and other magistrates, according to their jurisdiction, can grant restitution in integrum, both in other cases and even against their own judgment.

Dig. 4.4.17

Digest 4.4.17

Hermogenianus 1 iuris epit.

Hermogenianus 1 epitome of law.

Praefecti etiam praetorio ex sua sententia in integrum possunt restituere, quamvis appellari ab his non possit. haec idcirco tam varie. quia appellatio quidem iniquitatis sententiae querellam, in integrum vero restitutio erroris proprii veniae petitionem vel adversarii circumventionis allegationem continet.

Even the Praetorian Prefects can grant restitutio in integrum on their own judgment, although one cannot appeal from them. For this reason these things are thus varied: because an appeal contains a complaint of the injustice of the sentence, whereas restitutio in integrum contains a petition for pardon of one’s own error or an allegation of the adversary’s circumvention.

Dig. 4.4.18pr.

Digest 4.4.18, preface.

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the edict.

Minor autem magistratus contra sententiam maiorum non restituet.

However, a lesser magistrate will not grant restitution contrary to the decision of the greater magistrates.

Dig. 4.4.18.1

Digest 4.4.18.1

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 On the Edict.

Si autem princeps sententiam dixit, perraro solet permittere restitutionem et induci in auditorium suum eum, qui per infirmitatem aetatis captum se dicat, dum ea, quae pro causa sunt, dicta non allegat vel ab advocatis proditum queratur. denique glabrionem acilium divus severus et imperator antoninus non audierunt incolorate restitui desiderantem adversus fratrem post speciem in auditorio eorum finitam.

If, however, the princeps has pronounced sentence, he very rarely is accustomed to permit restitution and to admit into his auditorium one who says that he was overreached through the weakness of age, when he does not cite the statements that are for his case, or complains that he was betrayed by his advocates. Finally, the deified Severus and Emperor Antoninus did not hear Acilius Glabrio, who desired plainly to be restored against his brother after the proceeding in their auditorium had been concluded.

Dig. 4.4.18.2

Digest 4.4.18.2

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 11 on the Edict.

Sed et percennio severo contra res bis iudicatas in integrum restitui divus severus et imperator antoninus permiserunt in auditorio suo examinari.

But also for Percennius Severus, the deified Severus and Emperor Antoninus permitted that restoration in full, against matters twice adjudged, be examined in their auditorium.

Dig. 4.4.18.3

Digest 4.4.18.3

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 on the edict.

Idem imperator licinnio frontoni rescripsit insolitum esse post sententiam vice sua ex appellatione dictam alium in integrum restitutionem tribuere nisi solum principem.

The same emperor issued a rescript to Licinnius Fronto that it was unusual, after a sentence pronounced on appeal in his stead, for anyone other than the emperor alone to grant restitutio in integrum.

Dig. 4.4.18.4

Digest 4.4.18.4

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian, 11 On the Edict.

Sed et si ab imperatore iudex datus cognoscat, restitutio ab alio nisi a principe, qui iudicem destinavit, non fiet.

But also, if a judge appointed by the emperor takes cognizance, restitution will not be made by anyone other than the princeps who designated the judge.

Dig. 4.4.18.5

Digest 4.4.18.5

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Non solum autem minoribus, verum successoribus quoque minorum datur in integrum restitutio, etsi sint ipsi maiores.

Not only, moreover, is restitution in integrum granted to minors, but also to the successors of minors, even if they themselves are of full age.

Dig. 4.4.19

Digest 4.4.19

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian, 13 on the Edict.

Interdum tamen successori plus quam annum dabimus, ut est edicto expressum, si forte aetas ipsius subveniat: nam post annum vicensimum quintum habebit legitimum tempus. hoc enim ipso deceptus videtur, quod, cum posset restitui intra tempus statutum ex persona defuncti, hoc non fecit. plane si defunctus ad in integrum restitutionem modicum tempus ex anno utili habuit, huic heredi minori post annum vicensimum quintum completum non totum statutum tempus dabimus ad in integrum restitutionem, sed id dumtaxat tempus, quod habuit is cui heres extitit.

Sometimes, however, we will grant to the successor more than a year, as is expressed in the edict, if perchance his age comes to his aid: for after the twenty-fifth year he will have the legitimate time. For he seems to have been deceived in this very respect, that, although he could have been restored within the time fixed, reckoned from the person of the deceased, he did not do this. Clearly, if the deceased had a small span from the useful year for in-integrum restitution, to this minor heir, after the twenty-fifth year has been completed, we shall not grant the whole time prescribed for in-integrum restitution, but only that time which the one of whom he became heir had.

Dig. 4.4.20pr.

Digest 4.4.20, beginning.

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the Edict.

Papinianus libro secundo responsorum ait exuli reverso non debere prorogari tempus in integrum restitutionis statutum, quia afuit, cum potuerit adire praetorem per procuratorem, nec dixit, vel praesidem ubi erat. sed quod idem dicit et indignum esse propter irrogatam poenam, non recte: quid enim commune habet delictum cum venia aetatis?

Papinian, in the second book of the Responses, says that, for an exile who has returned, the time appointed for restitution in integrum ought not to be prorogued, because he was absent, since he could have approached the praetor through a procurator, nor did he even petition the governor where he was. But where the same man also says that it is unworthy on account of the penalty imposed, this is not correct: for what has a delict in common with the leniency of age?

Dig. 4.4.20.1

Digest 4.4.20.1

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the edict.

Si quis tamen maior viginti quinque annis intra tempus restitutionis statutum contestatus postea destiterit, nihil ei proficit ad in integrum restitutionem contestatio, ut est saepissime rescriptum.

If, however, someone over twenty-five years, having entered a contestation within the time set for restitution, later desists, the contestation brings him no advantage for restitution in integrum, as has been very frequently laid down by rescript.

Dig. 4.4.21

Digest 4.4.21

Ulpianus 10 ad ed.

Ulpian 10 on the Edict.

Destitisse autem is videtur non qui distulit, sed qui liti renuntiavit in totum.

However, he is deemed to have desisted not the one who deferred, but the one who renounced the suit entirely.

Dig. 4.4.22

Digest 4.4.22

Ulpianus 11 ad ed.

Ulpian 11 on the edict.

In integrum vero restitutione postulata adversus aditionem a minore factam, si quid legatis expensum est, vel pretia eorum qui ad libertatem aditione eius pervenerunt, a minore refundenda non sunt. quemadmodum per contrarium cum minor restituitur ad adeundam hereditatem, quae antea gesta erant per curatorem bonorum decreto praetoris ad distrahenda bona secundum iuris formam constitutum, rata esse habenda calpurnio flacco severus et antoninus rescripserunt.

But when an in integrum restitution is sought against an adition made by a minor, if anything has been expended to legates, or the prices of those who attained liberty by his adition, these are not to be refunded by the minor. Conversely, when the minor is restored for the purpose of entering upon the inheritance, the acts which had previously been done by a curator of the goods, constituted by decree of the praetor for distraining/selling the goods according to the form of the law, must be held ratified—Severus and Antoninus rescripted to Calpurnius Flaccus to this effect.

Dig. 4.4.23

Digest 4.4.23

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the Edict.

Cum mandatu patris filius familias res administraret, non habet beneficium restitutionis: nam et si alius ei mandasset, non succurreretur, cum eo modo maiori potius consuleretur, cuius damno res sit cessura. sed si eventu damnum minor passurus sit, quia quod praestiterit servare ab eo cuius negotia gessit non potest, quia is non erit solvendo, sine dubio praetor interveniet. si autem ipse dominus minor sit, procurator vero maioris aetatis, non potest facile dominus audiri, nisi si mandatu eius gestum erit nec a procuratore servari res possit.

When, under a mandate of his father, a filius familias was administering affairs, he does not have the benefit of restitution; for even if someone else had given him a mandate, no relief would be afforded, since in that way consideration would rather be given to the principal, to whose loss the matter would be destined to come. But if, in the event, the minor is going to suffer damage, because he cannot preserve what he has rendered by recourse against the one whose business he transacted, since that person will not be solvent, without doubt the praetor will intervene. If, however, the owner himself is a minor, while the procurator is of greater age, the owner cannot readily be heard, unless it was done by his mandate and the matter cannot be preserved from the procurator.

ergo et si procuratorio nomine minor circumscriptus sit, imputari debet hoc domino, qui tali commisit sua negotia. idque et Marcello placet.

Therefore, even if under the procuratorial name a minor has been overreached, this must be imputed to the master, who entrusted his affairs to such a person. And this too is pleasing to Marcellus.

Dig. 4.4.24pr.

Digest 4.4.24, preface.

Paulus 1 sent.

Paul 1 Sentences.

Quod si minor sua sponte negotiis maioris intervenerit, restituendus erit, ne maiori damnum accidat. quod si hoc facere recusaverit, tunc si conventus fuerit negotiorum gestorum, adversus hanc actionem non restituitur: sed compellendus est sic ei cedere auxilio in integrum restitutionis, ut procuratorem eum in rem suam faciat, ut possit per hunc modum damnum sibi propter minorem contingens resarcire.

But if a minor of his own accord has intervened in the business of a major, he must be restored, lest damage occur to the major. But if he refuses to do this, then, if he is sued by the action of negotiorum gestorum (management of affairs), he is not restored against this action; rather, he is to be compelled so to cede to him the aid of in‑integrum restitution as to make him his procurator in his own interest (in rem suam), so that by this means he may be able to repair the loss befalling himself on account of the minor.

Dig. 4.4.24.1

Digest 4.4.24.1

Paulus 1 sent.

Paulus Sentences 1.

Non semper autem ea, quae cum minoribus geruntur, rescindenda sunt, sed ad bonum et aequum redigenda sunt. ne magno incommodo huius aetatis homines adficiantur nemine cum his contrahente et quodammodo commercio eis interdicetur. itaque nisi aut manifesta circumscriptio sit aut tam neglegenter in ea causa versati sunt, praetor interponere se non debet.

However, not always are the things transacted with minors to be rescinded, but they are to be brought back to the good and the equitable, lest people of that age be afflicted with great inconvenience, with no one contracting with them and, as it were, commerce being interdicted to them. Therefore, unless either there is manifest circumvention or they have conducted themselves so negligently in that matter, the praetor ought not to interpose himself.

Dig. 4.4.24.2

Digest 4.4.24.2

Paulus 1 sent.

Paulus Book 1 of the Sentences.

Scaevola noster aiebat, si quis iuvenili levitate ductus omiserit vel repudiaverit hereditatem vel bonorum possessionem, si quidem omnia in integro sint, omnimodo audiendus est: si vero iam distracta hereditate et negotiis finitis ad paratam pecuniam laboribus substituti veniat, repellendus est: multoque parcius ex hac causa heredem minoris restituendum esse.

Our Scaevola used to say, if someone, led by youthful levity, has omitted or repudiated an inheritance or the possession of the estate, then, if indeed everything is intact, he must by all means be heard: but if, the inheritance having already been liquidated and the dealings concluded, he comes for the ready money produced by the labors of a substitute, he must be repelled: and for this reason the heir of a minor is to be restored much more sparingly.

Dig. 4.4.24.3

Digest 4.4.24.3

Paulus 1 sent.

Paulus Sentences, Book 1.

Si servus vel filius familias minorem circumscripserit, pater dominusve quod ad eum pervenerit restituere iubendus est, quod non pervenerit ex peculio eorum praestare: si ex neutro satisfiet et dolus servi intervenerit, aut verberibus castigandus aut noxae dedendus erit. sed et si filius familias hoc fecit, ob dolum suum condemnabitur.

If a slave or a filius familias has defrauded a minor, the father or the master is to be ordered to restore what has come to him; what has not come to him he must provide from their peculium. If from neither source satisfaction is made, and the slave’s fraud has intervened, he shall either be chastised with beatings or be surrendered in noxal surrender. But even if the filius familias has done this, he will be condemned on account of his fraud.

Dig. 4.4.24.4

Digest 4.4.24.4

Paulus 1 sent.

Paulus 1 of the Sentences.

Restitutio autem ita facienda est, ut unusquisque integrum ius suum recipiat. itaque si in vendendo fundo circumscriptus restituetur, iubeat praetor emptorem fundum cum fructibus reddere et pretium recipere, nisi si tunc dederit, cum eum perditurum non ignoraret: sicuti facit in ea pecunia, quae ei consumpturo creditur, sed parcius in venditione, quia aes alienum ei solvitur, quod facere necesse est, credere autem non est necesse. nam et si origo contractus ita constitit, ut infirmanda sit, si tamen necesse fuit pretium solvi, non omnimodo emptor damno adficiendus est.

Restitution, moreover, must be made in such a way that each person receives back his entire right intact. And so, if someone overreached in selling an estate is to be restored, let the praetor order the buyer to return the estate with its fruits and to receive back the price—unless he paid it at a time when he was not ignorant that he would lose it: just as he does in the case of money which is lent to one who will consume it, but more sparingly in a sale, because a debt is being paid for him, which must be done, whereas to lend is not necessary. For even if the origin of the contract stood in such a way that it ought to be invalidated, nevertheless, if it was necessary that the price be paid, the buyer is not to be affected with loss in every respect.

Dig. 4.4.24.5

Digest 4.4.24.5

Paulus 1 sent.

Paulus 1 Sentences.

Ex hoc edicto nulla propria actio vel cautio proficiscitur: totum enim hoc pendet ex praetoris cognitione.

From this edict no specific action or caution proceeds: for this whole matter depends on the praetor’s cognition.

Dig. 4.4.25pr.

Digest 4.4.25, at the beginning.

Gaius 4 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 4 on the provincial edict.

Illud nullam habet dubitationem, quin minor si non debitum solverit ex ea causa, ex qua iure civili repetitio non est, danda sit ei utilis actio ad repetendum: cum et maioribus viginti quinque annis iustis ex causis dari solet repetitio.

This admits no doubt, that if a minor has paid what was not owed, from a cause for which under the civil law there is no repetition (recovery), a useful action should be granted to him to recover: since even to those over twenty-five years of age repetition is accustomed to be granted for just causes.

Dig. 4.4.25.1

Digest 4.4.25.1

Gaius 4 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 4 on the provincial edict.

Si talis interveniat iuvenis, cui praestanda sit restitutio, ipso postulante praestari debet aut procuratori eius, cui id ipsum nominatim mandatum sit: qui vero generale mandatum de universis negotiis gerendis alleget, non debet audiri.

If such a youth should intervene, for whom restitution is to be afforded, it ought to be afforded upon his own petition or to his procurator, to whom that very thing has been expressly mandated: but one who alleges a general mandate for conducting all business ought not to be heard.

Dig. 4.4.26pr.

Digest 4.4.26pr.

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the Edict.

Quod si de speciali mandatu dubitetur, cum restitutio postuletur, interposita stipulatione ratam rem dominum habiturum rei potest mederi.

But if there is doubt about a special mandate, when restitution is demanded, the situation can be remedied by interposing a stipulation that the owner will hold the matter ratified.

Dig. 4.4.26.1

Digest 4.4.26.1

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the Edict.

Quod si is, qui circumscripsisse dicitur, absit, defensor eius satis iudicatum solvi dare debebit.

But if the one who is said to have overreached is absent, his defender must give sufficient security for the judgment to be paid.

Dig. 4.4.27pr.

Digest 4.4.27, preface.

Gaius 4 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 4 on the provincial edict.

Patri pro filio omnimodo praestanda restitutio est, licet filius restitui nolit, quia patris periculum agitur qui de peculio tenetur. ex quo apparet ceteros cognatos vel adfines alterius esse condicionis, nec aliter audiri oportere, quamsi ex voluntate adulescentis postulent aut eius vitae sit iste adulescens, ut merito etiam bonis ei debeat interdici.

Restitution is in every way to be afforded to a father on behalf of his son, even if the son is unwilling to be restored, because the father’s peril is at stake, he being held liable de peculio. From which it appears that other cognates or affines are in a different condition, and ought not to be heard otherwise than if they petition with the young man’s consent, or if this youth is of such a way of life that deservedly he should even be interdicted from his goods.

Dig. 4.4.27.1

Digest 4.4.27.1

Gaius 4 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 4 on the provincial edict.

Si pecuniam, quam mutuam minor accepit, dissipavit, denegare debet proconsul creditori adversus eum actionem. quod si egenti minor crediderit, ulterius procedendum non est, quam ut iubeatur iuvenis actionibus suis, quas habet adversus eum cui ipse credidisset, cedere creditori suo. praedium quoque si ex ea pecunia pluris quam oporteret emit, ita temperanda res erit, ut iubeatur venditor reddito pretio reciperare praedium, ita ut sine alterius damno etiam creditor a iuvene suum consequatur.

If the money which a minor received as a loan he has dissipated, the proconsul ought to deny the creditor an action against him. But if the minor has given credit to a needy person, the proceeding is not to go further than that the youth be ordered to cede to his creditor his own actions which he has against the one to whom he himself had given credit. Also, if out of that money he has bought an estate for more than was proper, the matter shall be tempered thus: the seller shall be ordered, with the price restored, to recover back the estate, so that, without another’s loss, even the creditor may obtain from the youth what is his.

ex quo scilicet simul intellegimus, quid observari oporteat, si sua pecunia pluris quam oportet emerit, ut tamen hoc et superiore casu venditor, qui pretium reddidit, etiam usuras, quas ex ea pecunia perceperit aut percipere potuit, reddat, et fructus, quibus locupletior factus est iuvenis, recipiat. item ex diverso si minore pretio quam oportet vendiderit adulescens, emptor quidem iuberi debebit praedia cum fructibus restituere, iuvenis autem eatenus ex pretio reddere, quatenus ex ea pecunia locupletior est.

whence of course at the same time we understand what ought to be observed, if with his own money he has bought for more than is proper: namely, that both in this and in the preceding case the seller, who has returned the price, must also return the interest (usury) which he has received, or could have received, from that money, and take back the fruits by which the youth was made more wealthy. likewise, conversely, if the young man has sold for a lower price than is proper, the purchaser ought to be ordered to restore the estates together with the fruits, while the youth, however, is to give back out of the price only insofar as he has been enriched by that money.

Dig. 4.4.27.2

Digest 4.4.27.2

Gaius 4 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 4 on the provincial edict.

Si minor annis viginti quinque sine causa debitori acceptum tulerit, non solum in ipsum, sed et in fideiussores et in pignora actio restitui debet. et si ex duobus reis alteri acceptum tulerit, in utrumque restituenda est actio.

If a person under twenty-five years of age, without cause, has entered the debtor as paid, the action ought to be restored not only against him, but also against the sureties and the pledges. And if out of two co-debtors he has entered one as paid, the action must be restored against both.

Dig. 4.4.27.3

Digest 4.4.27.3

Gaius 4 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 4 on the provincial edict

Ex hoc intellegimus, si damnosam sibi novationem fecerit, forte si ab idoneo debitore ad inopem novandi causa transtulerit obligationem, oportere eum in priorem debitorem restitui.

From this we understand that, if he has made for himself a detrimental novation—for instance, if for the sake of novating he has transferred the obligation from a suitable (solvent) debtor to an indigent (insolvent) one—he ought to be restored against the prior debtor.

Dig. 4.4.27.4

Digest 4.4.27.4

Gaius 4 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 4 on the provincial edict.

Adversus eos quoque restitutio praestanda est, quorum de dolo agere non permittitur, nisi quaedam personae speciali lege exceptae sint.

Restitution is also to be afforded against those persons against whom it is not permitted to bring an action for fraud, unless certain persons have been excepted by a special law.

Dig. 4.4.28

Digest 4.4.28

Celsus 2 Dig.

Celsus 2 Digest.

Cum minor quam quinque et viginti annis adversus eum, cum quo tutelae egit, restituitur, non ideo tutori contrarium tutelae iudicium restituendum est.

When a minor less than twenty-five years is restored against the one with whom he has proceeded by the guardianship action, the contrary action of guardianship is not on that account to be restored to the tutor.

Dig. 4.4.29pr.

Digest 4.4.29pr.

Modestinus 2 resp.

Modestinus 2 responses.

Etiamsi patre eodemque tutore auctore pupillus captus probari possit, curatorem postea ei datum nomine ipsius in integrum restitutionem postulare non prohiberi.

Even if it can be proved that a ward was overreached, with his father—who was likewise his tutor—as authorizer, a curator afterwards appointed for him is not forbidden to petition, in his name, for restitution in integrum.

Dig. 4.4.29.1

Digest 4.4.29.1

Modestinus 2 resp.

Modestinus 2 Responses.

Ex causa curationis condemnata pupilla adversus num caput sententiae restitui volebat, et quia videtur in ceteris litis speciebus relevata fuisse, actor maior aetate, qui adquievit tunc temporis sententiae, dicebat totam debere litem restaurari. herennius ^ ^ modestinus respondit, si species, in qua pupilla in integrum restitui desiderat, ceteris speciebus non cohaeret, nihil proponi, cur a tota sententia recedi actor postulans audiendus est.

Condemned on account of a curatorship, a female ward wished to be restored by restitution in integrum against one head of the judgment; and because she appears to have been relieved in the other species of the suit, the plaintiff of full age, who at that time acquiesced in the judgment, said that the whole suit ought to be restored. herennius ^ ^ modestinus responded, if the count in which the ward desires to be restored in integrum does not cohere with the other counts, nothing is put forward why the plaintiff, requesting that there be a departure from the entire judgment, should be heard.

Dig. 4.4.29.2

Digest 4.4.29.2

Modestinus 2 resp.

Modestinus Responses, Book 2.

Si hereditate patris aetatis beneficio in integrum restitutus abstinuit se nemine de creditoribus paternis praesente vel ad agendum a praeside evocato, an ea restitutio recte facta videatur, quaeritur. herennius ^ ^ modestinus respondit, cum non evocatis creditoribus in integrum restitutionis decretum interpositum proponatur, minime id creditoribus praeiudicasse.

If, with respect to his father’s inheritance, someone, having been restored in full by the benefit of age, abstained, with none of the paternal creditors present or summoned by the governor to bring an action, the question is raised whether that restitution seems to have been rightly made. Herennius ^ ^ Modestinus responded that, when the creditors have not been summoned and a decree of in‑integrum restitution is put forward as having been interposed, that by no means prejudiced the creditors.

Dig. 4.4.30

Digest 4.4.30

Papinianus 3 quaest.

Papinian 3 Questions.

Si filius emancipatus contra tabulas non accepta possessione, post inchoatam restitutionis quaestionem, legatum ex testamento patris maior viginti quinque annis petisset, liti renuntiare videtur, cum et si bonorum possessionis tempus largiretur, electo iudicio defuncti repudiatum beneficium praetoris existimaretur.

If an emancipated son, without having accepted possession contra tabulas, after the question of restitution had been initiated, being more than twenty-five years old, had sought a legacy from his father’s testament, he is seen to renounce the suit, since even if the time for bonorum possessio were granted, by choosing the deceased’s action the praetor’s benefice would be considered repudiated.

Dig. 4.4.31

Digest 4.4.31

Papinianus 9 resp.

Papinian 9 Responses.

Si mulier, postquam heres extitit, propter aetatem abstinendi causa in integrum restituta fuerit, servos hereditarios ex fideicommisso ab ea recte manumissos retinere libertatem respondit: nec erunt cogendi viginti aureos pro libertate retinenda dependere, quam iure optimo consecuti videntur. nam et si quidam ex creditoribus pecuniam suam ante restitutionem ab ea reciperassent, ceterorum querella contra eos qui acceperunt ut pecunia communicetur non admittetur.

If a woman, after she had become heir, was restored in integrum, on account of her age, for the purpose of abstaining, he answered that the hereditary slaves, rightly manumitted by her in fulfillment of a fideicommissum, retain their liberty; nor will they be compelled to pay twenty aurei for retaining their liberty, which they seem to have obtained by the best right. For also, if certain creditors had received their money from her before the restitution, the complaint of the others against those who received, that the money be shared, will not be admitted.

Dig. 4.4.32

Digest 4.4.32

Paulus 1 quaest.

Paulus 1 questions.

Minor viginti quinque annis adito praeside ex aspectu corporis falso probavit perfectam aetatem: curatores cum intellexissent esse minorem perseveraverunt in administratione: medio tempore post probatam aetatem ante impletum vicensimum quintum annum solutae sunt adulescenti pecuniae debitae easque male consumpsit. quaero cuius sit periculum: et quid si curatores quoque in eodem errore perseverassent, ut putarent maiorem esse et abstinuissent se ab administratione, curationem etiam restituissent, an periculum temporis, quod post probatam aetatem cessit, ad eos pertineat? respondi: hi qui debita exsoluerunt liberati iure ipso non debent iterum conveniri.

Under twenty-five years of age, after approaching the governor he, from the appearance of his body, falsely proved full age: the curators, when they had understood that he was a minor, persevered in the administration: in the meantime, after age had been approved but before the completion of the twenty-fifth year, monies owed were paid out to the adolescent, and he ill-consumed them. I ask whose is the risk: and what if the curators also had persisted in the same error, so that they thought him of full age and abstained from administration, and even had the curatorship restored, whether the risk of the time which elapsed after the age was approved pertains to them? I answered: those who paid off the debts, being freed by the law itself, ought not to be sued again.

plane curatores, qui scientes eum minorem esse perseveraverunt in eodem officio, non debuerunt eum pati accipere pecunias debitas et debebunt hoc nomine conveniri. quod si et ipsi decreto praesidis crediderunt et administrare cessaverunt vel etiam rationem reddiderunt, similes sunt ceteris debitoribus, ideoque non conveniuntur.

plainly the curators, who, knowing him to be a minor, persevered in the same office, ought not to have allowed him to receive the moneys owed, and they must be proceeded against under this head. but if they themselves also trusted in the decree of the governor and ceased to administer or even rendered an account, they are like the other debtors, and therefore are not proceeded against.

Dig. 4.4.33

Digest 4.4.33

Valens 6 fideic.

Valens 6 on fideicommissa.

Si minor viginti quinque annis servum suum, qui pluris, quam in testamento ei legatum sit, manumittere rogatus fuerit et legatum acceperit, non cogendum praestare libertatem, si legatum reddere paratus sit, iulianus respondit: ut quemadmodum maioribus liberum sit non accipere, si nolint manumittere, sic huic reddenti legatum necessitas manumittendi remittatur.

If someone under twenty‑five years of age has been asked to manumit his own slave, who is worth more than has been bequeathed to him in the testament, and has accepted the legacy, Julian answered that he is not to be compelled to furnish liberty, if he is prepared to return the legacy: so that just as it is free to those of full age not to accept, if they do not wish to manumit, so for this one returning the legacy the necessity of manumitting is remitted.

Dig. 4.4.34pr.

Digest 4.4.34 preface.

Paulus 1 sent.

Paul 1 Sentences.

Si minor viginti quinque annis filio familias minori pecuniam credidit, melior est causa consumentis, nisi locupletior ex hoc inveniatur litis contestatae tempore is qui accepit.

If one under twenty-five years lent money to a son of the family who is also a minor, the position of the one who has consumed it is stronger, unless he who received it is found, from this, to be more wealthy at the time of the joinder of issue.

Dig. 4.4.34.1

Digest 4.4.34.1

Paulus 1 sent.

Paulus Sentences 1.

Minores si in iudicem compromiserunt et tutore auctore stipulati sunt, integri restitutionem adversus talem obligationem iure desiderant.

Minors, if they have entered into a compromissum to a judge and have stipulated with their guardian as authorizer, rightly seek restitutio in integrum against such an obligation.

Dig. 4.4.35

Digest 4.4.35

Hermogenianus 1 iuris epit.

Hermogenianus 1 epitome of law.

Si in emptionem penes se collatam minor adiectione ab alio superetur, implorans in integrum restitutionem audietur, si eius interesse emptam ab eo rem fuisse adprobetur, veluti quod maiorum eius fuisset: ita ^ ^ tamen ut id, quod ex licitatione accessit, ipse offerat venditori.

If, in a purchase placed in his hands, a minor is outdone by another by an addition, he, imploring restitution in integrum, will be heard, if it is proved that it was to his interest that the thing had been bought by him, as for example because it had belonged to his ancestors: yet ^ ^ on the condition that he himself offer to the seller that which accrued from the licitation.

Dig. 4.4.36

Digest 4.4.36

Paulus 5 sent.

Paul 5 sentences.

Minor viginti quinque annis omissam allegationem per in integrum restitutionis auxilium repetere potest.

A minor under twenty-five years may recover an omitted allegation through the aid of restitutio in integrum.

Dig. 4.4.37pr.

Digest 4.4.37pr.

Tryphonus 3 disp.

Tryphoninus 3 Disputations.

Auxilium in integrum restitutionis exsecutionibus poenarum paratum non est: ideoque iniuriarum iudicium semel omissum repeti non potest.

The aid of restitution in integrum is not available for the executions of penalties; and therefore the action for iniuriae, once omitted, cannot be brought again.

Dig. 4.4.37.1

Digest 4.4.37.1

Tryphonus 3 disp.

Tryphonus 3 Disputations.

Sed et in sexaginta diebus praeteritis, in quibus iure mariti sine calumnia vir accusare mulierem adulterii potest, denegatur ei in integrum restitutio: quod ius omissum si nunc repetere vult, quid aliud quam delicti veniam, id est calumniae deprecatur? et cum neque in delictis neque calumniatoribus praetorem succurrere oportere certi iuris sit, cessabit in integrum restitutio. in delictis autem minor annis viginti quinque non meretur in integrum restitutionem, utique atrocioribus, nisi quatenus interdum miseratio aetatis ad mediocrem poenam iudicem produxerit.

But also, when the sixty days have elapsed, within which by the right of a husband a man can accuse a woman of adultery without calumny, restitution in full is denied to him: if he now wishes to reclaim the right he omitted, what else is he beseeching than pardon for an offense, that is, for calumny? And since it is settled law that the praetor ought to succor neither in offenses nor calumniators, restitution in full will cease. In delicts, moreover, one under twenty-five years does not merit restitution in full, especially for more atrocious ones, except insofar as compassion for age has sometimes led the judge to a moderate penalty.

sed ut ad legis iuliae de adulteriis coercendis praecepta veniamus, utique nulla deprecatio adulterii poenae est, si se minor annis adulterum fateatur. dixi, nec si quid eorum commiserit, quae pro adulterio eadem lex punit, veluti si adulterii damnatam sciens uxorem duxerit, aut in adulterio deprehensam uxorem non dimiserit, quaestumve de adulterio uxoris fecerit, pretiumve pro comperto stupro acceperit, aut domum praebuerit ad stuprum adulteriumve in eam committendum: et non sit aetatis excusatio adversus praecepta legum ei, qui dum leges invocat, contra eas committit.

but, to come to the precepts of the Lex Iulia on restraining adulteries, assuredly there is no deprecation of the penalty for adultery if one who is a minor by years confesses himself an adulterer. I have said: nor even if he has committed any of those things which the same law punishes on account of adultery—such as, if knowingly he has taken as wife a woman condemned for adultery; or has not dismissed a wife caught in adultery; or has made profit from the adultery of his wife; or has received a price for a discovered act of debauchery; or has provided a house for debauchery or adultery to be committed upon her: and there is not to be an excuse of age against the precepts of the laws for him who, while he invokes the laws, commits acts against them.

Dig. 4.4.38pr.

Digest 4.4.38, introductory paragraph.

Paulus 1 decr.

Paulus book 1 of Decrees.

Aemilius larianus ab ovinio fundum rutilianum lege commissoria emerat data parte pecuniae, ita ut si intra duos menses ab emptione reliqui pretii partem dimidiam non solvisset, inemptus esset, item si intra alios duos menses reliquum pretium non numerasset, similiter esset inemptus. intra priores duos menses lariano defuncto rutiliana pupillaris aetatis successerat, cuius tutores in solutione cessaverunt. venditor denuntiationibus tutoribus saepe datis post annum eandem possessionem claudio telemacho vendiderat.

aemilius larianus had bought from ovinius the rutilian farm under a commissory clause, a part of the money having been given, on condition that if within two months from the purchase he had not paid half of the remaining price, it would be unbought; likewise, if within another two months he had not counted out the remaining price, similarly it would be unbought. within the first two months, larianus having died, rutiliana of pupillary age had succeeded, whose guardians delayed in the payment. the seller, with notices often given to the guardians, after a year had sold the same possession to claudius telemachus.

pupilla in integrum restitui desiderabat: victa tam apud praetorem quam apud praefectum urbi provocaverat. putabam bene iudicatum, quod pater eius, non ipsa contraxerat: imperator autem motus est, quod dies committendi in tempus pupillae incidisset eaque effecisset, ne pareretur legi venditionis. dicebam posse magis ea ratione restitui eam, quod venditor denuntiando post diem, quo placuerat esse commissum, et pretium petendo recessisse a lege sua videretur: non me moveri quod dies postea transisset, non magis quam si creditor pignus distraxisset, post mortem debitoris die solutionis finita.

the ward desired to be restored in integrum; having been defeated both before the praetor and before the prefect of the city, she had appealed. I was thinking it was well adjudged, because her father, not she herself, had contracted; but the emperor was moved, because the day for the commissory clause to take effect had fallen in the ward’s time, and this had brought it about that the law of the sale was not obeyed. I said that she could rather be restored on this ground: that the seller, by serving denuntiationes after the day on which it had been agreed that the forfeiture was to be operative, and by demanding the price, seemed to have departed from his own law (lex); I was not moved by the fact that the day had later passed, any more than if a creditor had sold the pledge after the debtor’s death, the day of payment having ended.

quia tamen lex commissoria displicebat ei, pronuntiavit in integrum restituendam. movit etiam illud imperatorem, quod priores tutores, qui non restitui desiderassent, suspecti pronuntiati erant.

because, however, the commissory clause displeased him, he pronounced that she was to be restored in integrum. this also moved the emperor: that the prior guardians, who had not desired that she be restored, had been declared suspect.

Dig. 4.4.38.1

Digest 4.4.38.1

Paulus 1 decr.

Paulus, Book 1 of Decrees.

Quod dicitur non solere filiis familias post emancipationem adhuc minoribus succurri in his, quae omisissent manentes in potestate, tunc recte dicitur, cum patri adquirere possunt.

What is said—that sons of a household, after emancipation, while still minors, are not usually succored in those matters which they would have omitted, had they remained under paternal power—is rightly said when they can acquire for the father.

Dig. 4.4.39pr.

Digest 4.4.39pr.

Scaevola 2 Dig.

Scaevola 2 Digest.

Intra utile tempus restitutionis apud praesidem petierunt in integrum restitutionem minores et de aetate sua probaverunt: dicta pro aetate sententia adversarii, ut impedirent cognitionem praesidis, ad imperatorem appellaverunt: praeses in eventum appellationis cetera cognitionis distulit. quaesitum est: si finita appellationis apud imperatorem cognitione et iniusta appellatione pronuntiata egressi aetatem deprehendantur, an cetera negotii implere possunt, cum per eos non steterit, quo minus res finem accipiat? respondi secundum ea quae proponuntur perinde cognosci atque si nunc intra aetatem essent.

Within the utile time for restitution, the minors sought in integrum restitution before the governor and proved their age. A judgment having been pronounced in their favor on the ground of age, the adversaries, in order to impede the governor’s hearing, appealed to the emperor. The governor, pending the outcome of the appeal, deferred the rest of the hearing. The question was raised: if, once the hearing of the appeal before the emperor has been concluded and the appeal declared unjust, they are found to have passed beyond the age (of minority), can they complete the rest of the business, since it was not through them that the matter failed to reach its end? I replied that, according to what is set forth, it is to be examined just as if they were now within the age.

Dig. 4.4.39.1

Digest 4.4.39.1

Scaevola 2 Dig.

Scaevola Digest 2

Vendentibus curatoribus minoris fundum emptor extitit lucius titius et sex fere annis possedit et longe longeque rem meliorem fecit: quaero, cum sint idonei curatores, an minor adversus titium emptorem in integrum restitui possit. respondi ex omnibus quae proponerentur vix esse restituendum, nisi si maluerit omnes expensas, quas bona fide emptor fecisse adprobaverit, ei praestare, maxime cum sit ei paratum promptum auxilium curatoribus eis idoneis constitutis.

With the curators of the minor selling the estate, lucius titius turned out to be the purchaser and possessed it for nearly six years and made the property far and away better: I inquire, since the curators are suitable, whether the minor can be restored in full against titius the purchaser. I replied that, from all that was proposed, restoration should scarcely be granted, unless he should prefer to render to him all the expenses which the good‑faith purchaser shall have proved that he incurred, especially since ready and prompt aid is available to him through those curators appointed as suitable.

Dig. 4.4.40pr.

Digest 4.4.40pr.

Ulpianus 5 opin.

Ulpian 5 Opinions.

Minor annis viginti quinque, cui fideicommissum solvi pronuntiatum erat, caverat id se accepisse et cautionem eidem debitor quasi creditae pecuniae fecerat. in integrum restitui potest, quia partam ex causa iudicati persecutionem novo contractu ad initium alterius petitionis redegerat.

a minor under twenty-five years, for whom it had been pronounced that a fideicommissum be paid, had given a bond that he had received it, and the debtor had made to the same a security as if for money credited (loaned). he can be restored in integrum, because he had, by a new contract, reduced the enforcement acquired from the cause of a judgment to the beginning of another claim.

Dig. 4.4.40.1

Digest 4.4.40.1

Ulpianus 5 opin.

Ulpian 5 opinions.

Praedia patris sui minor annis viginti quinque ob debita rationis tutelae aliorum, quam pater administraverat, in solutum inconsulte dedit: ad suam aequitatem per in integrum restitutionem revocanda res est, usuris pecuniae, quam constiterit ex tutela deberi, reputatis et cum quantitate fructuum perceptorum compensatis.

A person under twenty-five years, on account of debts of the account of the tutelage of others which his father had administered, imprudently gave his father’s estates in payment: the matter is to be recalled to his equity by restitution in integrum, the interest on the money which shall be established to be owed from the tutelage being reckoned, and compensated with the amount of the fruits received.

Dig. 4.4.41

Digest 4.4.41

Iulianus 45 Dig.

Julian 45 Digest.

Si iudex circumvento in venditione adulescenti iussit fundum restitui eumque pretium emptori reddere, et hic nolit uti hac in integrum restitutione paenitentia acta, exceptionem utilem adversus petentem pretium quasi ex causa iudicati adulescens habere poterit, quia unicuique licet contemnere haec, quae pro se introducta sunt. nec queri poterit venditor, si restitutus fuerit in eam causam, in qua se ipse constituit et quam mutare non potuisset, si minor auxilium praetoris non implorasset.

If a judge has ordered that the estate be restored to a youth overreached in the sale, and that he repay the price to the buyer; and if he is unwilling to use this restitutio in integrum, repentance having been made, the youth will be able to have a useful exception against one seeking the price as if from a cause adjudged, because it is permitted to everyone to disdain those things which have been introduced on his behalf. Nor will the seller be able to complain, if he has been restored to that position in which he placed himself and which he could not have changed, if the minor had not implored the praetor’s aid.

Dig. 4.4.42

Digest 4.4.42

Ulpianus 2 de off. procons.

Ulpian, 2 On the Office of the Proconsul.

Praeses provinciae minorem in integrum restituere potest etiam contra suam vel decessoris sui sententiam: quod enim appellatio interposita maioribus praestat, hoc beneficio aetatis consequuntur minores.

The governor of the province can grant restitution in integrum to a minor even against his own judgment or that of his predecessor: for what an interposed appeal affords to majors, minors obtain by the benefit of age.

Dig. 4.4.43

Digest 4.4.43

Marcellus 1 de off. praesid.

Marcellus 1 on the office of the governor.

De aetate eius, qui se maiorem annis viginti quinque dicit, causa cognita probandum est, quia per eam probationem in integrum restitutioni eiusdem adulescentis et aliis causis praeiudicatur.

Concerning the age of one who asserts himself to be older than twenty-five years, the matter, once the case has been examined, must be proved, because by that proof prejudice is caused to that same youth’s restitution in integrum and to other causes.

Dig. 4.4.44

Digest 4.4.44

Ulpianus 5 opin.

Ulpian Book 5 of Opinions.

Non omnia, quae minores annis viginti quinque gerunt, irrita sunt, sed ea tantum, quae causa cognita eiusmodi deprehensa sunt, vel ab aliis circumventi vel sua facilitate decepti aut quod habuerunt amiserunt, aut quod adquirere emolumentum potuerunt omiserint, aut se oneri quod non suscipere licuit obligaverunt.

Not all the things which minors under the age of twenty-five years do are void, but only those which, the cause having been examined, have been found to be of such a kind: either that they were circumvented by others or deceived by their own facility, or that they lost what they had, or omitted to acquire an emolument which they could have acquired, or that they obligated themselves to a burden which it was permitted not to undertake.

Dig. 4.4.45pr.

Digest 4.4.45, beginning.

Callistratus 1 ed. monit.

Callistratus book 1 of the Admonitory Edict.

Etiam ei, qui prius quam ^ priusquam^ nasceretur usucaptum amisit, restituendam actionem labeo scribit.

Labeo writes that even for him who, before he was born, had lost what had been acquired by usucapion, the action is to be restored.

Dig. 4.4.45.1

Digest 4.4.45.1

Callistratus 1 ed. monit.

Callistratus 1 On the Edict, Monitory.

Imperator titus antoninus rescripsit eum, qui fraude tutoris adversarium suum diceret absolutum et agere cum eo ex integro vellet, licentiam habere prius cum tutore agere.

The emperor Titus Antoninus, by rescript, declared that one who said his adversary had been absolved through the fraud of his guardian and wished to sue him anew has leave to proceed first against the guardian.

Dig. 4.4.46

Digest 4.4.46

Paulus 2 resp.

Paul Responses, Book 2.

Eum, qui ex sua voluntate minorem annis in iudicio defendit et condemnatus est, ex causa iudicati posse conveniri nec eius quem defendit aetatem ad restitutionem impetrandam ei prodesse, cum causam iudicati recusare non possit. ex quo apparet nec eum, cuius nomine condemnatus est, auxilium restitutionis propter eam sententiam implorare posse.

He who, of his own will, defends in court a minor in years and is condemned can be sued on the cause of the adjudged matter; nor does the age of him whom he defended profit him for obtaining restitution, since he cannot refuse the cause of the adjudged. Whence it appears that not even the one in whose name he was condemned can implore the aid of restitution on account of that sentence.

Dig. 4.4.47pr.

Digest 4.4.47 preface.

Scaevola 1 resp.

Scaevola 1 Responses.

Tutor urguentibus creditoribus rem pupillarem bona fide vendidit, denuntiante tamen matre emptoribus: quaero, cum urguentibus creditoribus distracta sit nec de sordibus tutoris merito quippiam dici potest, an pupillus in integrum restitui potest. respondi cognita causa aestimandum, nec idcirco, si iustum sit restitui, denegandum id auxilium, quod tutor delicto vacaret.

The tutor, with creditors pressing, sold the ward’s property in good faith, the mother nevertheless giving notice to the purchasers: I ask, since it was alienated under pressure from creditors and nothing can rightly be said of the tutor’s turpitude, whether the pupil can be restored in integrum. I responded that, the case having been inquired into, the matter must be assessed, and therefore, if it is just that restoration be granted, that aid is not to be denied on the ground that the tutor would be free from delict.

Dig. 4.4.47.1

Digest 4.4.47.1

Scaevola 1 resp.

Scaevola 1 responses.

Curator adulescentium praedia communia sibi et his, quorum curam administrabat, vendidit: quaero, si decreto praetoris adulescentes in integrum restituti fuerint, an eatenus venditio rescindenda sit, quatenus adulescentium pro parte fundus communis fuit? respondi eatenus rescindi, nisi si emptor a toto contractu velit discedi, quod partem empturus non esset. item quaero, emptor utrum a seio et sempronio pupillis pretium cum usuris recipere deberet an vero ab herede curatoris?

The curator of the adolescents sold the common estates belonging to himself and to those whose care he was administering: I ask, if by decree of the praetor the adolescents have been restored in integrum, whether the sale should be rescinded only to the extent that the estate was common in part to the adolescents? I answered that it is to be rescinded to that extent, unless the buyer should wish to withdraw from the whole contract, because he would not have been going to buy a part. Likewise I ask whether the buyer ought to recover the price with interest from Seius and Sempronius, the wards, or rather from the heir of the curator?

respondi heredes quidem curatoris teneri, verum in seium et sempronium pro parte, qua eorum fundus fuit, actiones dandas: utique si ad eos accepta pecunia pro eadem parte pervenisset.

I answered that the heirs of the curator are indeed held liable, but that actions are to be granted against Seius and Sempronius for the part in which the land was theirs: at any rate, if the money received had come to them for the same part.

Dig. 4.4.48pr.

Digest 4.4.48, preface.

Paulus 1 sent.

Paulus 1 Sentences.

Minor se in id, quod fideiussit vel mandavit, in integrum restituendo reum principalem non liberat.

A minor, by being restored in integrum with respect to that for which he stood surety or gave a mandate, does not release the principal debtor.

Dig. 4.4.48.1

Digest 4.4.48.1

Paulus 1 sent.

Paulus sentences 1.

Minor ancillam vendidit: si eam emptor manumiserit, ob hoc in integrum restitui non poterit, sed adversus emptorem quanti sua interest actionem habebit.

A minor sold a female slave: if the buyer manumits her, on that account he will not be able to be restored in full (in integrum), but he will have an action against the buyer for the amount of his interest.

Dig. 4.4.48.2

Digest 4.4.48.2

Paulus 1 sent.

Paulus Sentences 1.

Mulier minor viginti quinque annis si pactione dotis deterior condicio eius fiat et tale pactum inierit, quod numquam maioris aetatis constitutae paciscerentur, atque ideo revocare velit: audienda est.

A woman under twenty‑five years, if by a pact of dowry her condition is made worse, and she has entered into such a pact as one which persons constituted in full age would never stipulate, and therefore wishes to revoke it: she must be heard.

Dig. 4.4.49

Digest 4.4.49

Ulpianus 35 ad ed.

Ulpian 35 on the Edict.

Si res pupillaris vel adulescentis distracta fuerit, quam lex distrahi non prohibet, venditio quidem valet, verumtamen si grande damnum pupilli vel adulescentis versatur, etiam si collusio non intercessit, distractio per in integrum restitutionem revocatur.

If the property of a ward or an adolescent has been alienated, which the law does not prohibit to be alienated, the sale indeed is valid; nevertheless, if a great loss is at stake for the ward or the adolescent, even if no collusion has intervened, the alienation is revoked by in integrum restitution.

Dig. 4.4.50

Digest 4.4.50

Pomponius 9 epist. et var. lect.

Pomponius 9 epistles and various readings.

Iunius diophantus pomponio suo salutem. minor viginti quinque annis novandi animo intercessit pro eo, qui temporali actione tenebatur, tunc cum adhuc supererant decem dies, et postea in integrum restitutus est: utrum restitutio, quae creditori adversus priorem debitorem datur, decem dierum sit an plenior? ego didici ex tempore in integrum restitutionis tantundem temporis praestandum, quantum supererat: tu quid de eo putas velim rescribas.

Iunius Diophantus to his Pomponius, greetings. A minor under twenty-five years, with the intent of novating, interceded as surety for one who was held by a temporal action, at a time when ten days still remained, and afterwards he was restored in integrum: whether the restitution, which is given to the creditor against the prior debtor, is to be for ten days or fuller? I have learned that from the time of the in integrum restitution there must be afforded just as much time as was remaining; what you think about this I would like you to write back.

respondit: sine dubio, quod de temporali actione, in qua intercessit minor, sensisti, puto verius esse: ideoque et pignus quod dederat prior debitor, manet obligatum.

he answered: without doubt, what you perceived about the temporal action, in which the minor interceded, I think is truer: and therefore the pledge which the prior debtor had given also remains obligated.

Dig. 4.5.0. De capite minutis.

Digest. 4.5.0. On those diminished in status.

Dig. 4.5.1

Digest 4.5.1

Gaius 4 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 4 on the provincial edict.

Capitis minutio est status permutatio.

Capitis minution is a permutation of status.

Dig. 4.5.2pr.

Digest 4.5.2pr.

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian, 12 on the Edict.

Pertinet hoc edictum ad eas capitis deminutiones, quae salva civitate contingunt. ceterum sine amissione civitatis sive libertatis amissione contingat capitis deminutio, cessabit edictum neque possunt hi penitus conveniri: dabitur plane actio in eos, ad quos bona pervenerunt eorum.

This edict pertains to those diminutions of status which occur with citizenship preserved. But if a diminution of status occurs by loss either of citizenship or of liberty, the edict will cease, and these persons cannot at all be convened; plainly, an action will be given against those to whom their goods have come.

Dig. 4.5.2.1

Digest 4.5.2.1

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian 12 on the edict.

Ait praetor: " qui quaeve, posteaquam quid cum his actum contractumve sit, capite deminuti deminutae esse dicentur, in eos easve perinde, quasi id factum non sit, iudicium dabo".

The praetor says: " whoever, male or female, after something has been done or contracted with them, are said to have suffered capitis deminutio, I will grant an action against them, male or female, in the same way as if that had not been done."

Dig. 4.5.2.2

Digest 4.5.2.2

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian, 12 on the Edict.

Hi qui capite minuuntur ex his causis, quae capitis deminutionem praecesserunt, manent obligati naturaliter: ceterum si postea, imputare quis sibi debebit cur contraxerit, quantum ad verba huius edicti pertinet. sed interdum, si contrahatur cum his post capitis deminutionem, danda est actio: et quidem si adrogatus sit, nullus labor: nam perinde obligabitur ut filius familias.

Those who are reduced in civil status, from those causes which preceded the capitis deminutio, remain naturally obligated: however, if afterwards, one must impute to himself why he contracted, so far as the words of this edict are concerned. But sometimes, if one contracts with them after the capitis deminutio, an action is to be given: and indeed, if he has been adrogated, no trouble: for he will be obligated just as a filius familias.

Dig. 4.5.2.3

Digest 4.5.2.3

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian, 12 on the Edict.

Nemo delictis exuitur, quamvis capite minutus sit.

No one is stripped of his delicts, although he be diminished in status.

Dig. 4.5.2.4

Digest 4.5.2.4

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian, 12 on the edict.

Ei, qui debitorem suum adrogavit, non restituitur actio in eum, postquam sui iuris fiat.

To one who has adrogated his debtor, the action is not restored to him against that person, after he becomes sui iuris.

Dig. 4.5.2.5

Digest 4.5.2.5

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian 12 on the edict.

Hoc iudicium perpetuum est et in heredes et heredibus datur.

This action is perpetual and is granted both against heirs and to heirs.

Dig. 4.5.3pr.

Digest 4.5.3, preface.

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the Edict.

Liberos qui adrogatum parentem sequuntur placet minui caput, cum in aliena potestate sint et cum familiam mutaverint.

As for the children who follow a parent who has been adrogated, it is held that their caput is diminished, since they are in another’s power and since they have changed family.

Dig. 4.5.3.1

Digest 4.5.3.1

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the edict.

Emancipato filio et ceteris personis capitis minutio manifesto accidit, cum emancipari nemo possit nisi in imaginariam servilem causam deductus: aliter atque cum servus manumittitur, quia servile caput nullum ius habet ideoque nec minui potest:

To an emancipated son and to other persons, capitis diminution plainly occurs, since no one can be emancipated unless he has been brought into an imaginary servile cause; otherwise than when a slave is manumitted, because a servile caput has no right and therefore cannot be diminished:

Dig. 4.5.4

Digest 4.5.4

Modestinus 1 pand.

Modestinus book 1 of the Pandects.

Hodie enim incipit statum habere.

For as of today it begins to have status.

Dig. 4.5.5pr.

Digest 4.5.5 pr.

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus book 11 on the Edict.

Amissione civitatis fit capitis minutio, ut in aqua et igni interdictione.

By the loss of citizenship a diminution of status arises, as in an interdiction from water and fire.

Dig. 4.5.5.1

Digest 4.5.5.1

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the Edict.

Qui deficiunt, capite minuuntur ( deficere autem dicuntur, qui ab his, quorum sub imperio sunt, desistunt et in hostium numerum se conferunt): sed et hi, quos senatus hostes iudicavit vel lege lata: utique usque eo, ut civitatem amittant.

Those who defect are diminished in caput (now, they are said to defect who desist from those under whose command they are and transfer themselves into the number of the enemy): and likewise those whom the Senate has adjudged enemies, or by a law enacted—namely, to the extent that they lose citizenship.

Dig. 4.5.5.2

Digest 4.5.5.2

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 to the Edict.

Nunc respiciendum, quae capitis deminutione pereant: et primo de ea capitis deminutione, quae salva civitate accidit, per quam publica iura non interverti constat: nam manere magistratum vel senatorem vel iudicem certum est.

Now it must be considered what things perish by capitis deminution; and first about that capitis deminution which occurs with the citizenship preserved, through which it is settled that public rights are not overturned: for it is certain that one remains a magistrate or a senator or a judge.

Dig. 4.5.6

Digest 4.5.6

Ulpianus 51 ad sab.

Ulpian, 51 on Sabinus.

Nam et cetera officia quae publica sunt, in eo non finiuntur: capitis enim minutio privata hominis et familiae eius iura, non civitatis amittit.

For even the other duties that are public are not concluded in his case: for a capitis diminution takes away the private rights of the man and of his family, not those of the state.

Dig. 4.5.7pr.

Digest 4.5.7pr.

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the Edict.

Tutelas etiam non amittit capitis minutio exceptis his, quae in iure alieno personis positis deferuntur. igitur testamento dati vel ex lege vel ex senatus consulto erunt nihilo minus tutores: sed legitimae tutelae ex duodecim tabulis intervertuntur eadem ratione, qua et hereditates exinde legitimae, quia adgnatis deferuntur, qui desinunt esse familia mutati. ex novis autem legibus et hereditates et tutelae plerumque sic deferuntur, ut personae naturaliter designentur: ut ecce deferunt hereditatem senatus consulta matri et filio.

He does not even lose tutelages by diminution of status (capitis deminutio), except for those which are conferred upon persons placed in an alien right. Therefore those given by testament or by statute or by senatorial decree will nonetheless be tutors; but the legitimate guardianships from the Twelve Tables are overturned for the same reason as the legitimate inheritances from that source, because they are devolved upon agnates, who cease to be such when the family has been changed. From the newer laws, however, both inheritances and tutelages are for the most part thus devolved, that persons are designated naturally: for example, senatorial decrees confer the inheritance upon mother and son.

Dig. 4.5.7.1

Digest 4.5.7.1

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the Edict.

Iniuriarum et actionum ex delicto venientium obligationes cum capite ambulant.

Obligations for injuries and actions arising from delict walk with the head.

Dig. 4.5.7.2

Digest 4.5.7.2

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the Edict.

Si libertate adempta capitis deminutio subsecuta sit, nulli restitutioni adversus servum locus est, quia nec praetoria iurisdictione ita servus obligatur, ut cum eo actio sit: sed utilis actio adversus dominum danda est, ut iulianus scribit, et nisi in solidum defendatur, permittendum mihi est in bona quae habuit mitti.

If, with liberty taken away, a diminution of status follows, there is no place for any restitution against the slave, because not even under praetorian jurisdiction is the slave bound in such a way that there is an action against him; but a useful action is to be granted against the master, as Julian writes, and unless he be defended for the whole, it is to be permitted to me to be put into possession of the goods which he had.

Dig. 4.5.7.3

Digest 4.5.7.3

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus Book 11 on the Edict.

Item cum civitas amissa est, nulla restitutionis aequitas est adversus eum, qui amissis bonis et civitate relicta nudus exulat.

Likewise, when citizenship has been lost, there is no equity of restitution against one who, his goods having been lost and his citizenship left behind, goes into exile naked.

Dig. 4.5.8

Digest 4.5.8

Gaius 4 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 4 on the Provincial Edict.

Eas obligationes, quae naturalem praestationem habere intelleguntur, palam est capitis deminutione non perire, quia civilis ratio naturalia iura corrumpere non potest. itaque de dote actio, quia in bonum et aequum concepta est, nihilo minus durat etiam post capitis deminutionem,

Those obligations which are understood to have a natural prestation are plainly not extinguished by capitis deminutio, because the civil order cannot corrupt natural rights. And so the action for dowry, since it is conceived on the basis of the good and the equitable, nonetheless endures even after capitis deminutio,

Dig. 4.5.9

Digest 4.5.9

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the Edict.

Ut quandoque emancipata agat.

How she is to sue once emancipated.

Dig. 4.5.10

Digest 4.5.10

Modestinus 8 diff.

Modestinus 8 Differences.

Legatum in annos singulos vel menses singulos relictum, vel si habitatio legetur, morte quidem legatarii legatum intercidit, capitis deminutione tamen interveniente perseverat: videlicet quia tale legatum in facto potius quam in iure consistit.

A legacy left from year to year or from month to month, or if a right of habitation is bequeathed, does indeed lapse upon the death of the legatee; yet, if a diminution of status (capitis deminutio) intervenes, it persists: namely because such a legacy consists rather in fact than in law.

Dig. 4.5.11

Digest 4.5.11

Paulus 2 ad sab.

Paulus 2 on Sabinus.

Capitis deminutionis tria genera sunt, maxima media minima: tria enim sunt quae habemus, libertatem civitatem familiam. igitur cum omnia haec amittimus, hoc est libertatem et civitatem et familiam, maximam esse capitis deminutionem: cum vero amittimus civitatem, libertatem retinemus, mediam esse capitis deminutionem: cum et libertas et civitas retinetur, familia tantum mutatur, minimam esse capitis deminutionem constat.

There are three kinds of diminution of status, the greatest, the middle, the least: for there are three things which we have, liberty, citizenship, family. therefore, when we lose all these, that is, liberty and citizenship and family, the diminution of status is the greatest: but when we lose citizenship, while we retain liberty, the diminution of status is the middle: when both liberty and citizenship are retained, and only the family is changed, it is established that the diminution of status is the least.

Dig. 4.6.0. Ex quibus causis maiores viginti quinque annis in integrum restituuntur.

Digest 4.6.0. On the causes for which those over twenty-five years are restored to their former condition.

Dig. 4.6.1pr.

Digest 4.6.1pr.

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 12 on the Edict.

Huius edicti causam nemo non iustissimam esse confitebitur: laesum enim ius per id tempus, quo quis rei publicae operam dabat vel adverso casu laborabat, corrigitur, nec non et adversus eos succurritur, ne vel obsit vel prosit quod evenit.

Everyone will confess the cause of this edict to be most just: for an injured right, for that time during which someone was giving service to the Republic or was laboring under an adverse mischance, is corrected; and likewise relief is afforded even against them, lest what has occurred either harm or profit.

Dig. 4.6.1.1

Digest 4.6.1.1

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian 12 on the Edict.

Verba autem edicti talia sunt: " si cuius quid de bonis, cum is metus aut sine dolo malo rei publicae causa abesset, inve vinculis servitute hostiumque potestate esset: sive cuius actionis eorum cui dies exisse dicetur: item si quis quid usu suum fecisset, aut quod non utendo amisit, consecutus, actioneve qua solutus ob id, quod dies eius exierit, cum absens non defenderetur, inve vinculis esset, secumve agendi potestatem non faceret, aut cum eum invitum in ius vocari non liceret neque defenderetur: cumve magistratus de ea re appellatus esset sive cui pro magistratu ^ per magistratus^ sine dolo ipsius actio exempta esse dicetur: earum rerum actionem intra annum, quo primum de ea re experiundi potestas erit, item si qua alia mihi iusta causa esse videbitur, in integrum restituam, quod eius per leges plebis scita senatus consulta edicta decreta principum licebit. "

But the words of the edict are such: " if anyone’s something of his goods, when he was absent through fear or, without evil deceit, for the sake of the commonwealth, or was in chains, in servitude, and under the power of enemies: or if of any action of those persons for whom it will be said that their day has expired: likewise, if anyone had made something his own by usucapion, or had acquired what he lost by not using, or had been released by an action on account of this, that his day had expired, when, being absent, he was not defended, or was in chains, or did not make the power of proceeding against himself, or when it was not permitted to summon him unwilling into court and he was not defended: or when the magistrate had been appealed in that matter, or if for someone, on behalf of the magistrate ^ by magistrates^, without his own fraud, the action shall be said to have been taken away: the action concerning those matters within a year, from the time when first there will be the power of making trial in that matter, likewise, if any other just cause shall seem to me to exist, I will restore in integrum, so far as of this will be permitted through laws, plebiscites, senatorial decrees, edicts, and decrees of the emperors. "

Dig. 4.6.2pr.

Digest 4.6.2pr.

Callistratus 2 ed. monit.

Callistratus 2, On the Monitory Edict.

Hoc edictum, quod ad eos pertinet, qui ei continentur, minus in usu frequentatur: huiusmodi enim personis extra ordinem ius dicitur ex senatus consultis et principalibus constitutionibus.

This edict, which pertains to those who are contained by it, is less commonly employed in practice; for to persons of this kind justice is administered outside the ordinary course, by senatus consulta and imperial constitutions.

Dig. 4.6.2.1

Digest 4.6.2.1

Callistratus 2 ed. monit.

Callistratus 2nd book of the Monitory Edict.

Hoc autem capite adiuvantur in primis hi, qui metus causa afuissent: scilicet si non supervacuo timore deterriti afuissent.

By this head, in the first place, those are aided who had been absent by reason of fear: namely, if they had been absent, deterred by no superfluous fear.

Dig. 4.6.3

Digest 4.6.3

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian 12 on the Edict.

Metus autem causa abesse videtur, qui iusto timore mortis vel cruciatus corporis conterritus abest: et hoc ex affectu eius intellegitur. sed non sufficit quolibet terrore abductum timuisse, sed huius rei disquisitio iudicis est.

But fear, moreover, seems to be a cause for being absent, when one is absent, thoroughly frightened by a just fear of death or of bodily excruciation: and this is understood from his affect. But it does not suffice that, led away by any terror whatsoever, he was afraid; rather, the disquisition of this matter is the judge’s.

Dig. 4.6.4

Digest 4.6.4

Callistratus 2 ed. monit.

Callistratus Book 2, On the Monitory Edict.

Item hi, qui rei publicae causa sine dolo malo afuissent. dolum malum eo pertinere accepi, ut qui reverti potest neque reverteretur, in eo, quod per id tempus adversus eum factum est, non adiuvetur: veluti si alterius grandis commodi captandi gratia id egerit, ut rei publicae causa abesset, et revocatur ab isto privilegio,

Likewise those who had been absent for the sake of the Republic without malicious deceit. I have understood that malicious deceit pertains to this, namely, that he who is able to return and does not return is not aided as to that which has been done against him during that time: for instance, if for the sake of capturing another’s great advantage he contrived that he be absent for the sake of the Republic, he is recalled from that privilege,

Dig. 4.6.5pr.

Digest 4.6.5, preface.

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian, 12 on the edict.

Et qui data opera et sine lucro hoc affectaverit: vel qui maturius profectus est: vel litis gratia coepit rei publicae causa abesse. sed haec adiectio doli mali ad rei publicae causa absentes refertur, non etiam ad eum, qui metus causa: quoniam nullus metus est, si dolus intercedit.

And also he who by deliberate effort and without gain has aimed at this; or who set out earlier; or who, for the sake of litigation, began to be absent on account of the commonwealth. But this addition of malicious fraud is applied to those absent for the sake of the commonwealth, not also to him who is absent by reason of fear: since there is no fear, if fraud intervenes.

Dig. 4.6.5.1

Digest 4.6.5.1

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian, 12 on the Edict.

Sed qui romae rei publicae causa operam dant, rei publicae causa non absunt.

But those who at Rome give service for the sake of the republic are not absent for the sake of the republic.

Dig. 4.6.6

Digest 4.6.6

Paulus 12 ad ed.

Paulus 12 on the edict.

Ut sunt magistratus.

As the magistrates are.

Dig. 4.6.7

Digest 4.6.7

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian 12 on the edict.

Milites plane, qui romae militant, pro rei publicae causa absentibus habentur.

Clearly, soldiers who are on military service at Rome are held to be absent for the sake of the Republic.

Dig. 4.6.8

Digest 4.6.8

Paulus 3 brev.

Paulus 3 breviary.

Legatis quoque municipiorum succurritur ex principum marci et commodi constitutione.

Relief is likewise afforded to the legacies of the municipalities by a constitution of the emperors Marcus and Commodus.

Dig. 4.6.9

Digest 4.6.9

Callistratus 2 ed. monit.

Callistratus book 2, On the Monitory Edict.

Succurritur etiam ei, qui in vinculis fuisset. quod non solum ad eum pertinet, qui publica custodia coercetur, sed ad eum quoque, qui a latronibus aut praedonibus vel potentiore vi oppressus vinculis coercebatur. vinculorum autem appellatio latius accipitur: nam etiam inclusos veluti lautumiis vinctorum numero haberi placet, quia nihil intersit, parietibus an compedibus teneatur.

Relief is also afforded to one who has been in bonds; and this pertains not only to him who is restrained in public custody, but also to him who, overpowered by bandits or pirates or by a more powerful force, was restrained in chains. Moreover, the appellation of “bonds” is taken more broadly: for it is held that even those shut in, as in the quarries, are to be reckoned in the number of the bound, because it makes no difference whether one is held by walls or by fetters.

custodiam autem solam publicam accipi labeo putat.

however, Labeo thinks that only public custody is to be understood.

Dig. 4.6.10

Digest 4.6.10

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian Book 12 on the Edict.

In eadem causa sunt et qui a militibus statoribusque vel a municipalibus ministeriis adservantur, si probentur rei suae superesse non potuisse. in vinculis autem etiam eos accipimus, qui ita alligati sunt, ut sine dedecore in publico parere non possint.

They are in the same case also who are kept under guard by soldiers and statores, or by municipal ministries, if it is proven that they could not have been present for their own case. Moreover, we also count as “in chains” those who are so bound that they cannot appear in public without disgrace.

Dig. 4.6.11

Digest 4.6.11

Callistratus 2 ed. monit.

Callistratus Book 2 of the Monitory Edict.

Ei quoque succurritur, qui in servitute fuerit, sive bona fide serviat homo liber, sive detentus sit.

Succor is likewise afforded to him who has been in servitude, whether a free man serves in good faith, or has been detained.

Dig. 4.6.12

Digest 4.6.12

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian 12 on the edict.

Is autem, qui de statu suo litigat, ex quo lis inchoata est hoc edicto non continetur: tamdiu igitur in servitute esse videtur, quamdiu non est eiusmodi lis coepta.

He, however, who litigates concerning his status, from the time the suit has been commenced, is not included under this edict: accordingly, he is deemed to be in servitude so long as such a suit has not been commenced.

Dig. 4.6.13pr.

Digest 4.6.13pr.

Paulus 12 ad ed.

Paul 12 on the edict.

Recte labeo ait eum non contineri, qui liber et heres institutus sit, antequam sit heres, quia nec bona habeat et praetor de liberis hominibus loquatur.

Rightly Labeo says that he is not included, who is free and instituted heir, before he is heir, because he has no goods, and the praetor speaks about free men.

Dig. 4.6.13.1

Digest 4.6.13.1

Paulus 12 ad ed.

Paulus 12 on the Edict.

Puto tamen filium familias in castrensi peculio pertinere ad hoc edictum.

I think, however, that a son-in-power, as regards the castrense peculium, pertains to this edict.

Dig. 4.6.14

Digest 4.6.14

Callistratus 2 ed. monit.

Callistratus book 2, on the monitory edict.

Item ei succurritur, qui in hostium potestate fuit, id est ab hostibus captus. nam transfugis nullum credendum est beneficium tribui, quibus negatum est postliminium. poterant tamen, qui in hostium potestate essent, illa parte edicti contineri, qua loquitur de his qui in servitute fuerint.

Likewise, aid is afforded to one who has been in the power of enemies, that is, captured by enemies. For it is to be believed that no beneficium is granted to deserters, for whom postliminium is denied. Nevertheless, those who were in the power of enemies could be included under that part of the edict which speaks about those who have been in servitude.

Dig. 4.6.15pr.

Digest 4.6.15pr.

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian 12 on the Edict.

Ab hostibus autem captis postliminio reversis succurritur aut ibi mortuis, quia nec procuratorem habere possunt: cum aliis supra scriptis etiam per procuratorem possit subveniri praeter eos, qui in servitute detinentur. ego autem etiam nomine eius, qui hostium potitus est, si curator ( ut plerumque) fuerit bonis constitutus, auxilium competere existimo.

But relief is afforded to those captured by enemies who have returned by postliminy, or who have died there, because they cannot have a procurator: whereas to the other persons written above aid can even be furnished through a procurator, except those who are detained in servitude. I, however, consider that even in the name of him who has come into the power of the enemy, if a curator ( as for the most part) has been appointed for his goods, a remedy is competent.

Dig. 4.6.15.1

Digest 4.6.15.1

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian, 12 on the Edict.

Non minus autem ab hostibus capto quam ibi nato, qui postliminium habet, succursum videtur.

No less, moreover, to one captured by the enemy than to one born there, who has postliminium, does it seem that succor has been afforded.

Dig. 4.6.15.2

Digest 4.6.15.2

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian, 12 on the edict.

Si damni infecti missus sit in aedes militis, si quidem praesente eo iussit praetor possideri, non restituitur, sin vero absente eo, dicendum subveniri ei debere.

If, for damage not yet effected (damnum infectum), someone has been sent into possession of a soldier’s house, then if, with him present, the praetor ordered possession to be taken, it is not restored; but if, with him absent, it must be said that he ought to be afforded relief.

Dig. 4.6.15.3

Digest 4.6.15.3

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian, 12 on the Edict.

Sed quod simpliciter praetor edixit " posteave" ita accipiendum est, ut si inchoata sit bonae fidei possessoris detentatio ante absentiam, finita autem reverso, restitutionis auxilium locum habeat non quandoque, sed ita demum, si intra modicum tempus quam rediit hoc contigit, id est dum hospitium quis conducit, sarcinulas componit, quaerit advocatum: nam eum, qui differt restitutionem, non esse audiendum neratius scribit.

But as to the point that the praetor simply edicted “or thereafter,” it is to be understood thus: if the detention of a possessor in good faith was begun before the absence, but was concluded after his return, the aid of restitution has place not whenever, but only if this befell within a modest time after he came back—that is, while one hires lodging, arranges his little packs, and seeks an advocate; for Neratius writes that one who defers restitution is not to be heard.

Dig. 4.6.16

Digest 4.6.16

Paulus 12 ad ed.

Paulus 12 on the edict.

Non enim neglegentibus subvenitur, sed necessitate rerum impeditis. totumque istud arbitrio praetoris temperabitur, id est ut ita demum restituat, si non neglegentia, sed temporis angustia non potuerunt litem contestari.

For relief is not afforded to the negligent, but to those impeded by the necessity of circumstances. and the whole of this will be tempered by the discretion of the praetor, that is, that he grant restitution only then, if it was not negligence, but the pressure of time, that prevented them from joining issue in the action.

Dig. 4.6.17pr.

Digest 4.6.17, preface.

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian, 12 on the Edict.

Iulianus libro quarto scribit non solum adversus possessorem hereditatis succurrendum militi, verum adversus eos quoque, qui a possessore emerunt, ut vindicari res possint, si miles hereditatem adgnoverit: quod si non adgnoverit, ex post facto usucapionem processisse manifestatur.

Julian in book 4 writes that succor must be afforded to the soldier not only against the possessor of the inheritance, but also against those who bought from the possessor, so that the things can be vindicated, if the soldier has acknowledged the inheritance: but if he has not acknowledged it, it is manifest that usucapion has proceeded ex post facto.

Dig. 4.6.17.1

Digest 4.6.17.1

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian 12 on the edict.

Eum quoque cui sic legatum sit: " vel in annos singulos, quibus in italia esset", restituendum, ut capiat, atque si in italia fuisset, et labeo scribit et iulianus libro quarto et pomponius libro trigensimo primo probant: non enim dies actionis exit, ubi praetoris auxilium necessarium erat, sed condicio in causa est.

He too, to whom it has been bequeathed thus: "or for each single year during which he was in Italy," must be restored, in order that he may take, as if he had been in Italy; and both Labeo writes this, and Iulianus in book 4 and Pomponius in book 31 approve it: for the day for bringing the action does not run out where the praetor’s aid was necessary, but a condition is in question.

Dig. 4.6.18

Digest 4.6.18

Paulus 12 ad ed.

Paulus 12 on the Edict.

Sciendum est, quod in his casibus restitutionis auxilium maioribus damus in quibus rei dumtaxat persequendae gratia queruntur, non cum et lucri faciendi ex alterius poena vel damno auxilium sibi impertiri desiderant.

It should be known that, in these cases, we grant the aid of restitution to those of full age when they complain solely for the sake of pursuing the matter, not when they also desire to have aid imparted to them for the making of gain from another’s penalty or loss.

Dig. 4.6.19

Digest 4.6.19

Papinianus 3 quaest.

Papinian 3 Questions.

Denique si emptor, priusquam per usum sibi adquireret, ab hostibus captus sit, placet interruptam possessionem postliminio non restitui, quia haec sine possessione non constitit, possessio autem plurimum facti habet: causa vero facti non continetur postliminio.

Finally, if the buyer, before he had acquired it for himself through use (usucapion), was captured by the enemy, it is the view that the interrupted possession is not restored by postliminy, because this did not subsist without possession; possession moreover has very much of fact, but the matter of fact is not encompassed by postliminy.

Dig. 4.6.20

Digest 4.6.20

Papinianus 13 quaest.

Papinian 13 questions.

Nec utilem actionem ei tribui oportet, cum sit iniquissimum auferre domino, quod usus non abstulit: neque enim intellegitur amissum, quod ablatum alteri non est.

Nor ought a useful action to be granted to him, since it is most inequitable to take away from the owner what use has not removed: for that is not understood as lost which has not been taken away to another.

Dig. 4.6.21pr.

Digest 4.6.21, preface.

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian 12 on the edict.

" item", ait praetor," si quis usu suum fecisset, aut quod non utendo sit amissum consecutus, actioneve qua solutus ob id, quod dies eius exierit, cum absens non defenderetur. " quam clausulam praetor inseruit, ut quemadmodum succurrit supra scriptis personis, ne capiantur, ita et adversus ipsas succurrit, ne capiant.

" likewise", says the praetor," if anyone had made it his own by use, or had obtained what had been lost by not using, or had been released from an action because its day had expired, while the absent man was not being defended. " This clause the praetor inserted, so that just as he succors the persons written above, lest they be taken advantage of, so too he succors against those same persons, lest they take advantage.

Dig. 4.6.21.1

Digest 4.6.21.1

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian, 12 on the Edict.

Et erit notandum, quod plus praetor expressit, cum adversus eos restituit, quam cum ipsis subvenit: nam hic non certas personas enumeravit adversus quas subvenit, ut supra, sed adiecit clausulam, qua omnes qui absentes non defenduntur complexus est.

And it will be to be noted that the praetor expressed more when he grants restitution against them than when he comes to their aid themselves: for here he did not enumerate specific persons against whom he affords relief, as above, but he added a clause by which he encompassed all who, being absent, are not defended.

Dig. 4.6.21.2

Digest 4.6.21.2

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian, 12 on the Edict.

Haec autem restitutio locum habet, sive per se sive per subiectas sibi personas usu adquisierunt, qui absentes non defendebantur, et ita, si nemo eorum erat defensor. nam si fuit procurator, cum habueris quem convenias, non debet inquietari. ceterum si non existebat defensor, aequissimum erat subveniri, eo potius, quod eorum qui non defenduntur, si quidem latitent, praetor ex edicto pollicetur in bona eorum mittere, ut si res exegerit etiam distrahantur, si vero non latitent, licet non defendantur, in bona tantum mitti.

However, this restitutio has a place for those who, being absent and not defended, have acquired by usucapion, whether by themselves or through persons subject to them—and thus, if none of them had a defensor. For if there was a procurator, since you have someone whom you may convene, he ought not to be disturbed. But if no defensor existed, it was most equitable to grant relief, all the more because, as to those who are not defended, if indeed they are in hiding, the praetor by edict promises to send into their goods (missio in bona), so that, if the matter requires, they may even be sold off; but if they are not in hiding, although they are not defended, to be sent into their goods only.

Dig. 4.6.21.3

Digest 4.6.21.3

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian, 12 on the Edict.

Defendi autem non is videtur, cuius se defensor ingerit, sed qui requisitus ab actore non est defensioni defuturus, plenaque defensio accipietur, si et iudicium non detrectetur et iudicatum solvi satisdetur.

Moreover, he is not seen as defended, on whose behalf a defender thrusts himself in; rather, he is, who, when required by the plaintiff, will not be lacking to the defense; and a full defense will be accepted, if both the action is not declined and surety is given that the adjudged amount will be paid.

Dig. 4.6.22pr.

Digest 4.6.22pr.

Paulus 12 ad ed.

Paulus book 12 on the Edict.

Ergo sciendum est non aliter hoc edictum locum habere, quam si amici eius interrogati fuerint, an defendant, aut si nemo sit, qui interrogari potest. ita enim absens defendi non videtur, si actor ultro interpellat nec quisquam defensioni se offerat: eaque testatione complecti oportet.

Therefore it must be known that this edict has effect only if his friends have been interrogated whether they will defend, or if there is no one who can be interrogated. For an absent person is not considered to be defended if the actor interpellates of his own accord and no one offers himself for the defense; and it ought to be included in that testation.

Dig. 4.6.22.1

Digest 4.6.22.1

Paulus 12 ad ed.

Paulus in the 12th book On the Edict.

Sicut igitur damno eos adfici non vult, ita lucrum facere non patitur.

Thus, just as he does not wish them to be afflicted with loss, so he does not allow them to make a profit.

Dig. 4.6.22.2

Digest 4.6.22.2

Paulus 12 ad ed.

Paulus 12 on the Edict.

Quod edictum etiam ad furiosos et infantes et civitates pertinere labeo ait.

Labeo says that that edict also pertains to the insane and to infants and to cities.

Dig. 4.6.23pr.

Digest 4.6.23, beginning.

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian 12 on the Edict.

Ait praetor: " inve vinculis esset, secumve agendi potestatem non faceret". haec persona merito adiecta est: fieri enim poterat, ut quis in vinculis praesens esset, vel in publica vel in privata vincula ductus: nam eteum qui in vinculis est, si modo non sit in servitute, posse usu adquirere constat. sed et is, qui in vinculis est si defendatur, cessat restitutio.

The praetor says: " or if he were in chains, or did not afford the power of proceeding with him." this person was rightly added: for it could happen that someone, being present, was in chains, led into public or private bonds: for even one who is in chains, provided only that he is not in servitude, is understood to be able to acquire by use (usucapion). But also, if one who is in chains is defended, restitution ceases.

Dig. 4.6.23.1

Digest 4.6.23.1

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian 12 on the edict.

Is autem, qui apud hostes est, nihil per usum sibi adquirere potest, nec coeptam possessionem poterit implere, dum est apud hostes: hoc amplius nec postliminio reversus reciperabit per usum dominii adquisitionem.

But he who is among the enemy can acquire nothing for himself by usucapion, nor will he be able to complete the possession he has begun while he is among the enemy: further, even on returning by postliminy he will not recover the acquisition of ownership by usucapion.

Dig. 4.6.23.2

Digest 4.6.23.2

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian, 12 on the Edict.

Item ei, qui per captivitatem fundi possessionem vel usus fructus quasi possessionem amisit, succurrendum esse papinianus ait, et fructus quoque medio tempore ab alio ex usu fructu perceptos debere captivo restitui aequum putat.

Likewise, to him who through captivity has lost the possession of a farm (fundus) or the quasi-possession of a usufruct, relief must be afforded, says Papinian; and he also deems it equitable that the fruits as well, gathered in the meantime by another from the usufruct, ought to be restored to the captive.

Dig. 4.6.23.3

Digest 4.6.23.3

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian, 12 on the Edict.

Hi plane, qui fuerunt in potestate captivi, usu rem adquirere possunt ex re peculiari: et aequum erit ex hac clausula praesentibus, id est qui non sunt in captivitate, subveniri, si cum non defenderentur usucaptum quid sit. sed et si dies actionis, quae adversus captivum competebat, exierit, succurretur adversus eum.

Clearly, those who were in the power of the captive can acquire ownership by usucaption of a thing from the peculium; and it will be equitable, by virtue of this clause, that aid be given to those present, that is, who are not in captivity, if, while they were not being defended, something has been usucaptured. But also, if the time for an action which lay against the captive has expired, relief will be afforded against him.

Dig. 4.6.23.4

Digest 4.6.23.4

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian 12 on the Edict.

Deinde adicit praetor: " secumve agendi potestatem non faceret", ut si, dum hoc faciat, per usum adquisitio impleta vel quid ex supra scriptis contigit, restitutio concedatur: merito, nec enim sufficit semper in possessionem bonorum eius mitti, quia ea interdum species esse potest, ut in bonis latitantis mitti non possit aut non latitet: finge enim, dum advocationes postulat, diem exisse, vel dum alia mora iudicii contingit.

Then the praetor adds: " or should not make the power of proceeding in action with him," so that, if, while he does this, acquisition by use is completed or something from the above-written occurs, restitution may be granted: rightly so; for it does not always suffice to be sent into possession of his goods, because there can sometimes be a case such that one cannot be sent into the goods of one who is in hiding, or he is not in hiding: imagine, for instance, that, while he is demanding advocations (adjournments), the day has run out, or while some other delay of the trial occurs.

Dig. 4.6.24

Digest 4.6.24

Paulus 12 ad ed.

Paulus 12 on the Edict.

Sed et ad eos pertinet, qui conventi frustrantur et qualibet tergiversatione et sollertia efficiunt, ne cum ipsis agi possit.

But it also pertains to those who, when summoned, cause frustration and by any tergiversation and cleverness bring it about that no action can be brought against them.

Dig. 4.6.25

Digest 4.6.25

Gaius 4 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 4 on the provincial edict.

Quod quidem simili modo ad eum quoque pertinere dicemus, qui non frustrandi gratia id faceret, sed quod multitudine rerum distringeretur.

We will say that this in a similar manner pertains also to him who would not do that for the sake of frustrating, but because he is pressed by a multitude of affairs.

Dig. 4.6.26pr.

Digest 4.6.26, beginning.

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian 12 on the edict.

Sed et si per praetorem stetit, restitutio indulgebitur.

But also, if it was due to the praetor, restitution will be granted.

Dig. 4.6.26.1

Digest 4.6.26.1

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian 12 on the Edict.

Adversus relegatum restitutionem faciendam ex generali clausula pomponius ait: sed non et ipsi concedendam, quia potuit procuratorem relinquere: ex causa tamen puto etiam ipsi succurrendum.

As against a relegated person, Pomponius says that restitution is to be made under the general clause: but not to be granted to him himself, because he could have left a procurator: nevertheless, for cause I think that succor should be afforded even to him.

Dig. 4.6.26.2

Digest 4.6.26.2

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian, 12 on the Edict.

Ait praetor: " aut cum eum invitum in ius vocare non liceret neque defenderetur". haec clausula ad eos pertinet, quos more maiorum sine fraude in ius vocare non licet, ut consulem praetorem ceterosque, qui imperium potestatemve quam habent. sed nec ad eos pertinet hoc edictum, quos praetor prohibet sine permissu suo vocari, quoniam aditus potuit permittere: patronos puta et parentes.

The praetor says: "or when it is not permitted to summon him into court against his will, nor is he defended." This clause pertains to those whom, by the custom of the ancestors, it is not permitted to summon into court without penalty, such as the consul, the praetor, and others who have imperium or potestas. But this edict does not pertain to those whom the praetor forbids to be summoned without his permission, since he could grant access: patrons, for instance, and parents.

Dig. 4.6.26.3

Digest 4.6.26.3

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian, 12 on the Edict.

Deinde adicit " neque defenderetur": quod ad omnes supra scriptos pertinet praeterquam ad eum, qui absens quid usucepit: quoniam plene supra de eo cautum est.

Then he adds " nor should it be defended": which pertains to all the above-written, except to him who, being absent, has usucapted something: since full provision has been made above concerning him.

Dig. 4.6.26.4

Digest 4.6.26.4

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian 12th book on the Edict.

Ait praetor: " sive cui per magistratus sine dolo malo ipsius actio exempta esse dicetur". hoc quo? ut si per dilationes iudicis effectum sit, ut actio eximatur, fiat restitutio. sed et si magistratus copia non fuit, labeo ait restitutionem faciendam.

The praetor says: " or if anyone’s action shall be said to have been removed through the magistrates, without evil fraud on his part." To what end is this? So that, if through the judge’s adjournments it has been brought about that the action be removed, let restitution be made. But also, if there was no availability of magistrates, Labeo says restitution is to be made.

per magistratus autem factum ita accipiendum est, si ius non dixit: alioquin si causa cognita denegavit actionem, restitutio cessat: et ita servio videtur. item per magistratus factum videtur, si per gratiam aut sordes magistratus ius non dixerit: et haec pars locum habebit, nec non et superior " secumve agendi potestatem non faciat": nam id egit litigator, ne secum agatur, dum iudicem corrumpit.

but “done through the magistrate” is to be understood thus, if he did not pronounce the law; otherwise, if, the case having been examined, he denied the action, restitution ceases; and so it seems to Servius. Likewise, it appears to be through the magistrate’s doing if, through favor or sordidness (corruption), the magistrate did not pronounce the law; and this part will have place, and likewise also the earlier “ secumve agendi potestatem non faciat”: for the litigant contrived this, that action might not be brought against himself, while he corrupts the judge.

Dig. 4.6.26.5

Digest 4.6.26.5

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian, 12 on the Edict.

Actio exempta sic erit accipienda, si desiit agere posse.

An action is to be taken as removed in this way, if he has ceased to be able to bring suit.

Dig. 4.6.26.6

Digest 4.6.26.6

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian, 12 on the Edict.

Et adicitur: " sine dolo malo ipsius", videlicet ut, si dolus eius intervenit, ne ei succurratur: ipsis enim delinquentibus praetor non subvenit. proinde si, dum vult apud sequentem praetorem agere, tempus frustratus est, non ei subvenietur. sed et si, dum decreto praetoris non obtemperat, iurisdictionem ei denegaverit, non esse eum restituendum labeo scribit.

And it is added: " without his own fraudulent intent," namely, that, if his fraud intervened, he is not to be succored: for the praetor does not come to the aid of the delinquents themselves. Accordingly, if, while he wishes to bring an action before the succeeding praetor, he has missed the time, no aid will be afforded him. But also, if, while he does not obey the praetor’s decree, the praetor has denied him jurisdiction, Labeo writes that he is not to be restored.

idemque si ex alia iusta causa non fuerit ab eo auditus.

and the same if he has not been heard by him for another just cause.

Dig. 4.6.26.7

Digest 4.6.26.7

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian 12 on the Edict.

Si feriae extra ordinem sint indictae, ob res puta prospere gestas vel in honorem principis, et propterea magistratus ius non dixerit, gaius cassius nominatim edicebat restituturum se, quia per praetorem videbatur factum: sollemnium enim feriarum rationem haberi non debere, quia prospicere eas potuerit et debuerit actor, ne in eas incidat. quod verius est, et ita celsus libro secundo digestorum scribit. sed cum feriae tempus eximunt, restitutio dumtaxat ipsorum dierum facienda est, non totius temporis.

If holidays have been proclaimed out of the ordinary, for instance on account of affairs, suppose, successfully accomplished, or in honor of the princeps, and for that reason the magistrate has not held court, Gaius Cassius expressly used to proclaim by edict that he would grant restitution, because it seemed to have been done through the praetor: for no account ought to be taken of the solemn holidays, because the plaintiff could and ought to have foreseen them, so as not to fall upon them. Which is the truer view, and so Celsus writes in the second book of the Digest. But since holidays remove time from the reckoning, restitution is to be made only for those days themselves, not for the whole period.

et ita iulianus libro quarto digestorum scribit: ait enim rescissionem usucapionis ita faciendam, ut hi dies restituantur, quibus actor agere voluit et interventu feriarum impeditus est.

and thus Julian writes in Book 4 of the Digest: for he says that the rescission of usucapion is to be effected in such a way that those days are restored on which the plaintiff wished to proceed and was hindered by the intervention of holidays.

Dig. 4.6.26.8

Digest 4.6.26.8

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian, 12 on the Edict.

Quotiens per absentiam quis non toto tempore aliquem exclusit, ut puta rem tuam possedi uno minus die statuto in usucapionibus tempore, deinde rei publicae causa abesse coepi, restitutio adversus me unius diei facienda est.

Whenever by absence someone has not excluded another for the whole time, for instance I possessed your thing by one day less than the statutory time set in usucapions, then I began to be absent for the sake of the Republic, a restitution of one day is to be made against me.

Dig. 4.6.26.9

Digest 4.6.26.9

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian 12 on the Edict.

" item", inquit praetor, " si qua alia mihi iusta causa videbitur, in integrum restituam. " haec clausula edicto inserta est necessario: multi enim casus evenire potuerunt, qui deferrent restitutionis auxilium, nec singillatim enumerari potuerunt, ut, quotiens aequitas restitutionem suggerit, ad hanc clausulam erit descendendum. ut puta legatione quis pro civitate functus est: aequissimum est eum restitui, licet rei publicae causa non absit: et saepissime constitutum est adiuvari eum debere, sive habuit procuratorem sive non.

" likewise," says the praetor, " if any other just cause shall seem to me, I will grant restitution in integrum. " This clause has been necessarily inserted into the edict: for many cases could occur which would bring the aid of restitution, and they could not be enumerated one by one, so that, whenever equity suggests restitution, one must resort to this clause. For instance, someone has performed an embassy on behalf of his community: it is most equitable that he be restored, although he is not away on public business; and it has been most often established that he ought to be aided, whether he had a procurator or not.

idem puto, et si testimonii causa sit evocatus ex qualibet provincia vel in urbem vel ad principem: nam et huic saepissime est rescriptum subveniri. sed et his, qui cognitionis gratia vel appellationis peregrinati sunt, similiter subventum. et generaliter quotienscumque quis ex necessitate, non ex voluntate afuit, dici oportet ei subveniendum.

I think the same, even if for the sake of testimony he has been summoned from whatever province either to the City or to the Princeps: for to this man too it has very often been rescripted that he be succored. But also to those who have traveled abroad for the sake of a hearing (cognitio) or of an appeal, similarly aid has been afforded. And generally, whenever someone has been absent from necessity, not from will, it ought to be said that assistance must be given to him.

Dig. 4.6.27

Digest 4.6.27

Paulus 12 ad ed.

Paulus, 12 on the Edict.

Et sive quid amiserit vel lucratus non sit, restitutio facienda est, etiam si non ex bonis quid amissum sit.

And whether he has lost anything or has not been lucratively enriched, restitution must be made, even if what was lost was not out of the goods.

Dig. 4.6.28pr.

Digest 4.6.28, beginning.

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian, 12 On the Edict.

Nec non et si quis de causa probabili afuerit, deliberare debet praetor, an ei subveniri debeat, puta studiorum causa, forte procuratore suo defuncto: ne decipiatur per iustissimam absentiae causam.

And likewise, if anyone has been absent for a probable cause, the praetor ought to deliberate whether he ought to be given relief, for instance for the sake of studies, perhaps with his procurator having died: lest he be deceived by a most just cause of absence.

Dig. 4.6.28.1

Digest 4.6.28.1

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian 12 on the Edict.

Item si quis nec in custodia nec in vinculis sit, sed sub fideiussorum satisdatione et, dum propter hoc recedere non potest, captus sit, restituetur et adversus eum dabitur restitutio.

Likewise, if someone is neither in custody nor in bonds, but under a giving of surety by fidejussors, and, while on that account he cannot withdraw, he is taken captive, he will be restored, and restitution will be granted against him.

Dig. 4.6.28.2

Digest 4.6.28.2

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian Book 12 on the Edict.

" quod eius" inquit praetor " per leges plebis scita senatus consulta edicta decreta principum licebit. " quae clausula non illud pollicetur restituturum, si leges permittant, sed si leges non prohibeant.

" so much of it," says the praetor, " as will be permitted by the laws, plebiscites, senatorial decrees, edicts, and decrees of the emperors. " which clause does not promise this—that he will restore it, if the laws permit, but rather if the laws do not prohibit.

Dig. 4.6.28.3

Digest 4.6.28.3

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian, 12 on the Edict.

Si quis saepius rei publicae causa afuit, ex novissimo reditu tempus restitutionis esse ei computandum labeo putat. sed si omnes quidem absentiae annum colligant, singulae minus anno, utrum annum ei damus ad restitutionem an vero tantum temporis, quantum novissima eius absentia occupavit, videndum: et puto annum dandum.

If anyone has been absent more often for the sake of the commonwealth, Labeo thinks that the time for restitution is to be computed for him from his most recent return. But if all the absences together make up a year, though each is less than a year, it must be considered whether we grant him a year for restitution, or rather only so much time as his most recent absence occupied: and I think a year should be given.

Dig. 4.6.28.4

Digest 4.6.28.4

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian 12 on the edict.

Si cum in provincia domicilium haberes, esses autem in urbe, an mihi annus cedat, quasi experiundi potestatem habeam? et ait labeo non cedere. ego autem puto hoc ita verum, si ius revocandi domum adversarius habuit: si minus, videri esse experiundi potestatem, quia et romae contestari litem potuit.

If, while you had your domicile in the province, you were, however, in the City, does the year accrue to me, as if I had the power of bringing an action? And Labeo says it does not accrue. I, however, think this true thus, if the adversary had the right of recalling you home; if not, it seems that there is the power of bringing an action, because he could even at Rome join issue in the suit.

Dig. 4.6.28.5

Digest 4.6.28.5

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian 12 on the Edict.

Exemplo rescissoriae actionis etiam exceptio ei, qui rei publicae causa afuit, competit: forte si res ab eo possessionem nancto vindicentur.

By the example of the rescissory action, an exception is also available to one who was absent for the sake of the Republic: for instance, if the things are claimed by someone who has acquired possession from him.

Dig. 4.6.28.6

Digest 4.6.28.6

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian, 12 on the Edict.

In actione rescissoria, quae adversus militem competit, aequissimum esse pomponius ait eius quoque temporis, quo absens defensus non est, fructus eum praestare: ergo et militi debebunt restitui: utrimque actio erit,

In the rescissory action, which lies against a soldier, Pomponius says that it is most equitable that he also render the fruits for that time during which, being absent, he was not defended: therefore they must also be restored to the soldier: on both sides there will be an action,

Dig. 4.6.29

Digest 4.6.29

Africanus 7 quaest.

Africanus 7 Questions.

Videlicet ne cui officium publicum vel damno vel compendio sit.

Namely, lest a public office be to anyone either a loss or a profit.

Dig. 4.6.30pr.

Digest 4.6.30 beginning.

Paulus 12 ad ed.

Paulus 12 on the Edict.

Cum miles qui usucapiebat decesserit et heres impleverit usucapionem, aequum est rescindi quod postea usucaptum est, ut eadem in heredibus, qui in usucapionem succedunt, servanda sint: quia possessio defuncti quasi iniuncta descendit ad heredem et plerumque nondum hereditate adita completur.

When a soldier who was usucapting has died and the heir has completed the usucapion, it is equitable that what was afterwards usucaptured be rescinded, so that the same things be observed in heirs who succeed into the usucapion: because the possession of the deceased descends to the heir as if annexed, and for the most part is completed even before the inheritance has been entered upon.

Dig. 4.6.30.1

Digest 4.6.30.1

Paulus 12 ad ed.

Paulus book 12 on the Edict.

Si is, qui rei publicae causa afuit, usucepit et post usucapionem alienaverit rem, restitutio facienda erit et licet sine dolo afuerit et usuceperit, lucro eius occurri oportet. item ex reliquis omnibus causis restitutio facienda erit, veluti si adversus eum pronuntiatum sit.

If someone who was absent for the sake of the commonwealth acquired the thing by usucapion and, after usucapion, alienated the thing, restitution will have to be made; and although he was absent without fraud and acquired by usucapion, his gain must be countered. Likewise, in all the remaining causes restitution will have to be made, as for instance if a pronouncement has been made against him.

Dig. 4.6.31

Digest 4.6.31

Paulus 53 ad ed.

Paulus book 53 on the Edict.

Si is, cuius rem usucepit rei publicae causa absens, possessionem suae rei ab illo usucaptae nanctus sit, etsi postea amiserit, non temporalem, sed perpetuam habet actionem.

If the person, absent on account of the commonwealth, whose thing was acquired by usucapion, has obtained possession of his own thing usucapted by that man, even if he later loses it, he has not a temporary but a perpetual action.

Dig. 4.6.32

Digest 4.6.32

Modestinus 9 reg.

Modestinus Rules 9.

Abesse rei publicae causa intellegitur et is, qui ab urbe profectus est, licet nondum provinciam excesserit: sed et is qui excessit, donec in urbem revertatur. et hoc ad proconsules legatosque eorum et ad eos, qui provinciis praesunt, procuratoresve principum, qui in provinciis tenentur, pertinet, et ad tribunos militum et praefectos et comites legatorum, qui ad aerarium delati aut in commentarium principis delati sunt.

One is understood to be absent on account of the commonwealth even he who has set out from the City, although he has not yet left the province; and likewise he who has left it, until he returns to the City. And this pertains to proconsuls and their legates, and to those who preside over provinces, or to the emperors’ procurators who are stationed in the provinces, and to military tribunes and prefects and the companions (comites) of legates, who have been entered in the Aerarium (treasury) or entered in the emperor’s Commentarius (record).

Dig. 4.6.33pr.

Digest 4.6.33pr.

Modestinus l.S. de enucl. cas.

Modestinus singular book on enucleated cases.

Inter eos, qui ex generali clausula adiuvantur, et fisci patronus connumeratur.

Among those who are aided by the general clause, the patron of the fisc is counted as well.

Dig. 4.6.33.1

Digest 4.6.33.1

Modestinus l.S. de enucl. cas.

Modestinus six books on Enucleated Cases.

Eos, qui notis scribunt acta praesidum, rei publicae causa non abesse certum est.

It is certain that those who write the acts of the governors in notes are not absent for the cause of the Republic.

Dig. 4.6.33.2

Digest 4.6.33.2

Modestinus l.S. de enucl. cas.

Modestinus single book, On Enucleated Cases.

Militum medici, quoniam officium quod gerunt et publice prodest et fraudem eis adferre non debet, restitutionis auxilium implorare possunt.

The soldiers’ physicians, since the office which they perform both benefits the public and ought not to bring prejudice upon them, may implore the aid of restitution.

Dig. 4.6.34pr.

Digest 4.6.34, preface.

Iavolenus 15 ex cass.

Javolenus 15 from Cassius.

Miles commeatu accepto si domo sua est, rei publicae causa abesse non videtur.

A soldier, having received furlough, if he is at his own home, is not considered to be absent on public business.

Dig. 4.6.34.1

Digest 4.6.34.1

Iavolenus 15 ex cass.

Iavolenus 15 from Cassius.

Qui operas in publico, quod vectigalium causa locatum est, dat, rei publicae causa non abest.

One who renders services in a public matter, which has been leased for the sake of the tax revenues, is not away on public business.

Dig. 4.6.35pr.

Digest 4.6.35pr.

Paulus 3 ad l. iul. et pap.

Paulus 3 on the Julian and Papian law.

Qui mittuntur, ut milites ducerent aut reducerent aut legendi curarent, rei publicae causa absunt.

Those who are sent to lead soldiers forth, or to lead them back, or to see to the levying, are absent for the sake of the commonwealth.

Dig. 4.6.35.1

Digest 4.6.35.1

Paulus 3 ad l. iul. et pap.

Paulus 3 on the Julian and Papian law.

Hi quoque, qui missi sunt ad gratulandum principi.

These too, who have been sent to congratulate the emperor.

Dig. 4.6.35.2

Digest 4.6.35.2

Paulus 3 ad l. iul. et pap.

Paulus 3 on the Julian and Papian law.

Item procurator caesaris, non solum cui rerum provinciae cuiusque procuratio mandata erit, sed et is, cui rerum quamvis non omnium. itaque plures sibi procuratores diversarum rerum rei publicae causa abesse intelleguntur.

Likewise the procurator of Caesar, not only the one to whom the procuration of the affairs of any province shall have been mandated, but also the one to whom the procuration of affairs—although not of all—[is committed]. And so several procurators of different affairs are understood to be absent for him for the sake of the commonwealth.

Dig. 4.6.35.3

Digest 4.6.35.3

Paulus 3 ad l. iul. et pap.

Paulus 3 on the Julian and Papian law.

Praefectus quoque aegypti rei publicae causa abest, quive aliam ob causam rei publicae gratia extra urbem aberit.

The Prefect of Egypt also is absent for the sake of the Republic, and whoever for some other cause, for the sake of the Republic, will be away outside the city.

Dig. 4.6.35.4

Digest 4.6.35.4

Paulus 3 ad l. iul. et pap.

Paulus 3 on the Julian and Papian law.

Sed et in urbanicianis militibus idem divus pius constituit.

But that same deified Pius also established it for the urbanician soldiers.

Dig. 4.6.35.5

Digest 4.6.35.5

Paulus 3 ad l. iul. et pap.

Paulus 3 on the Julian and Papian law.

Quaesitum est de eo, qui ad compescendos malos homines missus est, an rei publicae causa abesset: et placuit rei publicae causa eum abesse.

It was asked concerning the one who was sent to restrain malefactors, whether he was absent for the sake of the Republic; and it was decided that he was absent for the sake of the Republic.

Dig. 4.6.35.6

Digest 4.6.35.6

Paulus 3 ad l. iul. et pap.

Paulus Book 3 on the Lex Julia and Papia.

Item paganum, qui in expeditione consularis iussu transierat ibique in acie ceciderat: heredi enim eius succurrendum est.

Likewise, a civilian, who during the expedition had crossed over by order of the consularis and there had fallen in the battle-line: his heir must be succored.

Dig. 4.6.35.7

Digest 4.6.35.7

Paulus 3 ad l. iul. et pap.

Paulus 3 on the Julian and Papian law.

Qui rei publicae causa romam profectus est, abesse rei publicae causa videtur. sed et si extra patriam suam rei publicae causa profectus sit, etiam, si per urbem ei iter competit, rei publicae causa abest.

He who has set out to Rome for the sake of the republic is deemed to be absent for the sake of the republic. But also, if he has set out outside his own fatherland for the sake of the republic, even if his route lies through the city, he is absent for the sake of the republic.

Dig. 4.6.35.8

Digest 4.6.35.8

Paulus 3 ad l. iul. et pap.

Paulus 3 on the Julian and Papian law.

Similiter qui in provincia est, ut primum aut domo sua profectus est aut, cum in eadem provincia degit rei publicae administrandae causa, simul agere rem publicam coepit, ad similitudinem absentis habetur.

Likewise, one who is in a province—once he has either departed from his own house, or, when he resides in the same province for the sake of administering the commonwealth, once he has begun to conduct public business—is regarded on the footing of an absentee.

Dig. 4.6.35.9

Digest 4.6.35.9

Paulus 3 ad l. iul. et pap.

Paulus, Book 3 on the Julian and Papian law.

Et dum eat in castra et redeat, rei publicae causa abest, quod et eundum sit in castra militaturo et redeundum. vivianus scribit proculum respondisse militem, qui commeatu absit, dum domum vadit aut redit, rei publicae causa abesse, dum domi sit, non abesse.

And while he goes into the camp and returns, he is absent for the sake of the republic, because both going into the camp to do military service and returning must be done. Vivianus writes that Proculus replied that a soldier who is absent on furlough, while he goes home or returns, is absent for the sake of the republic; while he is at home, he is not absent.

Dig. 4.6.36

Digest 4.6.36

Ulpianus 6 ad l. iul. et pap.

Ulpian, 6 on the Julian and Papian law.

Rei publicae causa abesse eos solos intellegimus, qui non sui commodi causa, sed coacti absunt.

We understand those alone to be absent for the sake of the Republic who are absent not for their own advantage, but because they are compelled.

Dig. 4.6.37

Digest 4.6.37

Paulus 3 ad l. iul. et pap.

Paulus Book 3 on the Lex Julia and Papia.

Hi, qui in provincia sua ultra tempus a constitutionibus concessum adsident, publica causa abesse non intelleguntur.

Those who in their own province sit beyond the time granted by the constitutions are not considered to be absent on public business.

Dig. 4.6.38pr.

Digest 4.6.38 preface.

Ulpianus 6 ad l. iul. et pap.

Ulpian, 6 on the Julian and Papian law.

Si cui in provincia sua princeps adsidere speciali beneficio permiserit, puto eum rei publicae causa abesse: quod si non ex permissu hoc fecerit, consequenter dicemus, cum crimen admisit, non habere eum privilegia eorum, qui rei publicae causa absunt.

If the princeps has permitted someone by a special benefice to sit as assessor in his own province, I think him to be absent for the sake of the commonwealth; but if he has done this not by permission, consequently we shall say, since he has committed a crime, that he does not have the privileges of those who are absent for the sake of the commonwealth.

Dig. 4.6.38.1

Digest 4.6.38.1

Ulpianus 6 ad l. iul. et pap.

Ulpian 6 on the Julian and Papian law.

Tamdiu rei publicae causa abesse quis videbitur, quamdiu officio aliquo praeest: quod si finitum fuerit officium, iam desinit abesse rei publicae causa. sed ad revertendum illi tempora computabimus statim atque desiit rei publicae causa abesse ea quibus reverti in urbem potuit: et erit moderatum tempora ei dare, quae lex revertentibus praestitit. quare si quo deflexerit suae rei causa, non dubitamus id tempus ei non proficere, habitaque dinumeratione temporis, quo reverti potuit, statim eum dicemus desisse rei publicae causa abesse.

Someone will be deemed to be absent for the sake of the Republic for as long as he presides over some office; but if the office has ended, he at once ceases to be absent for the sake of the Republic. But for his return we will reckon from the moment he ceased to be absent for the sake of the Republic the time within which he could have returned to the city; and it will be proper to grant him the periods which the law has provided for those returning. Wherefore, if he has turned aside anywhere for the sake of his own affairs, we do not doubt that that time does not accrue to his benefit; and, the reckoning having been made of the time within which he could have returned, we will say that he immediately ceased to be absent for the sake of the Republic.

plane si infirmitate impeditus continuare iter non potuit, habebitur ratio humanitatis, sicuti haberi solet et hiemis et navigationis et ceterorum quae casu contingunt.

Plainly, if, impeded by infirmity, he was not able to continue the journey, consideration of humanity will be had, just as it is wont to be had also for winter and for navigation and for the other things which happen by chance.

Dig. 4.6.39

Digest 4.6.39

Paulus 1 sent.

Paulus 1 sentences.

Is qui rei publicae causa afuturus erat, si procuratorem reliquerit, per quem defendi potuit in integrum volens restitui non auditur.

He who was going to be absent on account of the commonwealth, if he has left a procurator through whom he could have been defended, is not heard when seeking restoration to the status quo ante.

Dig. 4.6.40pr.

Digest 4.6.40pr.

Ulpianus 5 opin.

Ulpian 5 Opinions.

Si qua militi accusatio competat tempore, quo rei publicae operam dedit, non peremitur.

If any accusation is competent against a soldier for the time during which he rendered service to the Republic, it is not extinguished.

Dig. 4.6.40.1

Digest 4.6.40.1

Ulpianus 5 opin.

Ulpian Opinions 5.

Quod eo tempore, quo in insula aliquis fuit ex poena ei irrogata, cuius restitutionem impetravit, ab alio usurpatum ex bonis, quae non erant adempta, probatum fuerit, suae causae restituendum est.

What, at the time when someone was on an island by a penalty imposed upon him—whose restitution he obtained—shall have been proven to have been usurped by another from his goods which had not been taken away, must be restored to his own cause.

Dig. 4.6.41

Digest 4.6.41

Iulianus 35 Dig.

Julianus 35 Digest.

Si quis titio legaverit, si mortis suae tempore in italia esset, aut in annos singulos, quod in italia esset, et ei succursum fuerit, quia ob id, quod rei publicae causa afuit, exclusus fuerit a legato: fideicommissum ab eo relictum praestare cogitur. Marcellus notat: quis enim dubitabit salva legatorum et fideicommissorum causa militi restitui hereditatem, quam ob id perdidit, quod rei publicae causa afuit?

If someone has bequeathed to Titius, on condition that at the time of his death he was in Italy, or for each single year in which he was in Italy, and succor has been afforded to him because, for the reason that he was away for the sake of the commonwealth, he had been excluded from the legacy: he is compelled to render the fideicommissum left by him. Marcellus notes: for who will doubt, with the claims of legacies and fideicommissa kept safe, that the inheritance should be restored to a soldier, which he lost for this reason, that he was away for the sake of the commonwealth?

Dig. 4.6.42

Digest 4.6.42

Alfenus 5 Dig.

Alfenus Book 5 of the Digest.

Non vere dicitur rei publicae causa abesse eum, qui sui privati negotii causa in legatione est.

It is not truly said that he is absent for the cause of the republic, who is on a legation on account of his own private business.

Dig. 4.6.43

Digest 4.6.43

Africanus 7 quaest.

Africanus 7 Questions.

Si quis stipulatus sit in annos singulos, quoad in italia esset vel ipse vel promissor, et alteruter rei publicae causa abesse coeperit, officium praetoris est introducere utilem actionem. eadem dicemus, et si ita concepta stipulatio fuerit: " si quinquennio proximo romae fuerit", vel ita: " si romae non fuerit, centum dare spondes?"

If someone has stipulated for each single year, so long as either he himself or the promisor was in italy, and either one begins to be absent for the sake of the commonwealth, it is the duty of the praetor to introduce a useful action. We shall say the same also if the stipulation has been framed thus: " if in the next five-year period he shall have been at rome", or thus: " if he shall not have been at rome, do you promise to give one hundred?"

Dig. 4.6.44

Digest 4.6.44

Paulus 2 ad sab.

Paulus 2 on Sabinus.

Is, qui rei publicae causa abest, in aliqua re laesus non restituitur, in qua, etiam si rei publicae causa non afuisset, damnum erat passurus.

He who is absent for the sake of the commonwealth, if harmed in some matter, is not restored in that matter in which, even if he had not been absent for the sake of the commonwealth, he was going to incur loss.

Dig. 4.6.45

Digest 4.6.45

Scaevola 1 reg.

Scaevola Book 1 of the Rules.

Milites omnes, qui discedere signis sine periculo non possunt, rei publicae causa abesse intelleguntur.

All soldiers who cannot withdraw from the standards without peril are understood to be absent for the sake of the republic.

Dig. 4.6.46

Digest 4.6.46

Marcianus 2 reg.

Marcianus 2 Rules.

Qui rei publicae causa afuit, etiam adversus eum, qui pariter rei publicae causa afuerit, restituendus est, si aliquid damni iuste queritur.

He who was absent for the sake of the commonwealth is to be restored even against him who likewise was absent for the sake of the commonwealth, if some damage is justly complained of.

Dig. 4.7.0. De alienatione iudicii mutandi causa facta.

Dig. 4.7.0. On alienation effected for the purpose of changing the action.

Dig. 4.7.1pr.

Digest 4.7.1, beginning.

Gaius 4 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 4 on the provincial edict.

Omnibus modis proconsul id agit, ne cuius deterior causa fiat ex alieno facto, et cum intellegeret iudiciorum exitum interdum duriorem nobis constitui opposito nobis alio adversario, in eam quoque rem prospexit, ut si quis alienando rem alium nobis adversarium suo loco substituerit idque data opera in fraudem nostram fecerit, tanti nobis in factum actione teneatur, quanti nostra intersit alium adversarium nos non habuisse.

In every way the proconsul strives that no one’s case become worse from another’s act; and since he understood that the outcome of judgments is sometimes made harsher for us by another adversary being opposed to us, he also provided for this: that if anyone, by alienating a thing, has substituted another adversary for us in his own place, and has done this by design in fraud of us, he be held to us by an action in factum for as much as it is our interest not to have had another adversary.

Dig. 4.7.1.1

Digest 4.7.1.1

Gaius 4 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 4 on the provincial edict.

Itaque si alterius provinciae hominem aut potentiorem nobis opposuerit adversarium, tenebitur:

Therefore, if he has set up against us as an adversary either a man of another province, or a more powerful adversary, he will be liable:

Dig. 4.7.2

Digest 4.7.2

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the edict.

Aut alium, qui vexaturus sit adversarium:

Or another, who is going to vex the adversary:

Dig. 4.7.3pr.

Digest 4.7.3pr.

Gaius 4 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 4 on the provincial edict.

Quia etiam si cum eo, qui alterius provinciae sit, experiar, in illius provincia experiri debebo et potentiori pares esse non possumus.

Because even if I litigate with one who belongs to another province, I shall have to bring suit in that man’s province, and we cannot be equals to the more powerful.

Dig. 4.7.3.1

Digest 4.7.3.1

Gaius 4 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 4 on the provincial edict.

Sed et si hominem quem petebamus manumiserit, durior nostra condicio fit, quia praetores faveant libertatibus.

But also, if he has manumitted the person whom we were seeking, our condition becomes harsher, because the praetors favor liberties.

Dig. 4.7.3.2

Digest 4.7.3.2

Gaius 4 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 4 on the provincial edict.

Item si locum, in quo opus feceris, cuius nomine interdicto quod vi aut clam vel actione aquae pluviae arcendae tenebaris, alienaveris, durior nostra condicio facta intellegitur, quia si tecum ageretur, tuis impensis id opus tollere deberes, nunc vero cum incipiat mihi adversus alium actio esse quam qui fecerit, compellor meis impensis id tollere, quia ab alio factum possidet, hactenus istis actionibus tenetur, ut patiatur id opus tolli.

Likewise, if you have alienated the place in which you have made the work, on account of which you were held by the interdict “quod vi aut clam” or by the action for warding off rainwater, our condition is understood to have been made harsher; for if proceedings were had against you, you would have to remove that work at your expense; but now, since the action begins to lie for me against someone other than the one who made it, I am compelled to remove it at my own expense, since he possesses a thing made by another; he is held by these actions only to this extent, that he allow that work to be removed.

Dig. 4.7.3.3

Digest 4.7.3.3

Gaius 4 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 4 on the Provincial Edict.

Opus quoque novum si tibi nuntiaverim tuque eum locum alienaveris et emptor opus fecerit, dicitur te hoc iudicio teneri, quasi neque tecum ex operis novi nuntiatione agere possim, quia nihil feceris, neque cum eo cui id alienaveris, quia ei nuntiatum non sit.

Likewise, if I have given you notice of a new work and you have alienated that place and the purchaser has carried out the work, it is said that you are held by this action, as if I could neither proceed with you by the notice of a new work, because you have done nothing, nor with him to whom you alienated it, because notice was not given to him.

Dig. 4.7.3.4

Digest 4.7.3.4

Gaius 4 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 4 on the provincial edict.

Ex quibus apparet, quod proconsul in integrum restituturum se pollicetur, ut hac actione officio tantum iudicis consequatur actor, quantum eius intersit alium adversarium non habuisse: forte si quas impensas fecerit aut si quam aliam incommoditatem passus erit alio adversario substituto.

From which it appears that the proconsul promises that he will grant in integrum restitution, so that by this action the plaintiff, from the judge’s office only, recovers as much as it is of his interest not to have had a different adversary: for example, if he has incurred any expenses or shall have suffered any other inconvenience upon another adversary being substituted.

Dig. 4.7.3.5

Digest 4.7.3.5

Gaius 4 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 4 On the Provincial Edict

Quid ergo est, si is, adversus quem talis actio competit, paratus sit utile iudicium pati perinde ac si possideret? recte dicitur denegandam esse adversus eum ex hoc edicto actionem.

What then, if the person against whom such an action is competent is prepared to undergo a useful suit just as if he possessed? It is rightly said that the action out of this edict is to be denied against him.

Dig. 4.7.4pr.

Digest 4.7.4, preface.

Ulpianus 3 ad ed.

Ulpian, 3 on the Edict.

Item si res fuerint usucaptae ab eo cui alienatae sint nec peti ab hoc possint, locum habet hoc edictum.

Likewise, if the things have been usucapted by the person to whom they were alienated, and cannot be claimed from this person, this edict applies.

Dig. 4.7.4.1

Digest 4.7.4.1

Ulpianus 3 ad ed.

Ulpian 3 on the Edict.

Itemque fieri potest, ut sine dolo malo quidem possidere desierit, verum iudicii mutandi causa id fiat. sunt et alia complura talia. potest autem aliquis dolo malo desinere possidere nec tamen iudicii mutandi causa fecisse nec hoc edicto teneri: neque enim alienat, qui dumtaxat omittit possessionem.

Likewise it can happen that someone has indeed ceased to possess without fraudulent intent, but that this is done for the sake of changing the suit. There are also many other such cases. Conversely, someone can cease to possess with fraudulent intent and yet not have done so for the sake of changing the suit, and not be bound by this edict: for he does not alienate who merely omits possession.

non tamen eius factum improbat praetor, qui tanti habuit re carere, ne propter eam saepius litigaret ( haec enim verecunda cogitatio eius, qui lites exsecratur, non est vituperanda), sed eius dumtaxat, qui cum rem habere vult, litem ad alium transfert, ut molestum adversarium pro se subiciat.

However, the praetor does not disapprove the act of one who held it at such a price to be without the thing, lest on account of it he should litigate more often (for this modest cogitation of one who execrates lawsuits is not to be vituperated), but only that of one who, while he wishes to have the thing, transfers the lawsuit to another, so that he may thrust forward in his stead a troublesome adversary.

Dig. 4.7.4.2

Digest 4.7.4.2

Ulpianus 3 ad ed.

Ulpian, 3 on the edict

Pedius libro nono non solum ad dominii translationem hoc edictum pertinere ait, verum ad possessionis quoque: alioquin cum quo in rem agebatur, inquit, si possessione cessit, non tenebitur.

Pedius, in the ninth book, says that this edict pertains not only to the translation (transfer) of dominion, but also to possession; otherwise, he says, the one against whom an in rem action was being pursued, if he has ceased from possession, will not be held.

Dig. 4.7.4.3

Digest 4.7.4.3

Ulpianus 3 ad ed.

Ulpian 3 on the Edict.

Si quis autem ob valetudinem aut aetatem aut occupationes necessarias litem in alium transtulerit, in ea causa non est, ut hoc edicto teneatur, cum in hoc edicto doli mali fiat mentio. ceterum erit interdictum et per procuratores litigare dominio in eos plerumque ex iusta causa translato.

If, however, someone on account of ill‑health or age or necessary occupations has transferred the lawsuit onto another, he is not in such a case as to be bound by this edict, since in this edict mention is made of dolus malus. Moreover, an interdict will lie, and one may litigate through procurators, dominion having for the most part been transferred to them on a just cause.

Dig. 4.7.4.4

Digest 4.7.4.4

Ulpianus 3 ad ed.

Ulpian 3 On the Edict.

Ad iura etiam praediorum hoc edictum pertinet, modo si dolo malo fiat alienatio.

This edict also pertains to the rights of estates (praedial rights), provided that the alienation is made with malicious fraud.

Dig. 4.7.4.5

Digest 4.7.4.5

Ulpianus 3 ad ed.

Ulpian, 3 on the Edict.

Haec actio in id quod interest competit, proinde si res non fuit petitoris aut si is qui alienatus est sine culpa decessit, cessat iudicium, nisi si quid actoris praeterea interfuit.

This action is available for what the interest amounts to; accordingly, if the thing was not the petitioner’s, or if he who was alienated has died without fault, the suit ceases—unless the plaintiff, besides, had some further interest.

Dig. 4.7.4.6

Digest 4.7.4.6

Ulpianus 3 ad ed.

Ulpian, 3 On the Edict.

Haec actio non est poenalis, sed rei persecutionem arbitrio iudicis continet, quare et heredi dabitur: in heredem autem.

This action is not penal, but contains the pursuit of the thing at the judge’s discretion, wherefore it will also be granted to the heir: but against the heir.

Dig. 4.7.5

Digest 4.7.5

Paulus 11 ad ed.

Paulus 11 on the edict.

Vel similem.

Or similar.

Dig. 4.7.6

Digest 4.7.6

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the Edict.

Vel post annum non dabitur,

Or even after a year it will not be given,

Dig. 4.7.7

Digest 4.7.7

Gaius 4 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 4 on the Provincial Edict.

Quia pertinet quidem ad rei persecutionem, videtur autem ex delicto dari.

Since it indeed pertains to the pursuit of the thing, however, it seems to be given from a delict.

Dig. 4.7.8pr.

Digest 4.7.8, preface.

Paulus 12 ad ed.

Paulus 12 to the Edict.

Ex hoc edicto tenetur et qui rem exhibet, si arbitratu iudicis pristinam iudicii causam non restituit.

From this edict he too is held who produces the thing, if, by the arbitrament of the judge, he does not restore the pristine cause of the action.

Dig. 4.7.8.1

Digest 4.7.8.1

Paulus 12 ad ed.

Paulus 12 on the Edict.

Ait praetor: " quaeve alienatio iudicii mutandi causa facta erit": id est si futuri iudicii causa, non eius quod iam sit.

The praetor says: " or whatever alienation will have been made for the sake of changing the judgment": that is, if for the sake of a future judgment, not of one which already is.

Dig. 4.7.8.2

Digest 4.7.8.2

Paulus 12 ad ed.

Paulus 12 on the Edict.

Alienare intellegitur etiam qui alienam rem vendidit.

One who has sold another’s property is also understood to alienate.

Dig. 4.7.8.3

Digest 4.7.8.3

Paulus 12 ad ed.

Paulus 12 on the Edict.

Sed heredem instituendo vel legando si quis alienet, huic edicto locus non erit.

But if anyone alienates by instituting an heir or by bequeathing, there will be no place for this edict.

Dig. 4.7.8.4

Digest 4.7.8.4

Paulus 12 ad ed.

Paulus 12 on the edict.

Si quis alienaverit, deinde receperit, non tenebitur hoc edicto.

If anyone has alienated it and thereafter has received it back, he will not be bound by this edict.

Dig. 4.7.8.5

Digest 4.7.8.5

Paulus 12 ad ed.

Paulus 12 on the Edict.

Qui venditori suo redhibet, non videtur iudicii mutandi causa abalienare,

He who redhibits to his own vendor is not regarded as alienating for the sake of changing the suit,

Dig. 4.7.9

Digest 4.7.9

Paulus 1 ad ed. aedil. curul.

Paulus Book 1 on the Edict of the Curule Aediles.

Quia redhibitio homine omnia retro aguntur: et ideo non videtur iudicii mutandi causa alienare qui redhibet: nisi si propter hoc ipsum redhibet non redhibiturus alias.

Because by redhibition all things are carried back retroactively; and therefore he who redhibits does not seem to alienate for the sake of changing the judicium, unless he redhibits for this very purpose, being one who otherwise would not have redhibited.

Dig. 4.7.10pr.

Digest 4.7.10pr.

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian 12 on the Edict.

Nam et si obligatus solvero quod a me petere velles, huic edicto locus non erit.

For even if, being obligated, I shall have paid what you were wishing to claim from me, there will be no place for this edict.

Dig. 4.7.10.1

Digest 4.7.10.1

Ulpianus 12 ad ed.

Ulpian, 12 On the Edict.

Si tutor pupilli vel adgnatus furiosi alienaverint, utilis actio competit, quia consilium huius fraudis inire non possunt.

If the guardian of a ward or the agnate of an insane person have alienated (property), a useful action lies, because they cannot enter into the plan of this fraud.

Dig. 4.7.11

Digest 4.7.11

Ulpianus 5 opin.

Ulpian book 5 of the Opinions.

Cum miles postulabat suo nomine litigare de possessionibus, quas sibi donatas esse dicebat, responsum est, si iudicii mutandi causa donatio facta fuerit, priorem dominum experiri oportere, ut rem magis quam litem in militem transtulisse credatur.

When a soldier was petitioning to litigate in his own name about possessions which he said had been donated to him, it was answered that, if the donation had been made for the purpose of changing the action, the former owner ought to bring suit, so that he may be believed to have transferred the thing rather than the lawsuit to the soldier.

Dig. 4.7.12

Digest 4.7.12

Marcianus 14 inst.

Marcianus 14 Inst.

Si quis iudicii communi dividundo evitandi causa rem alienaverit, ex lege licinnia ei interdicitur, ne communi dividundo iudicio experiatur: verbi gratia ut potentior emptor per licitationem vilius eam accipiat et per hoc iterum ipse recipiat. sed ipse quidem qui partem alienaverit communi dividundo iudicio si agere velit, non audietur: is vero qui emit si experiri velit, ex illa parte edicti vetatur, qua cavetur, ne qua alienatio iudicii mutandi causa fiat.

If anyone has alienated a thing for the purpose of avoiding the action for dividing common property, by the Lex Licinia he is interdicted, so that he may not proceed by the action for dividing common property; for example, in order that a more powerful purchaser may take it more cheaply through licitation and through this he himself may receive it back again. But the very person who has alienated the share, if he should wish to sue by the action for dividing common property, will not be heard; while he who bought, if he should wish to proceed, is forbidden by that part of the edict which provides that no alienation be made for the sake of changing the suit.

Dig. 4.8.0. De receptis: qui arbitrium receperint ut sententiam dicant.

Digest 4.8.0. On those who have undertaken: who have accepted an arbitration in order to pronounce sentence.

Dig. 4.8.1

Digest 4.8.1

Paulus 2 ad ed.

Paulus book 2 on the Edict.

Compromissum ad similitudinem iudiciorum redigitur et ad finiendas lites pertinet.

A compromise is shaped on the model of judicial proceedings and pertains to the ending of lawsuits.

Dig. 4.8.2

Digest 4.8.2

Ulpianus 4 ad ed.

Ulpian 4 on the edict.

Ex compromisso placet exceptionem non nasci, sed poenae petitionem.

From a compromise it is held that no exception arises, but a petition for the penalty.

Dig. 4.8.3pr.

Digest 4.8.3pr.

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian, 13 on the Edict.

Labeo ait, si compromisso facto sententia dicta est, quo quis a minore viginti quinque annis tutelae absolveretur, ratum id a praetore non habendum: neque poenae eo nomine commissae petitio dabitur.

Labeo says that, if after a compromissum has been made a sentence has been pronounced by which someone would be absolved from guardianship over a minor under twenty-five years, that is not to be held ratified by the praetor: nor will a petition for the penalty incurred under that head be granted.

Dig. 4.8.3.1

Digest 4.8.3.1

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian, 13 on the Edict

Tametsi neminem praetor cogat arbitrium recipere, quoniam haec res libera et soluta est et extra necessitatem iurisdictionis posita, attamen ubi semel quis in se receperit arbitrium, ad curam et sollicitudinem suam hanc rem pertinere praetor putat: non tantum quod studeret lites finiri, verum quoniam non deberent decipi, qui eum quasi virum bonum disceptatorem inter se elegerunt. finge enim post causam iam semel atque iterum tractatam, post nudata utriusque intima et secreta negotii aperta, arbitrum vel gratiae dantem vel sordibus corruptum vel alia qua ex causa nolle sententiam dicere: quisquamne potest negare aequissimum fore praetorem interponere se debuisse, ut officium quod in se recepit impleret?

Although the praetor compels no one to receive an arbitrium, since this matter is free and unbound and placed outside the necessity of jurisdiction, nevertheless, when once someone has taken an arbitrium upon himself, the praetor thinks that this matter pertains to his care and solicitude: not only because he is eager that lawsuits be finished, but because those ought not to be deceived who chose him among themselves as, so to speak, a good man, a disceptator. Suppose, in fact, after the case has already been handled once and again, after the inmost and secret matters of each party have been laid bare and opened, the arbiter, either granting favor or corrupted by sordid bribes or for some other cause, is unwilling to pronounce sentence: can anyone deny that it would be most equitable that the praetor ought to have interposed himself, so that the office which he took upon himself might be fulfilled?

Dig. 4.8.3.2

Digest 4.8.3.2

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the edict.

Ait praetor: " qui arbitrium pecunia compromissa receperit".

The praetor says: "whoever has accepted an arbitration with money pledged in a compromissum".

Dig. 4.8.3.3

Digest 4.8.3.3

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian, 13 on the Edict.

Tractemus de personis arbitrantium. et quidem arbitrum cuiuscumque dignitatis coget officio quod susceperit perfungi, etiam si sit consularis: nisi forte sit in aliquo magistratu positus vel potestate, consul forte vel praetor, quoniam in hoc imperium non habet.

Let us treat of the persons of arbitrators. And indeed an arbiter, of whatever dignity, one will compel to discharge the duty which he has undertaken, even if he be of consular rank; unless perhaps he is placed in some magistracy or power, perhaps consul or praetor, since in this he does not have imperium.

Dig. 4.8.4

Digest 4.8.4

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus 13 on the Edict.

Nam magistratus superiore aut pari imperio nullo modo possunt cogi: nec interest ante an in ipso magistratu arbitrium susceperint. inferiores possunt cogi.

For magistrates with a superior or equal imperium can in no way be compelled: nor does it matter whether they undertook an arbitrium beforehand or in the magistracy itself. Inferiors can be compelled.

Dig. 4.8.5

Digest 4.8.5

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the Edict.

Sed et filius familias compelletur.

But also a son of the household will be compelled.

Dig. 4.8.6

Digest 4.8.6

Gaius 5 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 5 on the provincial edict.

Quin etiam de re patris dicitur, filium familias arbitrum esse posse: nam et iudicem eum esse posse plerisque placet.

Indeed, it is even said that, in the father’s matter, a son in paternal power can be an arbiter; for to most it is also pleasing that he can be a judge.

Dig. 4.8.7pr.

Digest 4.8.7pr.

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the Edict.

Pedius libro nono et pomponius libro trigensimo tertio scribunt parvi referre, ingenuus quis an libertinus sit, integrae famae quis sit arbiter an ignominiosus. in servum labeo compromitti non posse libro undecimo scribit: et est verum.

Pedius in book 9 and Pomponius in book 33 write that it matters little whether someone is freeborn or a freedman, whether the arbiter is of intact reputation or ignominious. Labeo writes in book 11 that a submission to arbitration cannot be made upon a slave; and this is true.

Dig. 4.8.7.1

Digest 4.8.7.1

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the Edict.

Unde iulianus ait, si in titium et servum compromissum sit, nec titium cogendum sententiam dicere, quia cum alio receperit: quamvis servi, inquit, arbiterium nullum sit. quid tamen si dixerit sententiam titius? poena non committitur, quia non, ut receperit, dixit sententiam.

Whence Julianus says: if a compromissum has been made upon Titius and a slave, Titius is not to be compelled to pronounce a judgment, because he has undertaken it with another; although, he says, a slave’s arbitration is of no effect. But what if Titius should pronounce a judgment? The penalty is not incurred, because he did not pronounce the judgment as he had undertaken.

Dig. 4.8.8

Digest 4.8.8

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus, 13 on the Edict.

Sed si ita compromissum sit, ut vel alterutrius sententia valeat, titium cogendum.

But if the compromise is thus made, that even the sentence of either one shall be valid, titius must be compelled.

Dig. 4.8.9pr.

Digest 4.8.9pr.

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the Edict

Sed si in servum compromittatur et liber sententiam dixerit, puto, si liber factus fecerit consentientibus partibus, valere.

But if a compromise be entered into upon a slave, and, as a free man, he has pronounced the sentence, I think that, if he has done it after being made free, with the parties consenting, it is valid.

Dig. 4.8.9.1

Digest 4.8.9.1

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian, 13 on the Edict.

Sed neque in pupillum neque in furiosum aut surdum aut mutum compromittetur, ut pomponius libro trigensimo tertio scribit.

But neither with a pupil (ward) nor with an insane person, or a deaf or a mute person, shall a compromise be entered into, as Pomponius writes in the thirty-third book.

Dig. 4.8.9.2

Digest 4.8.9.2

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the Edict.

Si quis iudex sit, arbitrium recipere eius rei, de qua iudex est, inve se compromitti iubere prohibetur lege iulia: et si sententiam dixerit non est danda poenae persecutio.

If anyone is a judge, he is prohibited by the Julian law from receiving an arbitrium concerning the matter of which he is judge, or from ordering that a compromissum be made to himself; and if he has delivered a sentence, prosecution for the penalty is not to be granted.

Dig. 4.8.9.3

Digest 4.8.9.3

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian, 13 on the Edict.

Sunt et alii, qui non coguntur sententiam dicere, ut puta si sordes aut turpitudo arbitri manifesta sit.

There are also others who are not compelled to pronounce sentence, for example if the arbiter’s sordidness or turpitude is manifest.

Dig. 4.8.9.4

Digest 4.8.9.4

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian, 13 On the Edict.

Iulianus ait, si eum infamaverunt litigatores, non omnimodo praetorem debere eum excusare, sed causa cognita.

Julianus says that, if the litigants have defamed him, the praetor ought not to excuse him unconditionally, but after the cause has been ascertained.

Dig. 4.8.9.5

Digest 4.8.9.5

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 13 on the Edict.

Idem et si spreta auctoritate eius ad iudicium.

The same also if, his authority scorned, one comes to judgment.

Dig. 4.8.10

Digest 4.8.10

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus 13 on the Edict.

Vel alium arbitrum.

Or another arbiter.

Dig. 4.8.11pr.

Digest 4.8.11pr.

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the Edict.

Litigatores ierint, mox ad eundem arbitrum redierint, praetorem non debere eum cogere inter eos disceptare, qui ei contumeliam hanc fecerunt, ut eum spernerent et ad alium irent.

If litigants have gone off and soon returned to the same arbiter, the praetor ought not to compel him to adjudicate between them, who have inflicted on him this contumely: that they spurned him and went to another.

Dig. 4.8.11.1

Digest 4.8.11.1

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the Edict.

Arbitrum autem cogendum non esse sententiam dicere, nisi compromissum intervenerit.

Moreover, an arbiter is not to be compelled to pronounce a sentence, unless a compromissum has intervened.

Dig. 4.8.11.2

Digest 4.8.11.2

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian, 13 on the Edict.

Quod ait praetor: " pecuniam compromissam", accipere nos debere, non si utrimque poena nummaria, sed si et alia res vice poenae, si quis arbitri sententia non steterit, promissa sit: et ita pomponius scribit. quid ergo, si res apud arbitrum depositae sunt eo pacto, ut ei daret qui vicerit, vel ut eam rem daret, si non pareatur sententiae, an cogendus sit sententiam dicere? et puto cogendum.

As to what the praetor says: " money pledged in the compromise," we ought to take it not only if on both sides a pecuniary penalty, but also if some other thing, in the stead of a penalty, has been promised in case anyone does not abide by the arbitrator’s sentence: and so Pomponius writes. What then, if things have been deposited with the arbiter on this pact, that he should give them to the one who has won, or that he should give that thing if the sentence is not obeyed—whether he is to be compelled to pronounce a sentence? And I think he must be compelled.

tantundem et si quantitas certa ad hoc apud eum deponatur. proinde et si alter rem, alter pecuniam stipulanti promiserit, plenum compromissum est et cogetur sententiam dicere.

likewise also if a fixed quantity is deposited with him for this purpose. Accordingly, even if one has promised a thing, and the other money, to the stipulating party, the compromise is complete, and he will be compelled to pronounce sentence.

Dig. 4.8.11.3

Digest 4.8.11.3

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 13 on the Edict.

Interdum, ut pomponius scribit, recte nudo pacto fiet compromissum, ut puta si ambo debitores fuerunt et pacti sunt, ne petat quod sibi debetur qui sententiae arbitri non paruit.

Sometimes, as Pomponius writes, a compromise will rightly be made by a nude pact, for instance if both were debtors and have pacted that he who has not obeyed the sentence of the arbiter shall not seek what is owed to him.

Dig. 4.8.11.4

Digest 4.8.11.4

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the Edict.

Item iulianus scribit non cogendum arbitrum sententiam dicere, si alter promiserit, alter non. idem dicit, et si sub condicione fuerit poena compromissa, veluti " si navis ex asia venerit, tot milia": non enim prius arbitrum cogendum sententiam dicere, quam condicio exstiterit: ne sit inefficax deficiente condicione. et ita pomponius libro trigensimo tertio ad edictum scribit.

likewise Julianus writes that an arbiter is not to be compelled to pronounce a sentence, if the one has promised and the other not. he says the same, too, if the penalty has been compromitted under a condition, as, for example, "if a ship shall have come from asia, so many thousands": for the arbiter is not to be compelled to pronounce a sentence before the condition has arisen, lest it be inefficacious if the condition fails. and so Pomponius writes in the thirty-third book on the Edict.

Dig. 4.8.12

Digest 4.8.12

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paul 13 on the Edict.

Quo casu ad praetorem pertinebit in eo forsitan solo, ut si possit dies compromissi proferri, proferatur.

In which case it will pertain to the praetor perhaps only in this respect: that, if the day of the compromise can be deferred, let it be deferred.

Dig. 4.8.13pr.

Digest 4.8.13, beginning.

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian, 13 on the Edict.

Pomponius ait, et si alteri accepto lata sit poena compromissi, non debere eum compelli sententiam dicere.

Pomponius says that, even if by acceptilation the penalty of the compromise has been entered as received for the other party, he ought not to be compelled to pronounce sentence.

Dig. 4.8.13.1

Digest 4.8.13.1

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian Book 13 on the Edict.

Idem pomponius scribit, si de meis solis controversiis sit compromissum et de te poenam sim stipulatus, videndum ne non sit compromissum. sed cui rei moveatur, non video: nam si ideo, quia de unius controversiis solum compromissum est, nulla ratio est: licet enim et de una re compromittere: si vero ideo, quia ex altera dumtaxat parte stipulatio intervenit, est ratio. quamquam si petitor fuit qui stipulatus est, possit dici plenum esse compromissum, quia is qui convenitur tutus est veluti pacti exceptione, is qui convenit, si arbitro non pareatur, habet stipulationem.

The same Pomponius writes: if there has been a compromise concerning my controversies alone, and I have stipulated a penalty from you, it must be considered whether there is not a (valid) compromise. But by what consideration he is moved, I do not see: for if for this reason, because the compromise is only about the controversies of one person, there is no ground; for it is permitted also to compromise about one matter. But if for this reason, because a stipulation intervened from only one side, there is ground. Nevertheless, if it was the claimant who made the stipulation, it can be said that the compromise is full, because the one who is sued is safe, as it were, by an exception of pact; the one who sues, if the arbiter is not obeyed, has the stipulation.

sed id verum esse non puto: neque enim sufficit exceptionem habere, ut arbiter sententiam dicere cogatur.

but I do not think that to be true: for it does not suffice to have an exception, so that the arbiter be compelled to pronounce a decision.

Dig. 4.8.13.2

Digest 4.8.13.2

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the Edict.

Recepisse autem arbitrium videtur, ut pedius libro nono dicit, qui iudicis partes suscepit finemque se sua sententia controversiis impositurum pollicetur. quod si, inquit, hactenus intervenit, ut experiretur, an consilio suo vel auctoritate discuti litem paterentur, non videtur arbitrium recepisse.

However, he seems to have accepted an arbitration, as Pedius says in the ninth book, when he has undertaken the parts of a judge and promises that by his own sentence he will impose an end upon the controversies. But if, he says, he has intervened only thus far, to test whether they would allow the suit to be resolved by his counsel or authority, he does not seem to have accepted an arbitration.

Dig. 4.8.13.3

Digest 4.8.13.3

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian, 13 on the edict.

Arbiter ex compromisso his diebus non cogitur sententiam dicere, quibus iudex non cogetur, nisi dies compromissi exitura sit nec proferri possit.

An arbiter under a compromissum is not compelled to pronounce sentence on those days on which a judge would not be compelled, unless the day of the compromissum is about to expire and cannot be extended.

Dig. 4.8.13.4

Digest 4.8.13.4

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian, 13 On the Edict.

Proinde si forte urgueatur a praetore ad sententiam, aequissimum erit, si iuret sibi de causa nondum liquere, spatium ei ad pronuntiandum dari.

Accordingly, if by chance he is pressed by the praetor for a judgment, it will be most equitable that, if he swears the case is not yet clear to him, a period be granted to him for pronouncement.

Dig. 4.8.14

Digest 4.8.14

Pomponius 11 ad q. muc.

Pomponius 11 on q. muc.

Sed si compromissum sine die confectum est, necesse est arbitro omnimodo dies statuere, partibus scilicet consentientibus, et ita causam disceptari: quod si hoc praetermiserit, omni tempore cogendus est sententiam dicere.

But if the compromissum (arbitration agreement) has been concluded without a day, it is necessary for the arbitrator in every way to set a day, the parties, namely, consenting, and thus for the cause to be argued: but if he should omit this, he must at all times be compelled to pronounce judgment.

Dig. 4.8.15

Digest 4.8.15

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian, 13 on the Edict.

Licet autem praetor destricte edicat sententiam se arbitrum dicere coacturum, attamen interdum rationem eius habere debet et excusationem recipere causa cognita: ut puta si fuerit infamatus a litigatoribus, aut si inimicitiae capitales inter eum et litigatores aut alterum ex litigatoribus intercesserint, aut si aetas aut valetudo quae postea contigit id ei munus remittat, aut occupatio negotiorum propriorum vel profectio urguens aut munus aliquod rei publicae: et ita labeo:

Although the praetor may strictly proclaim by edict that he will compel the arbiter to pronounce a sentence, nevertheless at times he ought to have regard to his rationale and to accept an excuse after the case has been inquired into: for instance, if he has been defamed by the litigators, or if capital enmities have intervened between him and the litigators or one of the litigators, or if age or a state of health which has afterward supervened releases him from that duty, or the occupation of his own affairs or an urgent departure, or some public office: and so Labeo.

Dig. 4.8.16pr.

Digest 4.8.16, beginning.

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus 13 on the Edict.

Et si qua alia incommoditas ei post arbiterium susceptum incidat. sed in causa valetudinis similibusve causa cognita differre cogitur.

And if any other inconvenience should occur to him after the arbitrium has been undertaken. But in a case of ill-health or a similar cause, once the cause is known, he is compelled to defer.

Dig. 4.8.16.1

Digest 4.8.16.1

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus 13 on the edict.

Arbiter iudicii sui nomine, quod publicum aut privatum habet, excusatus esse debet a compromisso, utique si dies compromissi proferri non potest: quod si potest, quare non cogat eum, cum potest, proferre? quod sine ulla distinctione ipsius interdum futurum est. si tamen uterque velit eum sententiam dicere, an, quamvis cautum non sit de die proferenda, non alias impetret, quia iudicium habet, ne cogatur, quam si consentiat denuo in se compromitti?

An arbiter, by reason of his own judicium, whether public or private, ought to be excused from a compromissum, especially if the day of the compromissum cannot be deferred: but if it can, why not compel him, since he can, to defer it?—which will sometimes come about without any action of his. If, however, both parties wish him to pronounce sentence, then, although it has not been provided concerning deferring the day, does he not otherwise obtain, because he has a judicium, that he not be compelled, unless he consents that there be a fresh compromissum entered into with respect to himself?

haec scilicet si dies exitura est.

These things, of course, if the day is about to expire.

Dig. 4.8.17pr.

Digest 4.8.17, preface.

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the Edict.

Item si unus ex litigatoribus bonis suis cedat, iulianus libro quarto digestorum scribit non esse cogendum arbitrum sententiam dicere, cum neque agere neque conveniri possit.

Likewise, if one of the litigants cedes his goods, Julian in book 4 of the Digests writes that the arbiter is not to be compelled to pronounce a sentence, since he can neither sue nor be sued.

Dig. 4.8.17.1

Digest 4.8.17.1

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the edict.

Si multo post revertantur ad arbitrum litigatores, non esse cogendum sententiam dicere labeo scribit.

If long after the litigants return to the arbiter, Labeo writes that he is not to be compelled to pronounce sentence.

Dig. 4.8.17.2

Digest 4.8.17.2

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the Edict

Item si plures sunt qui arbitrium receperunt, nemo unus cogendus erit sententiam dicere, sed aut omnes aut nullus.

Likewise, if there are several who have received the arbitrium, no single person shall be compelled to deliver the sentence, but either all or none.

Dig. 4.8.17.3

Digest 4.8.17.3

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the edict.

Inde pomponius libro trigensimo tertio quaerit, si ita sit compromissum, ut quod titio disceptatori placet, id seius pronuntiet, quis sit cogendus? et puto tale arbitrium non valere, in quo libera facultas arbitri sententiae non est futura.

Thence pomponius in the thirty-third book asks, if it has been so compromised, that what pleases titio the disceptator, that seius should pronounce, who is to be compelled? And I think such an arbitration is not valid, in which the free faculty of the arbiter’s judgment will not be forthcoming.

Dig. 4.8.17.4

Digest 4.8.17.4

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian, 13 on the Edict.

Sed si ita sit compromissum arbitratu titii aut seii fieri, pomponius scribit et nos putamus compromissum valere: sed is erit cogendus sententiam dicere, in quem litigatores consenserint.

But if there has been a compromise that the matter be done by the arbitration of Titius or Seius, Pomponius writes, and we also think, that the compromise is valid; but he will be compelled to pronounce a judgment—namely, the one upon whom the litigants have agreed.

Dig. 4.8.17.5

Digest 4.8.17.5

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the Edict.

Si in duos fuerit sic compromissum, ut si dissentirent, tertium adsumant, puto tale compromissum non valere: nam in adsumendo possunt dissentire. sed si ita sit, ut eis tertius adsumeretur sempronius, valet compromissum, quoniam in adsumendo dissentire non possunt.

If between two a compromise has been made thus, that, if they should dissent, they are to take a third, I think such a compromise is not valid: for in the taking they can dissent. But if it is thus, that a third be taken for them, Sempronius, the compromise is valid, since in the taking they cannot dissent.

Dig. 4.8.17.6

Digest 4.8.17.6

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian, 13 on the Edict.

Principaliter tamen quaeramus, si in duos arbitros sit compromissum, an cogere eos praetor debeat sententiam dicere, quia res fere sine exitu futura est propter naturalem hominum ad dissentiendum facilitatem. in inpari enim numero idcirco compromissum admittitur, non quoniam consentire omnes facile est, sed quia et si dissentiant, invenitur pars maior, cuius arbitrio stabitur. sed usitatum est etiam in duos compromitti, et debet praetor cogere arbitros, si non consentiant, tertiam certam eligere personam, cuius auctoritati pareatur.

Principally, however, let us inquire, if a compromise has been made to two arbiters, whether the praetor ought to compel them to pronounce a sentence, because the matter will be almost without an exit on account of the natural facility of men for dissenting. For a compromise is admitted to an odd number for this reason—not because it is easy for all to agree, but because even if they disagree, a greater part is found, by whose arbitration one will stand. But it is also customary to compromise to two, and the praetor ought to compel the arbiters, if they do not agree, to choose a definite third person, whose authority shall be obeyed.

Dig. 4.8.17.7

Digest 4.8.17.7

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian, 13 on the edict.

Celsus libro secundo digestorum scribit, si in tres fuerit compromissum, sufficere quidem duorum consensum, sed si praesens fuerit et tertius: alioquin absente eo licet duo consentiant, arbitrium non valere, quia in plures fuit compromissum et potuit praesentia eius trahere eos in eius sententiam:

Celsus writes in the second book of the Digests, that if a compromissum has been made to three, the consent of two is indeed sufficient, but only if the third also is present: otherwise, with him absent, although two may consent, the arbitral award is not valid, because the compromissum was to several and his presence could draw them into his opinion:

Dig. 4.8.18

Digest 4.8.18

Pomponius 17 epist. et var. lect.

Pomponius 17 Epistles and Various Readings.

Sicuti tribus iudicibus datis quod duo ex consensu absente tertio iudicaverunt, nihil valet, quia id ^ tum^ demum, quod maior pars omnium iudicavit, ratum est, cum et omnes iudicasse palam est.

Just as, with three judges appointed, that which two, by consensus, have judged with the third absent is of no force, because only ^ then^ at last is that ratified which the greater part of all have judged, when it is evident that all have judged as well.

Dig. 4.8.19pr.

Digest 4.8.19pr.

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paul 13 on the Edict.

Qualem autem sententiam dicat arbiter, ad praetorem non pertinere labeo ait, dummodo dicat quod ipsi videtur. et ideo si sic fuit in arbitrium compromissum, ut certam sententiam dicat, nullum esse arbitrium, nec cogendum sententiam dicere iulianus scribit libro quarto digestorum.

However, what kind of sentence the arbiter pronounces does not pertain to the praetor, Labeo says, provided that he says what seems to him. And therefore, if the submission to arbitration was thus made, that he should pronounce a definite sentence, the arbitration is null, nor is he to be compelled to pronounce a sentence, Julianus writes in book 4 of the Digests.

Dig. 4.8.19.1

Digest 4.8.19.1

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus 13 on the Edict.

Dicere autem sententiam existimamus eum, qui ea mente quid pronuntiat, ut secundum id discedere eos a tota controversia velit, sed si de pluribus rebus sit arbiterium receptum, nisi omnes controversias finierit, non videtur dicta sententia, sed adhuc erit a praetore cogendus.

We consider him to have delivered the sentence, who pronounces something with this intention: that, in accordance with it, they should depart from the whole controversy; but if arbitration has been accepted concerning several matters, unless he has ended all the controversies, the sentence does not seem to have been spoken, but he will still be compelled by the praetor.

Dig. 4.8.19.2

Digest 4.8.19.2

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus 13 on the Edict.

Unde videndum erit, an mutare sententiam possit. et alias quidem est agitatum, si arbiter iussit dari, mox vetuit, utrum eo quod iussit an eo quod vetuit stari debeat. et sabinus quidem putavit posse.

Whence it will have to be seen whether he can change his opinion. et elsewhere indeed it has been agitated, if an arbiter ordered it to be given, soon after forbade it, whether one ought to stand by that which he ordered or by that which he forbade. et Sabinus indeed thought that he could.

cassius sententiam magistri sui bene excusat et ait sabinum non de ea sensisse sententia, quae arbitrium finiat, sed de praeparatione causae: ut puta si iussit litigatores calendis adesse, mox idibus iubeat: nam mutare eum diem posse. ceterum si condemnavit vel absolvit, dum arbiter esse desierit, mutare sententiam non posse,

cassius well excuses his master’s opinion and says that sabinus did not have in mind that sentence which would finish the arbitration, but the preparation of the case: for instance, if he ordered the litigants to be present on the kalends, then bids them for the ides; for he can change that day. moreover, if he has condemned or acquitted, since he has ceased to be an arbiter, he cannot change the sentence,

Dig. 4.8.20

Digest 4.8.20

Gaius 5 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 5 on the provincial edict.

Quia arbiter, etsi erraverit in sententia dicenda, corrigere eam non potest.

Because an arbiter, even if he has erred in giving the sentence, cannot correct it.

Dig. 4.8.21pr.

Digest 4.8.21, at the beginning.

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the edict.

Quid tamen si de pluribus controversiis sumptus est nihil sibi communibus et de una sententiam dixit, de aliis nondum, numquid desiit esse arbiter? videamus igitur, an in prima controversia possit mutare sententiam, de qua iam dixerat. et multum interest, de omnibus simul ut dicat sententiam compromissum est, an non: nam si de omnibus, poterit mutare ( nondum enim dixit sententiam): quod si et separatim, quasi plura sunt compromissa, et ideo quantum ad illam controversiam pertinet, arbiter esse desierat.

What, however, if he has been appointed for several controversies having nothing in common with one another, and he has pronounced sentence about one, not yet about the others—has he by any chance ceased to be an arbiter? Let us therefore see whether in the first controversy he can change the sentence which he had already stated. And it makes much difference whether in the compromissum it was provided that he should declare sentence about all at the same time, or not: for if about all, he will be able to change it ( nondum enim dixit sententiam); but if also separately, as if there are several compromissa, then, so far as that controversy is concerned, he has ceased to be an arbiter.

Dig. 4.8.21.1

Digest 4.8.21.1

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian, 13 on the Edict.

Si arbiter ita pronuntiasset nihil videri titium debere seio: tametsi seium non vetuisset petere, tamen si quid petisset, videri contra sententiam arbitri fecisse: et id ofilius et trebatius responderunt.

If an arbiter had so pronounced that it appears Titius owes nothing to Seius: although he had not forbidden Seius to sue, nevertheless, if he had sought anything, he would be seen to have acted against the arbiter’s sentence: and this is what Ofilius and Trebatius answered.

Dig. 4.8.21.2

Digest 4.8.21.2

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the Edict.

Solutioni diem posse arbitrum statuere puto: et ita et trebatius videtur sentire.

I think that an arbiter can set a day for payment; and thus Trebatius also seems to think.

Dig. 4.8.21.3

Digest 4.8.21.3

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian, 13 on the Edict.

Pomponius ait inutiliter arbitrum incertam sententiam dicere, ut puta: " quantum ei debes redde " : " divisioni vestrae stari placet": " pro ea parte, quam creditoribus tuis solvisti, accipe".

Pomponius says that an arbitrator ineffectually pronounces an indeterminate award, for example: " pay back as much as you owe him " : " it pleases to abide by your division": " receive for that share which you have paid to your creditors".

Dig. 4.8.21.4

Digest 4.8.21.4

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian, 13 on the Edict.

Item si arbiter poenam ex compromisso peti vetuerit, in libro trigensimo tertio apud pomponium scriptum habeo non valere: et habet rationem, quia non de poena compromissum est.

Likewise, if the arbiter has forbidden that a penalty be sought under the compromissum, I have it recorded in the thirty-third book, in Pomponius, that this is not valid; and it has a rationale, because the compromissum was not about the penalty.

Dig. 4.8.21.5

Digest 4.8.21.5

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the Edict.

Papinianus libro tertio quaestionum ait, si cum dies compromissi finiretur, prolato die litigatores denuo in eum compromiserint nec secundi compromissi arbitrium receperit, non esse cogendum recipere, si ipse in mora non fuit, quo minus partibus suis fungeretur: quod si per eum factum est, aequissimum esse cogi eum a praetore sequens recipere. quae quaestio ita procedit, si nihil in priore compromisso de die proferendo caveatur: ceterum si cavebatur et ipse protulit, mansit arbiter.

Papinian, in the third book of Questions, says: if, when the day of the compromise was coming to an end, the day being extended, the litigants again entered into a compromise with him, and he did not accept the arbitrium of the second compromise, he is not to be compelled to accept it, provided that he himself was not in mora, so as to hinder him from discharging his parts (duties); but if it happened through him, it is most equitable that he be compelled by the praetor to accept the subsequent one. This question proceeds thus, if nothing was stipulated in the prior compromise about extending the day; however, if it was stipulated and he himself extended it, the arbiter remained.

Dig. 4.8.21.6

Digest 4.8.21.6

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the edict.

Plenum compromissum appellatur, quod " de rebus controversiisve " compositum est: nam ad omnes controversias pertinet. sed si forte de una re sit disputatio, licet pleno compromisso actum sit, tamen ex ceteris causis actiones superesse: id enim venit in compromissum, de quo actum est ut veniret. sed est tutius, si quis de certa re compromissum facturus sit, de ea sola exprimere in compromisso.

A full compromise is called that which has been agreed “ de rebus controversiisve ”; for it pertains to all controversies. But if perchance the dispute is about a single matter, although the business has been conducted under a full compromise, nevertheless actions remain from the other causes: for that comes into the compromise which it has been agreed should come. But it is safer, if someone is going to make a compromise about a definite thing, to express that alone in the compromise.

Dig. 4.8.21.7

Digest 4.8.21.7

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian, 13 on the edict.

Non debent autem obtemperare litigatores, si arbiter aliquid non honestum iusserit.

However, litigants ought not to obey, if the arbiter has ordered something dishonorable.

Dig. 4.8.21.8

Digest 4.8.21.8

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian, book 13 on the Edict.

Si intra diem compromissi aditus arbiter post diem compromissi adesse iusserit, poena non committetur.

If, the arbiter having been approached within the day of the compromise, he orders one to be present after the day of the compromise, the penalty is not incurred.

Dig. 4.8.21.9

Digest 4.8.21.9

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian, 13 on the Edict.

Si quis ex litigatoribus ideo non adfuerit, quod valetudine vel rei publicae causa absentia impeditus sit aut magistratu aut alia iusta de causa, poenam committi proculus et atilicinus aiunt: sed si paratus sit in eundem compromittere, actionem denegari aut exceptione tutum fore. sed hoc ita demum verum erit, si arbiter recipere in se arbiterium fuerit paratus: nam invitum non esse cogendum iulianus libro quarto digestorum recte scribit: ipse autem nihilo minus poena absolvitur.

If any one of the litigants has for this reason not been present, because he is impeded by absence on account of health or of the res publica, or by magistracy, or by some other just cause, Proculus and Atilicinus say that the penalty is incurred; but if he is prepared to compromise to the same arbiter, the action is to be denied, or he will be safe by an exception. But this will be true only if the arbiter is prepared to receive the arbitrament upon himself; for Julian rightly writes in book 4 of the Digests that one who is unwilling is not to be compelled; he himself, however, is nonetheless absolved from the penalty.

Dig. 4.8.21.10

Digest 4.8.21.10

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the Edict.

Si arbiter iussit puta in provincia adesse litigatores, cum romae esset in eum compromissum, an ei impune non pareatur, quaeritur. et est verius, quod iulianus ait libro quarto, eum locum compromisso inesse, de quo actum sit ut promitteretur: impune igitur ei non parebitur, si alio loci adesse iusserit. quid ergo, si non appareat, de quo loco actum sit?

If an arbiter has ordered, say, that the litigants be present in a province, when at Rome a compromise had been made in regard to him, the question is whether he may be disobeyed with impunity. And the truer view, as Julian says in book four, is that the place is contained in the compromise, namely that about which it was agreed that it be promised: accordingly, he may be disobeyed with impunity if he has ordered attendance in another place. What then, if it does not appear about which place it was agreed?

melius dicetur eum locum contineri, ubi compromissum est. quid tamen si in eo loco, qui sit circa urbem, adesse iusserit? pegasus admittit valere iussum.

it will be better said that the place contained is that where the compromissum was made. what, however, if he has ordered attendance in that place which is around the city? Pegasus admits the order to be valid.

quod puto ita verum esse, si et eius sit auctoritatis arbiter, ut in secessibus soleat agere, et litigatores facile eo loci venire possint.

which I think to be true thus, if the arbiter be also of such authority as to be accustomed to conduct proceedings in retreats, and the litigants can easily come to that place.

Dig. 4.8.21.11

Digest 4.8.21.11

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian, 13 on the Edict.

Sed si in aliquem locum inhonestum adesse iusserit, puta in popinam vel in lupanarium, ut vivianus ait, sine dubio impune ei non parebitur: quam sententiam et celsus libro secundo digestorum probat. unde eleganter tractat, si is sit locus, in quem alter ex litigatoribus honeste venire non possit, alter possit, et is non venerit, qui sine sua turpitudine eo venire possit, is venerit, qui inhoneste venerat, an committatur poena compromissi an quasi opera non praebita. et recte putat non committi: absurdum enim esse iussum in alterius persona ratum esse, in alterius non.

But if he has ordered attendance in some dishonorable place, suppose in a tavern or in a brothel, as Vivianus says, without doubt one may with impunity not obey him: which opinion Celsus also approves in the second book of the Digest. Whence he elegantly discusses: if it is a place into which one of the litigants cannot come honorably, the other can, and the one who could come there without his own turpitude has not come, while the one has come who came dishonorably, whether the penalty of the compromis is incurred, or as though service had not been furnished. And he rightly thinks it is not incurred: for it is absurd that an order be ratified in one person’s case, and not in another’s.

Dig. 4.8.21.12

Digest 4.8.21.12

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the Edict.

Intra quantum autem temporis, nisi detur quod arbiter iusserit, committatur stipulatio, videndum est. et si quidem dies adiectus non sit, celsus scribit libro secundo digestorum inesse quoddam modicum tempus: quod ubi praeterierit, poena statim peti potest: et tamen, inquit, et si dederit ante acceptum iudicium, agi ex stipulatu non poterit:

But within what stretch of time, unless what the arbiter has ordered is given, the stipulation is to be deemed committed, must be considered. And if indeed no day has been added, Celsus writes in the second book of the Digest that there is some moderate time inherent; when this has elapsed, the penalty can at once be sought: and yet, he says, even if he gives before the action has been accepted, an action ex stipulatu cannot be brought:

Dig. 4.8.22

Digest 4.8.22

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus 13 on the Edict.

Utique nisi eius interfuerit tunc solvi.

Certainly, unless it has been to his interest, it is then to be paid.

Dig. 4.8.23pr.

Digest 4.8.23pr.

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the edict.

Celsus ait, si arbiter intra kalendas septembres dari iusserit nec datum erit, licet postea offeratur, attamen semel commissam poenam compromissi non evanescere, quoniam semper verum est intra kalendas datum non esse: sin autem oblatum accepit, poenam petere non potest doli exceptione removendus. contra, ubi dumtaxat dare iussus est.

Celsus says that, if he has ordered an arbiter to be provided before the Kalends of September and it will not have been provided, although it is offered afterward, nevertheless the penalty of the compromissum, once incurred, does not vanish, since it is always true that it was not provided before the Kalends. But if he accepted what was offered, he cannot seek the penalty, being to be removed by the exception of dolus. The contrary holds where he was ordered merely to give.

Dig. 4.8.23.1

Digest 4.8.23.1

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian book 13 on the edict.

Idem ait, si iusserit me tibi dare et valetudine sis impeditus, quo minus accipias, aut alia iusta ex causa, proculum existimare poenam non committi, nec si post kalendas te parato accipere non dem. sed ipse recte putat duo esse arbitri praecepta, unum pecuniam dari, aliud intra kalendas dari: licet igitur in poenam non committas, quod intra calendas non dederis, quoniam per te non stetit, tamen committis in eam partem, quod non das.

He likewise says: if he has ordered me to give to you and you are impeded by ill health from receiving, or by some other just cause, Proculus considers that the penalty is not incurred, nor even if, after the calends, when you are ready to receive, I do not give. But he himself rightly thinks there are two precepts of the arbiter: one, that the money be given; the other, that it be given within the calends. Therefore, although you do not incur the penalty for not having given within the calends, since it did not depend on you, nevertheless you incur it in that part, namely, insofar as you do not give at all.

Dig. 4.8.23.2

Digest 4.8.23.2

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the Edict.

Idem ait nihil aliud esse sententiae stare posse, quam id agere, quantum in ipso sit, ut arbitri pareatur sententiae.

He likewise says that “for the sentence to be able to stand” is nothing else than to do, so far as lies in him, that the sentence of the arbiter be obeyed.

Dig. 4.8.23.3

Digest 4.8.23.3

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the Edict.

Idem celsus ait, si arbiter me tibi certa die pecuniam dare iusserit, tu accipere noluisti, posse defendi ipso iure poenam non committi.

The same Celsus says that, if an arbiter has ordered me to give you money on a fixed day, and you were unwilling to accept, it can be maintained, by the law itself, that the penalty is not incurred.

Dig. 4.8.24

Digest 4.8.24

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus, 13 on the Edict.

Sed si postea ille paratus sit accipere, non impune me non daturum: non enim ante feceram.

But if afterwards he should be prepared to receive, I shall not with impunity not give; for I had not done so before.

Dig. 4.8.25pr.

Digest 4.8.25, beginning.

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian, 13 on the edict.

Labeo ait, si arbiter, cum in compromisso cautum esset, ut eadem die de omnibus sententiam diceret et ut posset diem proferre, de quibusdam rebus dicta sententia, de quibusdam non dicta diem protulit: valere prolationem sententiaeque eius posse impune non pareri. et pomponius probat labeonis sententiam, quod et mihi videtur: quia officio in sententia functus non est.

Labeo says that, if the arbiter—when in the compromise it had been stipulated both that he should pronounce judgment on all matters on the same day and that he could defer the day—after judgment was pronounced on certain matters, with none pronounced on others, deferred the day: the postponement is valid, and his sentence may with impunity not be obeyed. And Pomponius approves Labeo’s opinion, which also seems so to me: because he did not discharge his office in the sentence.

Dig. 4.8.25.1

Digest 4.8.25.1

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the Edict.

Haec autem clausula " diem compromissi proferre" nullam aliam dat arbitro facultatem quam diem prorogandi: et ideo condicionem primi compromissi neque minuere neque immutare potest: et ideo cetera quoque discutere et pro omnibus unam sententiam ferre debebit.

But this clause, "to put off the day of the compromissum," gives the arbiter no other faculty than that of proroguing the day: and therefore he can neither diminish nor alter the condition of the first compromissum: and therefore he ought also to examine the rest and to deliver one judgment for all.

Dig. 4.8.25.2

Digest 4.8.25.2

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the edict.

Si per fideiussorem fuerit cautum in primo compromisso, et sequens similiter proferendum labeo dicit. sed pomponius dubitat, utrum isdem an et aliis tam idoneis: quid enim, inquit, si idem fideiubere noluerint? sed puto, si noluerint fideiubere, tunc alios non absimiles adhibendos,

If provision has been made through a surety in the first compromissum, Labeo says the subsequent one is likewise to be put forward. But Pomponius is in doubt whether by the same men or by others as suitable: for what, he says, if the same should be unwilling to stand as sureties? But I think, if they are unwilling to act as sureties, then others not dissimilar must be employed,

Dig. 4.8.26

Digest 4.8.26

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus 13 on the Edict.

Ne in potestate sit fideiussorum postea se non obligantium, ut poena committatur. idemque et si decesserint.

Lest it be within the power of the fideiussors, by afterwards not obligating themselves, to cause the penalty to be incurred. And the same holds if they have died.

Dig. 4.8.27pr.

Digest 4.8.27pr.

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 On the Edict.

Diem proferre vel praesens vel per nuntium vel per epistulam potest.

He can defer the day either in person or through a messenger or by letter.

Dig. 4.8.27.1

Digest 4.8.27.1

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian, 13 on the Edict.

Si heredis mentio vel ceterorum facta in compromisso non fuerit, morte solvetur compromissum: nec utimur labeonis sententia, qui existimavit, si arbiter aliquem pecuniam dare iusserit et is decesserit antequam daret, poenam committi, licet heres eius paratus sit offerre.

If mention of the heir or of the others has not been made in the compromissum, the compromissum will be dissolved by death; nor do we use Labeo’s opinion, who thought that, if an arbiter has ordered someone to give a sum of money and he has died before giving it, the penalty is incurred, although his heir is ready to tender it.

Dig. 4.8.27.2

Digest 4.8.27.2

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian, 13 on the edict.

Stari autem debet sententiae arbitri, quam de ea re dixerit, sive aequa sive iniqua sit: et sibi imputet qui compromisit. nam et divi pii rescripto adicitur: " vel minus probabilem sententiam aequo animo ferre debet".

However, one ought to abide by the arbitrator’s sentence which he has pronounced on that matter, whether it be equitable or inequitable; and let him who made the compromise impute it to himself. For it is also added in the rescript of the deified Pius: "he ought to bear with an even mind even a less probable sentence."

Dig. 4.8.27.3

Digest 4.8.27.3

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the Edict.

Si plures arbitri fuerint et diversas sententias dixerint, licebit sententia eorum non stari: sed si maior pars consentiat, ea stabitur, alioquin poena committetur. inde quaeritur apud iulianum, si ex tribus arbitris unus quindecim, alius decem, tertius quinque condemnent, qua sententia stetur: et iulianus scribit quinque debere praestari, quia in hanc summam omnes consenserunt.

If there have been several arbiters and they have spoken diverse sentences, it will be permitted that their sentence not be stood by; but if the greater part consent, that will be stood by, otherwise the penalty will be incurred. Hence the question is raised by julianus: if out of three arbiters one condemns to fifteen, another to ten, the third to five, by which sentence should one stand? And julianus writes that five ought to be rendered, because to this sum all consented.

Dig. 4.8.27.4

Digest 4.8.27.4

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the Edict.

Si quis litigatorum defuerit, quia per eum factum est, quo minus arbitretur, poena committetur. proinde sententia quidem dicta non coram litigatoribus non valebit, nisi in compromissis hoc specialiter expressum sit, ut vel uno vel utroque absente sententia promatur: poenam autem is qui defuit committit, quia per eum factum est quo minus arbitretur.

If any one of the litigators has been absent, since through him it has been brought about that the arbiter should not arbitrate, the penalty will be incurred. Accordingly, a sentence pronounced not in the presence of the litigators will not be valid, unless this is specially expressed in the compromises, that with one or with both absent the sentence may be brought forth; but the one who was absent incurs the penalty, because through him it was brought about that the arbiter should not arbitrate.

Dig. 4.8.27.5

Digest 4.8.27.5

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13th book on the Edict.

Coram autem dicere sententiam videtur, qui sapientibus dicit: ceterum coram furioso vel demente non videtur dici: item coram pupillo non videri sententiam dictam, nisi tutor praesens fuit: et ita de his omnibus iulianus libro quarto digestorum scribit.

Moreover, he is deemed to pronounce judgment in presence who speaks before wise men; but it is not deemed to be said in presence before a madman or a demented person; likewise, a judgment is not deemed to have been pronounced in presence before a ward, unless his tutor was present; and thus concerning all these matters Julian writes in the fourth book of the Digests.

Dig. 4.8.27.6

Digest 4.8.27.6

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the Edict.

Et si quis praesens arbitrum sententiam dicere prohibuit, poena committetur.

And if anyone present has prohibited the arbiter from pronouncing the sentence, the penalty will be incurred.

Dig. 4.8.27.7

Digest 4.8.27.7

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the Edict.

Sed si poena non fuisset adiecta compromisso, sed simpliciter sententia stari quis promiserit, incerti adversus eum foret actio.

But if a penalty had not been added to the compromissum, but someone had simply promised to abide by the sentence, an actio incerti would lie against him.

Dig. 4.8.28

Digest 4.8.28

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus 13 on the edict.

Non autem interest, certa an incerta summa compromissa sit, ut puta " quanti ea res erit".

It does not matter whether a definite or an indefinite sum has been agreed upon by compromise, for example, " what that thing will be worth".

Dig. 4.8.29

Digest 4.8.29

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the Edict.

Adversus sententiam arbitri fit, si petatur ab eo a quo arbiter peti vetuit. quid ergo si a fideiussore eius petatur, an poena committatur? et puto committi, et ita sabinus scribit: nam ty dunamei a reo petit.

It is acted contrary to the arbitrator’s sentence if demand is made from him of whom the arbitrator forbade that demand be made. What then if demand is made from his surety—Is the penalty incurred? And I think it is incurred, and so sabinus writes: for, in effect, he sues the defendant.

sed si cum fideiussore compromisi et a reo petatur, nisi intersit fideiussoris, non committetur.

but if I entered into a compromissum with the surety and demand is made against the defendant, unless it concerns the surety’s interest, the penalty will not be committed.

Dig. 4.8.30

Digest 4.8.30

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus 13 on the edict.

Si quis rem, de qua compromissum sit, in iudicium deducat, quidam dicunt praetorem non intervenire ad cogendum arbitrum sententiam dicere, quia iam poena non potest esse, atque si solutum est compromissum. sed si hoc optinuerit, futurum est, ut in potestate eius, quem paenitet compromisisse, sit compromissum eludere. ergo adversus eum poena committenda est lite apud iudicem suo ordine peragenda.

If anyone brings into court a matter about which there has been a compromissum (arbitration agreement), some say the praetor should not intervene to compel the arbiter to pronounce a sentence (decision), because now there cannot be a penalty, as if the compromissum had been dissolved. But if this should prevail, it will come about that it lies in the power of the one who repents of having entered into the compromissum to elude the compromissum. Therefore, the penalty must be deemed incurred against him, with the lawsuit before the judge being carried through in its proper order.

Dig. 4.8.31

Digest 4.8.31

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian, 13 on the Edict.

Ita demum autem committetur stipulatio, cum adversus eam quid fit, si sine dolo malo stipulantis factum est: sub hac enim condicione committitur stipulatio, ne quis doli sui praemium ferat. sed si quidem compromisso adiciatur " ut si quid dolo in ea re factum sit", ex stipulatu conveniri qui dolo fecit potest: et ideo si arbitrum quis corrupit vel pecunia vel ambitione, vel advocatum diversae partis, vel aliquem ex his, quibus causam suam commiserat, ex doli clausula poterit conveniri, vel si adversarium callide circumvenit, et omnino si in hac lite dolose versatus est, locum habebit ex stipulatu actio: et ideo si velit de dolo actionem exercere adversarius, non debebit, cum habeat ex stipulatu actionem. quod si huiusmodi clausula in compromisso adscripta non est, tunc de dolo actio vel exceptio locum habebit.

Thus only then will the stipulation be incurred, when something is done against it, if it was done without the bad deceit (dolus) of the stipulator: for under this condition the stipulation is incurred, lest anyone carry off a reward of his own deceit. But if, indeed, there is added in the compromise (compromissum) “that if anything has been done with deceit (dolus) in that matter,” the one who acted with deceit can be proceeded against ex stipulatu: and therefore, if someone has corrupted the arbitrator either with money or with canvassing/ambition, or the advocate of the opposite party, or any of those to whom he had committed his case, he can be proceeded against under the deceit-clause; or if he cleverly circumvented his adversary, and generally if in this suit he has conducted himself deceitfully, an action ex stipulatu will have place: and therefore, if the adversary should wish to bring an action de dolo, he ought not, since he has an action ex stipulatu. But if such a clause was not written into the compromise, then an action or exception de dolo will have place.

hoc autem compromissum plenum est, quod et doli clausulae habet mentionem.

but this compromise is complete, because it also has mention of the clause of fraud.

Dig. 4.8.32pr.

Digest 4.8.32, beginning.

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus 13 on the Edict.

Non distinguemus in compromissis, minor an maior sit poena quam res de qua agitur.

We do not distinguish, in compromises, whether the penalty is lesser or greater than the matter at issue.

Dig. 4.8.32.1

Digest 4.8.32.1

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus, On the Edict, book 13.

Non cogetur arbiter sententiam dicere, si poena commissa sit.

An arbiter will not be compelled to pronounce sentence, if the penalty has been incurred.

Dig. 4.8.32.2

Digest 4.8.32.2

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus 13 on the Edict.

Si mulier alieno nomine compromittat, non erit pecunia compromissa propter intercessionem.

If a woman enters into a compromissum in another’s name, the money stipulated in the compromissum will not be owed on account of intercession.

Dig. 4.8.32.3

Digest 4.8.32.3

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus 13 on the edict.

Summa rei est, ut praetor se non interponat, sive initio nullum sit compromissum: sive sit, sed pendeat, an ex eo poena exigi potest: sive postea deficiat poena compromisso soluto die morte acceptilatione iudicio pacto.

The sum of the matter is that the praetor should not interpose himself, whether at the outset there is no compromise (compromissum): or there is, but it hangs in doubt whether a penalty can be exacted from it: or afterwards the penalty fails, the compromise being dissolved by the term being discharged, by death, by acceptilation, by judgment, or by pact.

Dig. 4.8.32.4

Digest 4.8.32.4

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus 13 on the edict.

Sacerdotio obveniente videbimus an cogatur arbiter sententiam dicere: id enim non tantum honori personarum, sed et maiestati dei indulgetur, cuius sacris vacare sacerdotes oportet. ceterum si postea suscepit, iste quoque omnimodo sententiam ferre debet.

With the priesthood supervening, we shall see whether the arbiter is compelled to speak the sentence: for this is indulged not only to the honor of persons, but also to the majesty of God, whose sacred rites it is fitting that priests be free to attend. But if he undertook it afterward, this one too must by all means render the sentence.

Dig. 4.8.32.5

Digest 4.8.32.5

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus 13 on the Edict.

Item non est cogendus, si de negotio transactum est, vel homo mortuus est de quo erat compromissum: nisi si posteriore casu aliquid litigantium intersit.

Likewise he is not to be compelled, if the matter has been settled by transaction, or the person about whom there was a compromise has died: unless, in the latter case, the litigants have some interest.

Dig. 4.8.32.6

Digest 4.8.32.6

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus book 13 on the Edict.

Iulianus indistincte scribit: si per errorem de famoso delicto ad arbitrum itum est, vel de ea re, de qua publicum iudicium sit constitutum, veluti de adulteriis sicariis et similibus, vetare debet praetor sententiam dicere nec dare dictae exsecutionem.

Julian writes indiscriminately: if by error a matter of a notorious (famous) offense has been brought to an arbiter, or a matter for which a public iudicium has been constituted, for example concerning adulteries, assassins (sicarii), and the like, the praetor ought to forbid a sententia to be pronounced and not to grant execution of one pronounced.

Dig. 4.8.32.7

Digest 4.8.32.7

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus 13 on the Edict.

De liberali causa compromisso facto recte non compelletur arbiter sententiam dicere, quia favor libertatis est, ut maiores iudices habere debeat. eadem dicenda sunt, sive de ingenuitate sive de libertinitate quaestio sit et si ex fideicommissi causa libertas deberi dicatur. idem dicendum est in populari actione.

concerning a cause of liberty, when a compromise has been made, the arbiter is rightly not compelled to pronounce sentence, because there is a favor of liberty, namely that he ought to have greater judges. the same things are to be said, whether the question is about freeborn status or about freedman status, and if liberty is said to be owed by reason of a fideicommiss. the same is to be said in a popular action.

Dig. 4.8.32.8

Digest 4.8.32.8

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus book 13 on the Edict.

Si servus compromiserit, non cogendum dicere sententiam arbitrum, nec si dixerit, poenae exsecutionem dandam de peculio putat octavenus. sed an, si liber cum eo compromiserit, exsecutio adversus liberum detur, videamus: sed magis est, ut non detur.

If a slave has made a compromise (compromissum), the arbiter is not to be compelled to pronounce a sentence; nor, if he has pronounced it, does Octavenus think that execution of the penalty should be granted from the peculium. But as to whether, if a free man has made a compromise with him, execution should be given against the free man, let us consider: but the better view is that it should not be given.

Dig. 4.8.32.9

Digest 4.8.32.9

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus 13 On the Edict.

Item si quis romae compromiserit, mox romam in legationem venerit: non est cogendus arbiter sententiam dicere, non magis quam cogeretur, si litem ante contestatus esset, nunc eam exercere: nec interest, tunc quoque in legatione fuerit an non. sed si nunc in legatione compromittat, puto cogendum arbitrum sententiam dicere, quia et si iudicium sponte accepisset, cogeretur peragere. sunt tamen qui de isto non recte dubitant: qui utique nullo modo dubitabunt, si de ea re in legatione compromisit, quam in legatione contraxit: quia et iudicium eo nomine accipere cogeretur.

Likewise, if someone has entered into a compromise at Rome, and soon thereafter has come to Rome on an embassy: the arbiter is not to be compelled to pronounce a sentence, any more than he would be compelled, if he had previously joined issue in a suit, now to prosecute it; nor does it matter whether at that time he also was on an embassy or not. But if he now, while on an embassy, should compromise, I think the arbiter must be compelled to pronounce a sentence, because even if he had accepted a judgment of his own accord, he would be compelled to carry it through. There are, however, some who not rightly doubt about this—who, at any rate, will by no means doubt, if he, while on an embassy, compromised concerning that matter which he contracted while on an embassy: because he would also be compelled to accept a judgment under that head.

illud in prima specie potest dispici, an, si ante compromisit legatus, cogendus sit arbiter sententiam dicere, si ipse legatus postulet: quod prima ratione poterit videri iniquum, ut in ipsius potestate sit. sed hoc tale erit, quale si actionem velit dictare, quod facere ei licet. sed compromissum istud comparabimus ordinariae actioni, ut non alias audiatur desiderans, ut arbiter sententiam dicat, quam si se defendat.

that point can be discerned at first glance, namely, whether, if a legate previously made a compromise, the arbiter should be compelled to pronounce sentence if the legate himself requests it: which at first reasoning might seem inequitable, that it should lie in his own power. but this will be of the same sort as if he should wish to dictate an action, which it is permitted for him to do. but we will compare that compromise to an ordinary action, so that the one desiring that the arbiter pronounce sentence is not to be heard otherwise than if he defends himself.

Dig. 4.8.32.10

Digest 4.8.32.10

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus 13 on the edict.

Si is faciat controversiam hereditatis, qui cum defuncto compromiserat, futurum est praeiudicium hereditati, si arbiter sententiam dicat: ergo interea inhibendus est arbiter.

If the one who had entered into a compromise with the deceased brings a controversy of the inheritance, there will be a prejudgment to the inheritance if the arbiter pronounces sentence; therefore, in the meantime, the arbiter is to be inhibited.

Dig. 4.8.32.11

Digest 4.8.32.11

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus 13 on the Edict.

Dies compromissi proferri potest, non cum ex conventione, sed cum iussu arbitri eam proferri necesse est, ne poena committatur.

The day of the compromissum can be postponed, not when by agreement, but when by the order of the arbiter it must be postponed, lest the penalty be incurred.

Dig. 4.8.32.12

Digest 4.8.32.12

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus, 13 on the Edict.

Si arbiter sese celare temperaverit, praetor eum investigare debet, et si diu non paruerit, multa adversus eum dicenda est.

If the arbiter shall have concealed himself, the praetor ought to investigate him, and if he has not obeyed for a long time, a fine is to be pronounced against him.

Dig. 4.8.32.13

Digest 4.8.32.13

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus 13 on the Edict.

Cum in plures compromissum est ea condicione, ut quilibet vel unus dixisset sententiam, eo staretur, absentibus ceteris nihilo minus qui praesens est cogetur: at si ea condicione, ut omnes dicant, vel quod de maioris partis sententia placuerit, non debet singulos separatim cogere, quia singulorum sententia ad poenam non facit.

When a compromissum has been made among several on this condition, that anyone, even a single one, should have pronounced the sentence, that shall be abided by; with the others absent, nonetheless he who is present will be compelled. But if on this condition, that all speak, or that whatever shall have been approved by the sentence of the majority, he ought not to compel individuals separately, because the sentences of individuals do not give rise to a penalty.

Dig. 4.8.32.14

Digest 4.8.32.14

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus 13 on the Edict.

Cum quidam arbiter ex aliis causis inimicus manifeste apparuisset, testationibus etiam conventus, ne sententiam diceret, nihilo minus nullo cogente dicere perseverasset, libello cuiusdam id querentis imperator antoninus subscripsit posse eum uti doli mali exceptione. et idem, cum a iudice consuleretur, apud quem poena petebatur, rescripsit, etiamsi appellari non potest, doli mali exceptionem in poenae petitione obstaturam. per hanc ergo exceptionem quaedam appellandi species est, cum liceat retractare de sententia arbitri.

When a certain arbiter had manifestly appeared as an enemy from other causes, and even after being served with formal protests not to pronounce a sentence, nonetheless, with no one compelling him, he persisted in pronouncing it, Emperor Antoninus endorsed on the petition of a certain person complaining of this that he could use the exception of dolus malus. And the same emperor, when he was consulted by a judge before whom a penalty was being sought, wrote back that, even if an appeal cannot be taken, the exception of dolus malus will obstruct the demand for the penalty. Therefore, through this exception there is a certain species of appealing, since it is permitted to re-examine the sentence of the arbiter.

Dig. 4.8.32.15

Digest 4.8.32.15

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus 13 on the edict.

De officio arbitri tractantibus sciendum est omnem tractatum ex ipso compromisso sumendum: nec enim aliud illi licebit, quam quod ibi ut efficere possit cautum est: non ergo quod libet statuere arbiter poterit nec in qua re libet nisi de qua re compromissum est et quatenus compromissum est.

For those treating of the office of the arbiter, it must be known that the whole conduct is to be taken from the compromise itself: for nothing else will be permitted to him than what is there stipulated so that he may be able to effect it: therefore the arbiter will not be able to establish whatever he pleases, nor in whatever matter he pleases, except concerning the matter about which a compromise has been made, and to the extent to which a compromise has been made.

Dig. 4.8.32.16

Digest 4.8.32.16

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus 13 on the edict.

Quaesitum est de sententia dicenda, et dictum non quamlibet, licet de quibusdam variatum sit. et puto vere non committi, si dicat ad iudicem de hoc eundum vel in se vel in alium compromittendum. nam et iulianus impune non pareri, si iubeat ad alium arbitrum ire, ne finis non sit: quod si hoc modo dixerit, ut arbitrio publii maevii fundus traderetur aut satisdatio detur, parendum esse sententiae.

It has been asked about the sentence to be pronounced, and it has been said that not just any sentence is permissible, although in certain matters practice has varied. And I truly think no fault is committed if he says that one must go to a judge (iudex) about this, or that a compromise/submission (compromissum) must be made, either to himself or to another. For Julian likewise allows that one may with impunity not obey, if he orders going to another arbitrator, lest there be no end; but if he has spoken in this way—that, by the award (arbitrium) of Publius Maevius, the estate (fundus) be handed over, or that security (satisdatio) be given—the sentence must be obeyed.

idem pedius probat: ne propagentur arbitria, aut in alios interdum inimicos agentium transferantur, sua sententia finem controversiae eum imponere oportet: non autem finiri controversiam, cum aut differatur arbitrium aut in alium transferatur: partemque sententiae esse, quemadmodum satisdetur, quibus fideiussoribus, idque delegari non posse, nisi ad hoc compromissum sit, ut arbiter statueret, cuius arbitratu satisdaretur.

the same Pedius approves: lest arbitrations be prolonged, or be transferred at times to others hostile to the litigants, he ought to impose an end to the controversy by his own decision; nor is the controversy finished when either the arbitration is deferred or transferred to another; and it is part of the decision in what manner security is to be given, and with which fideiussors (sureties), and that this cannot be delegated, unless there has been a compromise to this effect: that the arbiter should determine at whose arbitrament security is to be given.

Dig. 4.8.32.17

Digest 4.8.32.17

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus 13 on the Edict.

Item si iubeat sibi alium coniungi, cum id in compromisso non sit, non dicit sententiam: nam sententia esse debet de re compromissa, de hoc autem compromissum non est.

Likewise, if he should order that another be joined to himself, since that is not in the compromissum, he does not pronounce a sentence: for the sentence ought to be about the matter compromised, but concerning this there is no compromissum.

Dig. 4.8.32.18

Digest 4.8.32.18

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus 13 on the Edict.

Si domini, qui invicem stipulati sint, procuratores suos agere apud arbitrum velint, potest iubere ipsos etiam adesse:

If the owners, who have stipulated with one another, should wish their procurators to act before the arbiter, he can order that they themselves also be present:

Dig. 4.8.32.19

Digest 4.8.32.19

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus 13 On the Edict.

Sed si et heredis in compromissis mentio fit, potest iubere etiam heredem eorum adesse.

But if mention is made also of the heir in the compromise agreements, he can order even their heir to be present.

Dig. 4.8.32.20

Digest 4.8.32.20

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus 13 on the Edict.

Arbitri officio continetur et quemadmodum detur vacua possessio. an et satis ratam rem habiturum? sextus pedius putat, quod nullam rationem habet: nam si ratum non habeat dominus, committetur stipulatio.

It is contained within the arbiter’s office also in what manner vacant possession is to be given. And whether he should also take surety for “that he will have the matter ratified”? Sextus Pedius thinks that this has no rationale: for if the owner does not have it ratified, the stipulation will be committed.

Dig. 4.8.32.21

Digest 4.8.32.21

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paul 13 on the Edict.

Arbiter nihil extra compromissum facere potest et ideo necessarium est adici de die compromissi proferenda: ceterum impune iubenti non parebitur.

An arbiter can do nothing beyond the compromissum, and therefore it is necessary to add a provision concerning deferring the day of the compromissum; otherwise, he who gives the order will be disobeyed with impunity.

Dig. 4.8.33

Digest 4.8.33

Papinianus 1 quaest.

Papinian 1 Questions.

Arbiter ita sumptus ex compromisso, ut et diem proferre possit, hoc quidem facere potest: referre autem contradicentibus litigatoribus non potest.

An arbitrator thus appointed on a compromissum, such that he may also adjourn the day, can indeed do this; but he cannot refer the matter when the litigants object.

Dig. 4.8.34pr.

Digest 4.8.34 pr.

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus 13 on the Edict.

Si duo rei sunt aut credendi aut debendi et unus compromiserit isque vetitus sit petere aut ne ab eo petatur: videndum est, an si alius petat vel ab alio petatur, poena committatur: idem in duobus argentariis quorum nomina simul eunt. et fortasse poterimus ita fideiussoribus coniungere, si socii sunt: alias nec a te petitur, nec ego peto, nec meo nomine petitur, licet a te petatur.

If there are two parties liable either on the creditor’s side or on the debtor’s side, and one has entered a compromise and is forbidden to sue or that suit be brought against him, it must be considered whether, if the other sues or is sued, the penalty is incurred; the same in the case of two bankers whose “names go together.” And perhaps we can in this way connect guarantors, if they are partners; otherwise, neither is it demanded by you, nor do I demand, nor is it demanded in my name, although it is demanded from you.

Dig. 4.8.34.1

Digest 4.8.34.1

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus 13 on the Edict.

Semel commissa poena solvi compromissum rectius puto dici nec amplius posse committi, nisi id actum sit ut in singulas causas totiens committatur.

Once the penalty has been incurred, I think it is more correct to say that the compromise is dissolved and that it cannot be incurred further, unless it has been arranged that, for individual causes, it be incurred as often.

Dig. 4.8.35

Digest 4.8.35

Gaius 5 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 5 on the provincial edict.

Si pupillus sine tutoris auctoritate compromiserit, non est arbiter cogendus pronuntiare, quia si contra eum pronuntietur, poena non tenetur: praeterquam si fideiussorem dederit, a quo poena peti possit. idque et iulianus sentit.

If a pupil has entered into a compromissum without the tutor’s authority, the arbiter is not to be compelled to pronounce, because if it were pronounced against him, the penalty is not binding—except if he has provided a surety (fideiussor), from whom the penalty can be sought. And Julianus thinks this as well.

Dig. 4.8.36

Digest 4.8.36

Ulpianus 77 ad ed.

Ulpian, 77 on the Edict.

Si feriatis diebus cogente praetore arbiter dicat sententiam et petatur ex compromisso poena, exceptionem locum non habere constat, nisi alia lege eadem dies feriata, in qua sententia dicta est, excepta.

If on feriate days, with the praetor compelling, the arbiter pronounces sentence and the penalty is sought from the compromise, it is agreed that the exception has no place, unless by another law that same feriate day on which the sentence was pronounced is excepted.

Dig. 4.8.37

Digest 4.8.37

Celsus 2 Dig.

Celsus 2 Digest.

Quamvis arbiter alterum ab altero petere vetuit, si tamen heres petit, poenam committet: non enim differendarum litium causa, sed tollendarum ad arbitros itur.

Although the arbiter forbade one to demand from the other, nevertheless if the heir makes a demand, he will incur the penalty: for one goes to arbiters not for the sake of deferring litigation, but of abolishing it.

Dig. 4.8.38

Digest 4.8.38

Modestinus 6 reg.

Modestinus Rules 6.

Cum poena ex compromisso petitur, is qui commisit damnandus est, nec interest, an adversarii eius interfuit arbitri sententia stari nec ne.

When a penalty is demanded out of a compromise, the one who has committed the breach must be condemned, and it makes no difference whether it was in his adversary’s interest to abide by the arbitrator’s sentence or not.

Dig. 4.8.39pr.

Digest 4.8.39pr.

Iavolenus 11 ex cass.

Javolenus 11 from Cassius.

Non ex omnibus causis, ex quibus arbitri paritum sententiae non est, poena ex compromisso committitur, sed ex his dumtaxat, quae ad solutionem pecuniae aut operam praebendam pertinent. idem. contumaciam litigatoris arbiter punire poterit pecuniam eum adversario dare iubendo: quo in numero haberi non oportet, si testium nomina ex sententia arbitri exhibita non sunt.

Not from all causes in which the arbitrator’s award has not been obeyed is the penalty under the compromissum incurred, but only from those which pertain to the payment of money or to the furnishing of service. the same. The arbitrator will be able to punish the litigant’s contumacy by ordering him to give money to his adversary: which ought not to be held in that number, if the names of witnesses have not been exhibited according to the arbitrator’s award.

Dig. 4.8.39.1

Digest 4.8.39.1

Iavolenus 11 ex cass.

Javolenus 11 from Cassius.

Cum arbiter diem compromissi proferri iussit, cum hoc ei permissum est, alterius mora alteri ad poenam committendam prodest.

When the arbiter has ordered the day fixed by the compromise to be deferred, since this is permitted to him, the delay of the one benefits the other toward the penalty being incurred.

Dig. 4.8.40

Digest 4.8.40

Pomponius 11 ex var. lect.

Pomponius 11 from various readings.

Arbiter calendis ianuariis adesse iussit et ante eum diem decessit: alter ex litigatoribus non adfuit. procul dubio poena minime commissa est: nam et cassium audisse se dicentem aristo ait in eo arbitro, qui ipse non venisset, non esse commissam: quemadmodum servius ait, si per stipulatorem stet, quo minus accipiat, non committi poenam.

The arbiter ordered (them) to be present on the Kalends of January and before that day he died: one of the litigants did not appear. Without doubt the penalty is by no means incurred: for Aristo says that he heard Cassius saying that, in the case of an arbiter who himself had not come, it is not incurred; just as Servius says, if it depends on the stipulator that he not accept, the penalty is not incurred.

Dig. 4.8.41

Digest 4.8.41

Callistratus 1 ed. monit.

Callistratus 1 Monitory on the Edict.

Cum lege iulia cautum sit, ne minor viginti annis iudicare cogatur, nemini licere minorem viginti annis compromissarium iudicem eligere: ideoque poena ex sententia eius nullo modo committitur. maiori tamen viginti annis, si minor viginti quinque annis sit, ex hac causa succurrendum, si temere auditorium receperit, multi dixerunt.

Since by the Julian law it is provided that one under twenty years is not to be compelled to judge, it is permitted to no one to choose as a compromissary judge a person under twenty years; and therefore the penalty on the basis of his sentence is in no way incurred. Nevertheless, for one over twenty years, if he is under twenty-five years, on this account relief should be afforded, if he has rashly undertaken the hearing, many have said.

Dig. 4.8.42

Digest 4.8.42

Papinianus 2 resp.

Papinian 2 Responses.

Arbiter intra certum diem servos restitui iussit, quibus non restitutis poenae causa fisco secundum formam compromissi condemnavit: ob eam sententiam fisco nihil adquiritur, sed nihilo minus stipulationis poena committitur, quod ab arbitro statuto non sit obtemperatum.

An arbiter ordered that the slaves be restored within a fixed day; when they were not restored, he condemned to the fiscus, for the sake of a penalty, according to the form of the compromissum: by that sentence nothing is acquired to the fiscus, but nonetheless the penalty of the stipulation is incurred, because what was laid down by the appointed arbiter was not obeyed.

Dig. 4.8.43

Digest 4.8.43

Scaevola 1 resp.

Scaevola 1 response.

De rebus controversiisque omnibus compromissum in arbitrum a lucio titio et maevio sempronio factum est, sed errore quaedam species in petitionem a lucio titio deductae non sunt nec arbiter de his quicquam pronuntiavit: quaesitum est an species omissae peti possint. respondit peti posse nec poenam ex compromisso committi. quod si maligne hoc fecit, petere quidem potest, sed poenae subiugabitur.

A compromissum to an arbitrator concerning all matters and controversies was made by lucius titius and maevios sempronius, but through error certain particulars were not brought into the petition by lucius titius, nor did the arbitrator pronounce anything about these: it was asked whether the omitted particulars can be sought. He responded that they can be sought, nor is the penalty under the compromissum incurred. But if he did this in bad faith, he can indeed seek, but he will be subjected to the penalty.

Dig. 4.8.44

Digest 4.8.44

Scaevola 2 Dig.

Scaevola 2 Digest.

Inter castellianum et seium controversia de finibus orta est et arbiter electus est, ut arbitratu eius res terminetur: ipse sententiam dixit praesentibus partibus et terminos posuit: quaesitum est, an si ex parte castelliani arbitro paritum non esset, poena ex compromisso commissa est. respondi, si arbitro paritum non esset in eo, quod utroque praesente arbitratus esset, poenam commissam.

Between castellianus and seius a controversy over boundaries arose, and an arbiter was chosen, that by his arbitrament the matter be terminated: he himself pronounced sentence with the parties present and set the boundaries: it was asked whether, if on the part of castellianus obedience were not paid to the arbiter, the penalty under the compromissum was incurred. I answered: if obedience were not paid to the arbiter in that which he had arbitrated with both present, the penalty was incurred.

Dig. 4.8.45

Digest 4.8.45

Ulpianus 28 ad sab.

Ulpian 28 on Sabinus.

In compromissis arbitrium personae insertum personam non egreditur.

In compromissory agreements, an arbitrament inserted as to the person does not exceed the person.

Dig. 4.8.46

Digest 4.8.46

Paulus 12 ad sab.

Paulus 12 to sab.

De his rebus et rationibus et controversiis iudicare arbiter potest, quae ab initio fuissent inter eos qui compromiserunt, non quae postea supervenerunt.

An arbiter can judge concerning those matters, accounts, and controversies which had existed from the beginning between those who entered into a compromise, not those which afterwards supervened.

Dig. 4.8.47pr.

Digest 4.8.47pr.

Iulianus 4 Dig.

Julianus 4 Digest.

Si compromissum ita factum est, ut praesente utroque aut heredibus eorum arbiter sententiam dicat et alter ex litigatoribus decesserit pupillo herede relicto, non aliter videtur sententia dicta esse, nisi tutoris auctoritas interposita fuerit.

If a compromise has been made in such a way that the arbiter shall pronounce the sentence with both present, or their heirs, and one of the litigants has died leaving a ward as heir, the sentence is not otherwise seen to have been pronounced unless the authority of the tutor (guardian) has been interposed.

Dig. 4.8.47.1

Digest 4.8.47.1

Iulianus 4 Dig.

Julianus 4 Digest.

Item si alter ex compromittentibus furere coeperit,

likewise, if one of the parties to the compromise begins to be insane,

Dig. 4.8.48

Digest 4.8.48

Modestinus 4 reg.

Modestinus book 4 of the Rules.

Arbiter ad ferendam sententiam non compelletur:

An arbiter is not to be compelled to render a judgment:

Dig. 4.8.49pr.

Digest 4.8.49 pr.

Iulianus 4 Dig.

Julianus Digest 4

Sed et interpellatur, quo minus sententiam dicat, quia nihil coram furioso fieri intellegitur. quod si furiosus curatorem habet vel habuerit adhuc litigio pendente, potest praesente curatore sententia dici.

But he is also hindered from declaring sentence, because nothing is understood to be done in the presence of a madman. But if the madman has a curator or has had one while the litigation is still pending, sentence can be declared with the curator present.

Dig. 4.8.49.1

Digest 4.8.49.1

Iulianus 4 Dig.

Julianus 4 Digest.

Arbiter adesse litigatores vel per nuntium vel epistulam iubere potest.

An arbiter can order the litigants to be present either through a messenger or by letter.

Dig. 4.8.49.2

Digest 4.8.49.2

Iulianus 4 Dig.

Julian 4 Digest.

Si ab altera dumtaxat parte heredis mentio comprehensa fuerit, compromissum solvetur morte cuiusque ex litigatoribus, sicut solveretur altero mortuo, si neutrius heredis persona comprehenderetur.

If the mention of an heir has been comprehended on only one side, the compromise will be dissolved by the death of either of the litigants, just as it would be dissolved upon one having died, if the person of neither heir were comprehended.

Dig. 4.8.50

Digest 4.8.50

Alfenus 7 Dig.

Alfenus 7 Digest.

Arbiter ex compromisso sumptus cum ante eum diem, qui constitutus compromisso erat, sententiam dicere non posset, diem compromissi proferri iusserat: alter ex litigatoribus dicto audiens non fuerat: consulebatur possetne ab eo pecunia ex compromisso peti. respondi non posse, ideo quod non esset arbitro permissum ut id iuberet.

An arbiter appointed under a compromissum (arbitration agreement), since before the day which had been fixed by the compromissum he could not pronounce his sentence, had ordered the day of the compromissum to be extended: one of the litigants was not obedient to the order; it was consulted whether money could be claimed from him under the compromissum. I replied that it could not, for the reason that it was not permitted to the arbiter to order that.

Dig. 4.8.51

Digest 4.8.51

Marcianus 2 reg.

Marcianus 2 Rules.

Si de re sua quis arbiter factus sit, sententiam dicere non potest, quia se facere iubeat aut petere prohibeat: neque autem imperare sibi neque se prohibere quisquam potest.

If someone has been made an arbiter concerning his own matter, he cannot pronounce sentence, because he would be commanding himself to do or prohibiting himself to bring suit: moreover, no one can command himself nor prohibit himself.

Dig. 4.8.52

Digest 4.8.52

Marcianus 4 reg.

Marcianus 4 Rules.

Si qui iussus est ab arbitro ex compromisso solvere pecuniam moram fecerit, poenam ex compromisso debet, sed postea solvendo poena liberatur.

If anyone who has been ordered by an arbiter under a compromissum to pay money makes delay, he owes the penalty under the compromissum; but thereafter, by paying, he is released from the penalty.

Dig. 4.9.0. Nautae caupones stabularii ut recepta restituant.

Digest 4.9.0. Mariners, innkeepers, and stable-keepers, that they restore what has been received.

Dig. 4.9.1pr.

Digest 4.9.1, preface.

Ulpianus 14 ad ed.

Ulpian 14 on the Edict.

Ait praetor: " nautae caupones stabularii quod cuiusque salvum fore receperint nisi restituent, in eos iudicium dabo".

The praetor says: " sailors, innkeepers, and stablekeepers—whatever of anyone’s they have received to be kept safe, unless they restore it, I will grant an action against them".

Dig. 4.9.1.1

Digest 4.9.1.1

Ulpianus 14 ad ed.

Ulpian 14 on the edict.

Maxima utilitas est huius edicti, quia necesse est plerumque eorum fidem sequi et res custodiae eorum committere. ne quisquam putet graviter hoc adversus eos constitutum: nam est in ipsorum arbitrio, ne quem recipiant, et nisi hoc esset statutum, materia daretur cum furibus adversus eos quos recipiunt coeundi, cum ne nunc quidem abstineant huiusmodi fraudibus.

There is the greatest utility in this edict, because it is for the most part necessary to follow their good faith and to commit things to their custody. Let no one think that this has been constituted harshly against them: for it is within their discretion not to receive anyone; and unless this had been established, occasion would be afforded for joining with thieves against those whom they do receive, since not even now do they refrain from frauds of this sort.

Dig. 4.9.1.2

Digest 4.9.1.2

Ulpianus 14 ad ed.

Ulpian 14 on the edict.

Qui sunt igitur, qui teneantur, videndum est. ait praetor " nautae". nautam accipere debemus eum qui navem exercet: quamvis nautae appellantur omnes, qui navis navigandae causa in nave sint: sed de exercitore solummodo praetor sentit. nec enim debet, inquit pomponius, per remigem aut mesonautam obligari, sed per se vel per navis magistrum: quamquam si ipse alicui e nautis committi iussit, sine dubio debeat obligari.

Who, then, are those who are to be held liable must be considered. The praetor says " sailors". We ought to take "sailor" as the one who operates a ship; although all are called sailors who are on the ship for the sake of navigating the ship, the praetor has in view only the exercitor. For he ought not, says pomponius, to be bound through a rower or a mesonaut, but by himself or through the ship’s master; although if he himself ordered that it be entrusted to someone from among the sailors, without doubt he ought to be bound.

Dig. 4.9.1.3

Digest 4.9.1.3

Ulpianus 14 ad ed.

Ulpian, 14 on the edict.

Et sunt quidam in navibus, qui custodiae gratia navibus praeponuntur, ut naufulakes et diaetarii. si quis igitur ex his receperit, puto in exercitorem dandam actionem, quia is, qui eos huiusmodi officio praeponit, committi eis permittit, quamquam ipse navicularius vel magister id faciat, quod xeirembolon appellant. sed et si hoc non exercet, tamen de recepto navicularius tenebitur.

And there are certain persons on ships, who are set over the ships for the sake of custody, such as the naufulakes and the diaetarii. If, therefore, any one of these has received, I think an action should be given against the exercitor, because he who puts them in charge of an office of this sort allows things to be entrusted to them, although the navicularius or the magister himself does what they call the xeirembolon. But even if he does not practice this, nevertheless the navicularius will be held liable de recepto.

Dig. 4.9.1.4

Digest 4.9.1.4

Ulpianus 14 ad ed.

Ulpian 14 on the Edict.

De exercitoribus ratium, item lyntrariis nihil cavetur: sed idem constitui oportere labeo scribit, et hoc iure utimur.

Concerning the exercitors of rafts, likewise the linterarii, nothing is provided: but Labeo writes that the same ought to be constituted, and we use this law.

Dig. 4.9.1.5

Digest 4.9.1.5

Ulpianus 14 ad ed.

Ulpian, 14 on the edict.

Caupones autem et stabularios aeque eos accipiemus, qui cauponam vel stabulum exercent, institoresve eorum. ceterum si qui opera mediastini fungitur, non continetur, ut puta atriarii et focarii et his similes.

By “innkeepers and stable-keepers” we will likewise take in those who carry on an inn or a stable, and their factors. But if anyone performs the work of a mediastinus, he is not included—for instance, atrium-servants (atriarii) and hearth-men (focarii) and the like.

Dig. 4.9.1.6

Digest 4.9.1.6

Ulpianus 14 ad ed.

Ulpian 14 on the edict.

Ait praetor: " quod cuiusque ^ cuius^ salvum fore receperint": hoc est quamcumque rem sive mercem receperint. inde apud vivianum relatum est ad eas quoque res hoc edictum pertinere, quae mercibus accederent, veluti vestimenta quibus in navibus uterentur et cetera quae ad cottidianum usum habemus.

The praetor says: "whatever of anyone’s ^ cuius^ they have undertaken shall be kept safe": that is, whatever thing or merchandise they have received. And from this, in Vivianus it is reported that this edict also pertains to those things which accede to the merchandise, for example garments which they would use on ships, and the other things which we have for quotidian use.

Dig. 4.9.1.7

Digest 4.9.1.7

Ulpianus 14 ad ed.

Ulpian 14 on the Edict.

Item pomponius libro trigensimo quarto scribit parvi referre, res nostras an alienas intulerimus, si tamen nostra intersit salvas esse: etenim nobis magis, quam quorum sunt, debent solvi. et ideo si pignori merces accepero ob pecuniam nauticam, mihi magis quam debitori nauta tenebitur, si ante eas suscepit.

Likewise Pomponius in the 34th book writes that it matters little whether we have brought on board our own things or another’s, provided, however, that it is our interest that they be kept safe: for the sums ought to be paid to us rather than to those to whom they belong. And therefore, if I have accepted the merchandise in pledge on account of maritime money (a maritime loan), the shipmaster will be bound to me rather than to the debtor, if he had received them beforehand.

Dig. 4.9.1.8

Digest 4.9.1.8

Ulpianus 14 ad ed.

Ulpian 14 on the Edict.

Recipit autem salvum fore utrum si in navem res missae ei adsignatae sunt: an et si non sint adsignatae, hoc tamen ipso, quod in navem missae sunt, receptae videntur? et puto omnium eum recipere custodiam, quae in navem illatae sunt, et factum non solum nautarum praestare debere, sed et vectorum,

Does he, however, warrant that it will be safe only if the goods sent into the ship have been consigned to him? or even if they have not been consigned, nevertheless by this very fact, that they have been sent into the ship, do they seem to be received? And I think that he takes on the custody of all things which have been brought into the ship, and that he ought to answer for the act not only of the sailors but also of the passengers,

Dig. 4.9.2

Digest 4.9.2

Gaius 5 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 5 on the Provincial Edict

Sicut et caupo viatorum.

Just as also the innkeeper of travelers.

Dig. 4.9.3pr.

Digest 4.9.3pr.

Ulpianus 14 ad ed.

Ulpian 14 on the edict.

Et ita de facto vectorum etiam pomponius libro trigensimo quarto scribit. idem ait, etiamsi nondum sint res in navem receptae, sed in litore perierint, quas semel recepit, periculum ad eum pertinere.

And thus about the act of passengers Pomponius also writes in book 34. The same says that, even if the goods have not yet been received into the ship, but have perished on the shore, as to those which he has once accepted, the peril pertains to him.

Dig. 4.9.3.1

Digest 4.9.3.1

Ulpianus 14 ad ed.

Ulpian 14 on the Edict.

Ait praetor: " nisi restituent, in eos iudicium dabo". ex hoc edicto in factum actio proficiscitur. sed an sit necessaria, videndum, quia agi civili actione ex hac causa poterit: si quidem merces intervenerit, ex locato vel conducto: sed si tota navis locata sit, qui conduxit ex conducto etiam de rebus quae desunt agere potest: si vero res perferendas nauta conduxit, ex locato convenietur: sed si gratis res susceptae sint, ait pomponius depositi agi potuisse. miratur igitur, cur honoraria actio sit inducta, cum sint civiles: nisi forte, inquit, ideo, ut innotesceret praetor curam agere reprimendae improbitatis hoc genus hominum: et quia in locato conducto culpa, in deposito dolus dumtaxat praestatur, at hoc edicto omnimodo qui receperit tenetur, etiam si sine culpa eius res periit vel damnum datum est, nisi si quid damno fatali contingit.

The praetor says: "unless they restore, I will grant an action against them." From this edict an in factum action proceeds. But whether it is necessary must be considered, because one can proceed by a civil action in this cause: if indeed a fee has intervened, then from letting or from hiring; but if the whole ship has been let, the one who hired can also sue from hiring for the things that are missing; but if the shipmaster hired himself for carrying the goods, he will be proceeded against from letting; but if the things were undertaken gratis, Pomponius says an action of deposit could be brought. He therefore marvels why an honorary (praetorian) action was introduced, since there are civil ones—unless perhaps, he says, for this reason: that it might be made known that the praetor takes care to repress the depravity of this class of men; and because in letting and hiring negligence (culpa) is required to be made good, in deposit only fraud (dolus) is, but by this edict in every way the one who has received is held liable, even if the thing perished or damage was inflicted without his fault, unless something occurs by fatal damage.

inde labeo scribit, si quid naufragio aut per vim piratarum perierit, non esse iniquum exceptionem ei dari. idem erit dicendum et si in stabulo aut in caupona vis maior contigerit.

Then Labeo writes that, if anything has perished by shipwreck or by the force of pirates, it is not inequitable that an exception be granted to him. The same is to be said also if in a stable or in an inn a force majeure has occurred.

Dig. 4.9.3.2

Ulpianus 14 ad ed.

Ulpian, 14 On the Edict.

Eodem modo tenentur caupones et stabularii, quo exercentes negotium suum recipiunt: ceterum si extra negotium receperunt, non tenebuntur.

In the same way innkeepers and stable-keepers are held liable when, in exercising their business, they receive; but if they received outside the business, they will not be held liable.

Dig. 4.9.3.3

Digest 4.9.3.3

Ulpianus 14 ad ed.

Ulpian, 14 on the Edict.

Si filius familias aut servus receperit et voluntas patris domini intervenit, in solidum erit conveniendus. item si servus exercitoris subripuit vel damnum dedit, noxalis actio cessabit, quia ob receptum suo nomine dominus convenitur. sin vero sine voluntate exerceant, de peculio dabitur.

If a filiusfamilias or a slave has undertaken (the receptum) and the will of the father or master has intervened, he must be sued for the whole (in solidum). Likewise, if the slave of a shipowner (exercitor) has stolen or has given/caused damage, the noxal action will cease, because on account of the receptum the master is sued in his own name. But if, however, they conduct it without his will, recovery will be given from the peculium.

Dig. 4.9.3.4

Digest 4.9.3.4

Ulpianus 14 ad ed.

Ulpian 14 on the Edict.

Haec autem rei persecutionem continet, ut pomponius ait, et ideo et in heredem et perpetuo datur.

This moreover contains a pursuit of the thing, as Pomponius says, and therefore it is given both against the heir and perpetually.

Dig. 4.9.3.5

Digest 4.9.3.5

Ulpianus 14 ad ed.

Ulpian 14 On the Edict.

Novissime videndum, an eiusdem rei nomine et de recepto honoraria actione et furti agendum sit: et pomponius dubitat: sed magis est, ut vel officio iudicis vel doli exceptione alterutra esse contentus debeat.

Lastly it must be considered whether, for the same thing, one should proceed both by the honorary (praetorian) action “de recepto” and by the action of theft: and Pomponius is in doubt: but the better view is that he ought to be content with one or the other, either by the office of the judge or by the exception of fraud (exceptio doli).

Dig. 4.9.4pr.

Digest 4.9.4, beginning.

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus, 13 on the Edict.

Sed et ipsi nautae furti actio competit, cuius sit periculo, nisi si ipse subripiat et postea ab eo subripiatur, aut alio subripiente ipse nauta solvendo non sit.

But the action for theft also lies to the sailor himself, who bears the peril, unless he himself steals it and afterwards it is stolen from him, or, another doing the stealing, the sailor himself is not solvent.

Dig. 4.9.4.1

Digest 4.9.4.1

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus 13 on the Edict.

Si nauta nautae, stabularius stabularii, caupo cauponis receperit, aeque tenebitur.

If a sailor has received a sailor, a stable-keeper a stable-keeper, an innkeeper an innkeeper, he will be equally liable.

Dig. 4.9.4.2

Digest 4.9.4.2

Paulus 13 ad ed.

Paulus book 13 on the Edict.

Vivianus dixit etiam ad eas res hoc edictum pertinere, quae post impositas merces in navem locatasque inferentur, etsi earum vectura non debetur, ut vestimentorum, penoris cottidiani, quia haec ipsa ceterarum rerum locationi accedunt.

Vivianus said that this edict also pertains to those things which, after the goods have been put on board the ship and stowed, are brought aboard, even if freight is not owed for them, such as clothing and daily provisions, because these very items accede to the hiring of the other things.

Dig. 4.9.5pr.

Digest 4.9.5 pr.

Gaius 5 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 5 on the provincial edict.

Nauta et caupo et stabularius mercedem accipiunt non pro custodia, sed nauta ut traiciat vectores, caupo ut viatores manere in caupona patiatur, stabularius ut permittat iumenta apud eum stabulari: et tamen custodiae nomine tenentur. nam et fullo et sarcinator non pro custodia, sed pro arte mercedem accipiunt, et tamen custodiae nomine ex locato tenentur.

The sailor, the innkeeper, and the stable-keeper receive a fee not for custody, but the sailor so that he may ferry passengers across, the innkeeper so that he may allow travelers to remain in the inn, the stable-keeper so that he may permit beasts of burden to be stabled with him; and yet they are held under the name of custody. For both the fuller and the garment-mender receive a fee not for custody but for their art, and yet they are held under the name of custody by the action ex locato.

Dig. 4.9.5.1

Digest 4.9.5.1

Gaius 5 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius Book 5 on the provincial edict.

Quaecumque de furto diximus, eadem et de damno debent intellegi: non enim dubitari oportet, quin is, qui salvum fore recipit, non solum a furto, sed etiam a damno recipere videatur.

Whatever we have said about theft must be understood likewise about damage: for it ought not to be doubted that he who undertakes that it will be safe is seen to undertake to answer not only for theft but also for damage.

Dig. 4.9.6pr.

Digest 4.9.6 preface.

Paulus 22 ad ed.

Paulus 22 on the Edict.

Licet gratis navigaveris vel in caupona gratis deverteris, non tamen in factum actiones tibi denegabuntur, si damnum iniuria passus es.

Although you have navigated gratis or have lodged gratis in an inn, nevertheless actions in fact will not be denied to you, if you have suffered wrongful damage.

Dig. 4.9.6.1

Digest 4.9.6.1

Paulus 22 ad ed.

Paulus 22 on the Edict.

Si servo meo in nave vel in caupona utaris et damnum mihi det vel furtum faciat, quamquam et furti actio et damni iniuria mecum sit, haec tamen actio, quia in factum est, etiam servi mei nomine adversus te competit. idem dicetur, et si communis sit: tu tamen quod mihi praestiteris eius nomine, vel communi dividundo vel pro socio actione, aut si partem eius vel totum conduxisti, etiam ex conducto habebis me obligatum.

If you make use of my slave on a ship or in an inn and he causes me damage or commits theft, although both the action for theft and the action for wrongful damage lie with me, nevertheless this action—since it is in factum—also lies against you in my slave’s name. The same will be said if he is jointly owned: however, as to what you shall have rendered to me on his account, you will have me bound either by the communi dividundo action or the pro socio action; or, if you hired his share or the whole of him, you will also have me obligated ex conducto.

Dig. 4.9.6.2

Digest 4.9.6.2

Paulus 22 ad ed.

Paul, 22 on the edict.

Sed si damnum in eo datum sit ab alio, qui in eadem nave vel caupona est, cuius factum praetor aestimare solet, non putat pomponius eius nomine hanc actionem utilem futuram.

But if damage has been inflicted therein by another who is in the same ship or inn, whose deed the praetor is accustomed to assess, Pomponius does not think that this action will be useful in his name.

Dig. 4.9.6.3

Digest 4.9.6.3

Paulus 22 ad ed.

Paul 22 to the Edict.

In factum actione caupo tenetur pro his, qui habitandi causa in caupona sunt: hoc autem non pertinet ad eum, qui hospitio repentino recipitur, veluti viator.

By an actio in factum the innkeeper is held liable on behalf of those who are in the inn for the purpose of lodging; however, this does not pertain to one who is received for sudden hospitality, as a wayfarer.

Dig. 4.9.6.4

Digest 4.9.6.4

Paulus 22 ad ed.

Paulus 22 on the edict.

Possumus autem furti vel damni iniuriae actione uti cum nautis, ut certi hominis factum arguamus: sed una contenti esse debebimus, et si cum exercitore egerimus, praestare ei debemus actiones nostras, quamvis ex conducto actio adversus eos competat exercitori. sed si absolutus sit exercitor hac actione, deinde agatur cum nauta, exceptio dabitur, ne saepius de eiusdem hominis admisso quaeratur. et contra, si de admisso unius hominis actum sit, deinde in factum actione agatur, exceptio dabitur.

We can, moreover, employ the action for theft or for wrongful damage against sailors, in order that we may arraign the deed of a certain man: but we ought to be content with one [action]; and if we have proceeded against the ship-operator (exercitor), we ought to cede to him our actions, although an action ex conducto lies for the exercitor against them. But if the exercitor has been absolved in this action, and thereafter suit is brought against the sailor, an exception (defense) will be granted, lest inquiry be made more than once concerning the same man’s admitted wrongdoing. And conversely, if it has been sued upon concerning the admitted wrongdoing of one man, and thereafter suit is brought by an action in factum, an exception will be granted.

Dig. 4.9.7pr.

Digest 4.9.7pr.

Ulpianus 18 ad ed.

Ulpian 18 on the edict.

Debet exercitor omnium nautarum suorum, sive liberi sint sive servi, factum praestare: nec immerito factum eorum praestat, cum ipse eos suo periculo adhibuerit. sed non alias praestat, quam si in ipsa nave damnum datum sit: ceterum si extra navem licet a nautis, non praestabit. item si praedixerit, ut unusquisque vectorum res suas servet neque damnum se praestaturum, et consenserint vectores praedictioni, non convenitur.

The shipowner must make good the act of all his sailors, whether they are free or slaves; and not without reason does he make good their act, since he himself employed them at his own risk. But he is liable only if the damage was done on the ship itself; otherwise, if outside the ship, even if by the sailors, he will not be liable. Likewise, if he has given prior notice that each of the passengers should keep his own goods and that he will not make good any loss, and the passengers have consented to the notice, he is not proceeded against.

Dig. 4.9.7.1

Digest 4.9.7.1

Ulpianus 18 ad ed.

Ulpian 18 on the Edict.

Haec actio in factum in duplum est.

This action is on the facts, for double damages.

Dig. 4.9.7.2

Digest 4.9.7.2

Ulpianus 18 ad ed.

Ulpian 18 on the Edict.

Sed si quid nautae inter se damni dederint. hoc ad exercitorem non pertinet. sed si quis sit nauta et mercator, debiti illi dari: quod si quis quos volgo nautepibatas dicunt, et huic tenebitur, sed huius factum praestat, cum sit et nauta.

But if sailors have inflicted any damage among themselves, this does not pertain to the shipowner; but if someone is both sailor and merchant, the debt is to be paid to him: and if someone is one of those whom they commonly call “nautepibatas” (supercargoes), the shipowner will be liable to him as well, and he warrants this man’s act, since he is also a sailor.

Dig. 4.9.7.3

Digest 4.9.7.3

Ulpianus 18 ad ed.

Ulpian, 18 on the Edict.

Si servus nautae damnum dederit, licet servus nauta non sit, aequissimum erit in exercitorem actionem utilem dare.

If a sailor’s slave has given (caused) damage, although the slave is not a sailor, it will be most equitable to grant a useful action against the shipowner.

Dig. 4.9.7.4

Digest 4.9.7.4

Ulpianus 18 ad ed.

Ulpian, 18 on the Edict.

Hac autem actione suo nomine exercitor tenetur, culpae scilicet suae qui tales adhibuit: et ideo et si decesserint, non relevabitur. servorum autem suorum nomine noxali dumtaxat tenetur: nam cum alienos adhibet, explorare eum oportet, cuius fidei, cuius innocentiae sint: in suis venia dignus est, si qualesquales ad instruendam navem adhibuerit.

By this action the shipowner is held in his own name, namely for his own fault in that he employed such persons; and therefore, even if they have died, he will not be relieved. However, in respect of his own slaves he is held merely noxally: for when he employs those of another, he ought to explore of what trustworthiness, of what innocence they are; in his own he is worthy of indulgence, if he has employed whatever sort for equipping the ship.

Dig. 4.9.7.5

Digest 4.9.7.5

Ulpianus 18 ad ed.

Ulpian, 18 on the Edict.

Si plures navem exerceant, unusquisque pro parte, qua navem exercet, convenitur.

If several operate a ship, each person is proceeded against for the share in which he operates the ship.

Dig. 4.9.7.6

Digest 4.9.7.6

Ulpianus 18 ad ed.

Ulpian, 18 on the edict.

Haec iudicia quamvis honoraria sunt, tamen perpetua sunt: in heredem autem non dabuntur. proinde et si servus navem exercuit et mortuus est, de peculio non dabitur actio in dominum nec intra annum. sed cum voluntate patris vel domini servus vel filius exercent navem vel cauponam vel stabulum, puto etiam hanc actionem in solidum eos pati debere, quasi omnia, quae ibi contingunt, in solidum receperint.

These judgments, although honorary, are nevertheless perpetual; however, they will not be granted against the heir. Accordingly, even if a slave has operated a ship and has died, an action de peculio will not be given against the master, not even within a year. But when, with the will of the father or master, a slave or a son operates a ship or an inn or a stable, I think that they also ought to be liable to this action for the whole (in solidum), as if they had undertaken for the whole (in solidum) all the things that happen there.