Justinian: DIGESTA

Exceptio dicta est quasi quaedam exclusio, quae opponi actioni cuiusque rei solet ad excludendum id, quod in intentionem condemnationemve deductum est.

An exception is so called as a kind of exclusion, which is usually opposed to the action in any case, in order to exclude that which has been brought into the intention or the condemnation.

Dig. 44.1.2.1

Digest 44.1.2.1

Ulpianus 74 ad ed.

Ulpian, 74 on the Edict.

Replicationes nihil aliud sunt quam exceptiones, et a parte actoris veniunt: quae quidem ideo necessariae sunt, ut exceptiones excludant: semper enim replicatio idcirco obicitur, ut exceptionem oppugnet.

Replications are nothing other than exceptions, and they come from the plaintiff’s side: which indeed are necessary for this reason, to exclude exceptions; for a replication is always put forward for this reason, to attack the exception.

Dig. 44.1.2.2

Digest 44.1.2.2

Ulpianus 74 ad ed.

Ulpian 74 On the Edict.

Illud tenendum est omnem exceptionem vel replicationem exclusoriam esse: exceptio actorem excludit, replicatio reum.

It must be held that every exception or replication is exclusionary: the exception excludes the plaintiff, the replication the defendant.

Dig. 44.1.2.3

Digest 44.1.2.3

Ulpianus 74 ad ed.

Ulpian 74 on the Edict.

Sed et contra replicationem solet dari triplicatio, et contra triplicationem rursus et deinceps multiplicantur nomina, dum aut reus aut actor obicit.

But also against a replication a triplication is usually given; and against a triplication again, and thereafter the names are multiplied, while either the defendant or the plaintiff objects.

Dig. 44.1.2.4

Digest 44.1.2.4

Ulpianus 74 ad ed.

Ulpian, 74 on the Edict.

Sane solemus dicere quasdam exceptiones esse dilatorias, quasdam peremptorias: ut puta dilatoria est exceptio, quae differt actionem, veluti procuratoria exceptio dilatoria est: nam qui dicit non licere procuratorio nomine agi, non prorsus litem infitiatur, sed personam evitat.

Surely we are accustomed to say that certain exceptions are dilatory, certain peremptory: as, for example, a dilatory exception is one which defers the action, just as the procuratorial exception is dilatory: for he who says that it is not permitted to proceed in a procurator’s name does not altogether deny the lawsuit, but avoids the person.

Dig. 44.1.3

Digest 44.1.3

Gaius 1 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 1 on the provincial edict.

Exceptiones aut perpetuae et peremptoriae sunt aut temporales et dilatoriae. perpetuae atque peremptoriae sunt, quae semper locum habent nec evitari possunt, qualis est doli mali et rei iudicatae et si quid contra legem senatusve consultum factum esse dicetur, item pacti conventi perpetui, id est ne omnino pecunia petatur. temporales atque dilatoriae sunt, quae non semper locum habent, sed evitari possunt, qualis est pacti conventi temporalis, id est ne forte intra quinquennium ageretur: procuratoriae quoque exceptiones dilatoriae sunt, quae evitari possunt.

Exceptions are either perpetual and peremptory or temporal and dilatory. perpetual and peremptory are those which always have place and cannot be avoided, such as of dolus malus and res judicata, and if it shall be said that anything was done against a law or a senatorial decree, likewise of a perpetual pact and convention, that is, that money not be demanded at all. temporal and dilatory are those which do not always have place, but can be avoided, such as of a temporal pact and convention, that is, that perchance suit not be brought within five years: procuratorial exceptions also are dilatory, which can be avoided.

Dig. 44.1.4

Digest 44.1.4

Paulus 20 ad ed.

Paulus Book 20 on the Edict.

In pupillo, cui soluta est debita pecunia sine tutoris auctoritate, si quaeratur, an doli exceptione summoveri debeat, illud tempus inspicitur, an pecuniam vel ex ea aliquid habeat, quo petit.

In the case of a ward, to whom the owed money has been paid without his tutor’s authority, if it is asked whether he ought to be barred by the defense of fraud (exceptio doli), that time is considered, whether he has the money or anything from it, on the basis of which he sues.

Dig. 44.1.5

Digest 44.1.5

Paulus 18 ad ed.

Paulus 18 on the Edict.

Is, qui dicit ^ dicet^ se iurasse, potest et aliis exceptionibus uti cum exceptione iurisiurandi vel aliis solis: pluribus enim defensionibus uti permittitur.

He who says ^ will say^ that he has sworn can also use other exceptions together with the exception of the oath, or others alone: for it is permitted to use multiple defenses.

Dig. 44.1.6

Digest 44.1.6

Paulus 71 ad ed.

Paulus 71 On the Edict.

Si rem legatam petat legatarius, de dolo testatoris excipitur: nam sicut heres, qui in universum ius succedit, summovetur exceptione, ita et legatarius debet summoveri quasi unius rei successor.

If the legatee seeks the thing bequeathed, he is met with an exception on account of the testator’s fraud: for just as the heir, who succeeds to the right in universum (in its entirety), is barred by an exception, so too the legatee ought to be barred, as though the successor of a single thing.

Dig. 44.1.7pr.

Digest 44.1.7, preface.

Paulus 3 ad plaut.

Paulus 3 to Plautius.

Exceptiones, quae personae cuiusque cohaerent, non transeunt ad alios, veluti ea quam socius habet exceptionem " quod facere possit", vel parens patronusve, non competit fideiussori: sic mariti fideiussor post solutum matrimonium datus in solidum dotis nomine condemnatur.

Exceptions that cohere to each person do not pass to others; for example, the exception which a partner has, "that he is able to perform," or which a parent or a patron has, does not belong to a surety: thus the husband's surety, given after the marriage has been dissolved, is condemned for the whole amount under the name of the dowry.

Dig. 44.1.7.1

Digest 44.1.7.1

Paulus 3 ad plaut.

Paulus 3 on Plautius.

Rei autem cohaerentes exceptiones etiam fideiussoribus competunt, ut rei iudicatae, doli mali, iurisiurandi, quod metus causa factum est. igitur et si reus pactus sit in rem, omnimodo competit exceptio fideiussori. intercessionis quoque exceptio, item quod libertatis onerandae causa petitur, etiam fideiussori competit.

But the exceptions adhering to the defendant are likewise available to fidejussors (sureties), such as of res judicata, of dolus malus, of oath, and of what was done by reason of fear. Therefore even if the defendant has entered into a pact in rem, the exception in every way is available to the fidejussor. The exception of intercession also, likewise the exception that it is sought for the purpose of burdening liberty, is available to the fidejussor as well.

idem dicitur et si pro filio familias contra senatus consultum quis fideiusserit, aut pro minore viginti quinque annis circumscripto: quod si deceptus sit in re, tunc nec ipse ante habet auxilium, quam restitutus fuerit, nec fideiussori danda est exceptio.

Likewise it is said even if someone has stood surety for a son under paternal power, contrary to a senatus consultum, or for a minor under 25 years who has been overreached: but if he has been deceived in the matter, then neither does he himself have a remedy before he has been restored, nor is an exceptio to be granted to the surety.

Dig. 44.1.8

Digest 44.1.8

Paulus 14 ad plaut.

Paulus 14 on Plautius.

Nemo prohibetur pluribus exceptionibus uti, quamvis diversae sunt.

No one is prohibited from using multiple exceptions, although they are diverse.

Dig. 44.1.9

Digest 44.1.9

Marcellus 3 Dig.

Marcellus 3 Digest.

Non utique existimatur confiteri de intentione adversarii is quocum agitur, quia exceptione utitur.

It is not necessarily considered that the one against whom suit is brought confesses to the adversary’s intention, because he makes use of an exception.

Dig. 44.1.10

Digest 44.1.10

Modestinus 12 resp.

Modestinus 12 Responses.

Modestinus respondit: res inter alios iudicata aliis non obest, nec si is, contra quem iudicatum est, heres exstiterit ei, contra quem nihil pronuntiatum est, hereditariam ^ hereditarium^ ei litem inferenti praescribi ex ea sententia posse, quam proprio nomine disceptans, antequam heres exstiterit, excepit.

Modestinus replied: a res judicata between others does not prejudice others; nor, if the one against whom judgment has been given has become the heir of him against whom nothing was pronounced, can a defense be pleaded from that judgment against him when he brings a hereditary ^ hereditary^ action—the very judgment which, while disputing in his own name before he became heir, he had pleaded by way of exception.

Dig. 44.1.11

Digest 44.1.11

Modestinus 13 resp.

Modestinus Responses, Book 13.

Qui adgnitis instrumentis, quasi vera essent, solvit post sententiam iudicis, quaero, si postea cognita rei veritate et repertis falsis instrumentis accusare velit et probare falsa esse instrumenta, ex quibus conveniebatur, cum instrumentis subscripserat ex praecepto sive interlocutione iudicis, an praescriptio ei opponi possit? cum et principalibus constitutionibus manifeste cavetur, etsi res iudicata esset ex falsis instrumentis, si postea falsa inveniantur, nec rei iudicatae praescriptionem opponi. modestinus respondit ob hoc, quod per errorem solutio facta est vel cautio de solvendo interposita proponitur ex his instrumentis, quae nunc falsa dicuntur, praescriptioni locum non esse.

He who, the instruments having been acknowledged, as if they were true, paid after the judge’s judgment, I ask whether, if afterward, the truth of the matter having been learned and the instruments found to be false, he should wish to accuse and to prove that the instruments on the basis of which he was being convened are false—since he had signed the instruments by the precept or interlocution of the judge—whether a plea of prescription can be opposed to him? since also by the principal constitutions it is plainly provided that, even if there were a res judicata on the basis of false instruments, if they are afterward found false, the prescription of res judicata is not to be opposed. Modestinus answered that for this reason—because the payment was made through error or a security for paying was interposed, which is put forward on the basis of those instruments which now are said to be false—there is no place for prescription.

Dig. 44.1.12

Digest 44.1.12

Ulpianus 38 ad ed.

Ulpian 38 on the edict.

Generaliter in praeiudiciis is actoris partes sustinet, qui habet intentionem secundum id quod intendit.

Generally, in prejudicial proceedings, he bears the part of the plaintiff who has the claim according to that which he asserts.

Dig. 44.1.13

Digest 44.1.13

Iulianus 50 Dig.

Julianus 50 Dig.

Si post litem de hereditate contestatam res singulae petantur, placet non obstare exceptionem " quod praeiudicium hereditati non fiat " : futuri enim iudicii, non facti nomine huiusmodi exceptiones comparatae sunt.

If, after issue has been joined in a suit concerning the inheritance, individual items are demanded, it is held that the exception "that no prejudice be done to the inheritance" does not stand in the way: for exceptions of this kind are contrived under the title of a future judgment, not under that of a fact.

Dig. 44.1.14

Digest 44.1.14

Alfenus 2 Dig.

Alfenus 2 Digest.

Filius familias peculiarem servum vendidit, pretium stipulatus est: is homo redhibitus et postea mortuus est. et pater eius pecuniam ab emptore petebat, quam filius stipulatus erat. placuit aequum esse in factum exceptionem eum obicere: " quod pecunia ob hominem illum expromissa est, qui redhibitus est".

A son under paternal power sold a slave belonging to his peculium and stipulated the price: that man was redhibited and afterwards died. And his father was demanding from the buyer the money which the son had stipulated. It was held equitable for him to raise an exceptio in factum: " that the money was promised on account of that man who was redhibited".

Dig. 44.1.15

Digest 44.1.15

Iulianus 4 ad urs. ferocem.

Julian 4 to Urseius Ferox.

Adversus exceptionem iurisiurandi replicatio doli mali non debet dari, cum praetor id agere debet, ne de iureiurando cuiusquam quaeratur.

Against an exception of an oath, a replication of dolus malus ought not to be given, since the praetor ought to see to it that no inquiry be made concerning anyone’s oath.

Dig. 44.1.16

Digest 44.1.16

Africanus 9 quaest.

Africanus 9 Questions.

Fundum titianum possides, de cuius proprietate inter me et te controversia est, et dico praeterea viam ad eum per fundum sempronianum, quem tuum esse constat, deberi. si viam petam, exceptionem " quod praeiudicium praedio non fiat" utilem tibi fore putavit, videlicet quod non aliter viam mihi deberi probaturus sim, quam prius probaverim fundum titianum meum esse.

You possess the Titian estate, about the ownership of which there is a controversy between me and you, and I say moreover that a way (right of way) to it is owed through the Sempronian estate, which is established to be yours. If I should sue for the way, he thought the exception “that no prejudgment be made concerning the estate” would be useful to you, namely because I will not be able to prove that a way is owed to me otherwise than if I shall first have proved that the Titian estate is mine.

Dig. 44.1.17

Digest 44.1.17

Paulus 70 ad ed.

Paulus 70 on the Edict.

Sed si ante viam, deinde fundum titianum petat, quia et diversa corpora sunt et causae restitutionum dispares, non nocebit exceptio.

But if he first claims the road, and then the Titian estate, since both the objects are diverse and the grounds of the restitutions are disparate, the exception will not harm.

Dig. 44.1.18

Digest 44.1.18

Africanus 9 quaest.

Africanus 9 Questions.

Fundi, quem tu proprium tuum esse dicis, partem a te peto et volo simul iudicio quoque communi dividundo agere sub eodem iudice: item si eius fundi, quem tu possideas et ego proprium meum esse dicam, fructus condicere tibi velim: quaesitum est an exceptio " quod praeiudicium fundo partive eius non fiat" obstet an deneganda sit. et utrubique putat intervenire praetorem debere nec permittere petitori, priusquam de proprietate constet, huiusmodi iudiciis experiri.

Of an estate, which you say is your own proper property, I claim a part from you, and I wish at the same time also to proceed by the iudicium communi dividundo before the same judge: likewise, if of that estate which you possess and I say is my own proper property, I should wish to bring a condictio against you for the fruits: the question was raised whether the exception “that no prejudgment be made concerning the estate or any part of it” stands in the way, or should be denied. And in both cases he thinks the praetor ought to intervene and not permit the claimant, before ownership is established, to try actions of this kind.

Dig. 44.1.19

Digest 44.1.19

Marcianus 13 inst.

Marcianus 13 Institutes.

Omnes exceptiones, quae reo competunt, fideiussori quoque etiam invito reo competunt.

All exceptions which are available to the defendant are likewise available to the surety, even if the defendant is unwilling.

Dig. 44.1.20

Digest 44.1.20

Paulus l.S. de concept. form.

Paulus in the single book On the Drafting of Formulae.

Exceptiones opponuntur aut quia factum sit quod fieri oportet aut quia factum sit quod fieri non oportuit, aut quia factum non sit quod fieri debuerat. quia factum est, quod fieri oportuit, datur exceptio rei venditae et traditae et rei iudicatae: quia factum est, quod fieri non oportuit, datur exceptio doli mali: quia non factum est, quod fieri debuit, ut bonorum possessionis non datae.

Exceptions are pleaded either because what ought to be done has been done, or because what ought not to be done has been done, or because what ought to have been done has not been done. because what ought to be done has been done, the exception of a thing sold and delivered (exceptio rei venditae et traditae) and the exception of res iudicata are granted; because what ought not to be done has been done, the exception of dolus malus is granted; because what ought to have been done has not been done, as in the case of bonorum possessio not granted.

Dig. 44.1.21

Digest 44.1.21

Nerva 4 membr.

Nerva, 4th notebook.

Rei maioris pecuniae praeiudicium fieri videtur, cum ea quaestio in iudicium deducitur, quae vel tota vel ex aliqua parte communis est quaestioni de re maiori.

Prejudice to a matter of a larger sum of money is considered to arise, when that question is brought into judgment which is either wholly or in some part common to the question concerning the greater matter.

Dig. 44.1.22pr.

Digest 44.1.22, preface.

Paulus l.S. de var. lect.

Paulus in the single book On Various Readings.

Exceptio est condicio, quae modo eximit reum damnatione, modo minuit damnationem.

An exception is a condition which sometimes exempts the defendant from condemnation, sometimes diminishes the condemnation.

Dig. 44.1.22.1

Digest 44.1.22.1

Paulus l.S. de var. lect.

Paulus, in the single book On Variant Readings.

Replicatio est contraria exceptio, quasi exceptionis exceptio.

A replication is a contrary exception, as it were an exception to an exception.

Dig. 44.1.23

Digest 44.1.23

Labeo 6 pith. a paulo epit.

Labeo book 6 of the Pithana, epitomized by Paul.

Paulus: si quis statuam in municipio ea mente posuit, ut ea municipii esset, et eam petere vult, excludi eum oportet praescriptione in factum data.

Paulus: if someone set up a statue in a municipality with the intention that it belong to the municipality, and wishes to claim it, he ought to be barred by a prescription on the facts being granted.

Dig. 44.1.24

Digest 44.1.24

Hermogenianus 6 iuris epit.

Hermogenianus 6 of the Epitome of Law.

Filius familias exceptionem iurisiurandi patri quaerit, si eum dare non oportere iuraverit.

A son of the household obtains for his father the exception of an oath, if he has sworn that it ought not to be given.

Dig. 44.2.0. De exceptione rei iudicatae.

Digest 44.2.0. On the exception of res judicata.

Dig. 44.2.1

Digest 44.2.1

Ulpianus 2 ad ed.

Ulpian 2 on the Edict.

Cum res inter alios iudicatae nullum aliis praeiudicium faciant, ex eo testamento, ubi libertas data est vel legato agi potest, licet ruptum, vel irritum aut non iustum dicatur testamentum: nec si superatus fuerit legatarius, praeiudicium libertati fit.

Since matters adjudged between others make no prejudice to others, from that testament, where liberty has been given or an action can be brought for a legacy, one may proceed, although the testament be said to be broken, or void or not lawful: nor, if the legatee should be defeated, is prejudice done to the liberty.

Dig. 44.2.2

Digest 44.2.2

Ulpianus 13 ad ed.

Ulpian 13 on the edict.

Qui cum herede eius egit, qui filium praeterierat, et exceptione summotus est " ac si non in ea causa sint tabulae testamenti, ut contra eas bonorum possessio dari possit": omittente emancipato filio bonorum possessionem non inique restituetur, ut agat cum herede: et ita iulianus libro quarto digestorum scripsit.

He who sued the heir of one who had passed over his son, and was removed by an exception, “as if the tablets of the testament are not in such a condition that bonorum possessio can be given against them”: if the emancipated son omits bonorum possessio, restitution will not unjustly be afforded, so that he may sue the heir; and thus Julian wrote in the fourth book of the Digests.

Dig. 44.2.3

Digest 44.2.3

Ulpianus 15 ad ed.

Ulpian, 15 On the Edict.

Iulianus libro tertio digestorum respondit exceptionem rei iudicatae obstare, quotiens eadem quaestio inter easdem personas revocatur: et ideo et si singulis rebus petitis hereditatem petat vel contra, exceptione summovebitur.

Julian, in the third book of the Digests, responded that the exception of res judicata bars whenever the same question is recalled between the same parties: and therefore, even if, after individual things have been claimed, he seeks the inheritance, or conversely, he will be barred by the exception.

Dig. 44.2.4

Digest 44.2.4

Ulpianus 72 ad ed.

Ulpian, 72 On the Edict.

Rei iudicatae exceptio tacite continere videtur omnes personas, quae rem in iudicium deducere solent.

The exceptio of res judicata seems tacitly to include all persons who are wont to bring the matter into judgment.

Dig. 44.2.5

Digest 44.2.5

Ulpianus 74 ad ed.

Ulpian 74 on the edict.

De eadem re agere videtur et qui non eadem actione agat, qua ab initio agebat, sed etiam si alia experiatur, de eadem tamen re: ut puta si quis mandati acturus, cum ei adversarius iudicio sistendi causa promisisset, propter eandem rem agat negotiorum gestorum vel condicat, de eadem re agit. recteque ita definietur eum demum " de ea re" non agere, qui prorsus rem ipsam non persequitur: ceterum cum quis actionem mutat et experitur, dummodo de eadem re experiatur, etsi diverso genere actionis quam instituit, videtur " de ea re" agere.

It is seen to be proceeding “ about the same matter” even when one does not proceed by the same action with which he was proceeding from the beginning, but even if he tries another, still about the same matter: for instance, if someone, intending to bring an action of mandate, when his adversary had given him a promise for the purpose of appearing in the suit, brings, on account of the same matter, the action of negotiorum gestorum or brings a condictio, he is proceeding about the same matter. And it will be correctly defined that only he is not “ about that matter” proceeding who in no way pursues the matter itself; but otherwise, when someone changes the action and proceeds, provided he proceeds about the same matter, even by a different kind of action than he instituted, he is seen to be “ about that matter” proceeding.

Dig. 44.2.6

Digest 44.2.6

Paulus 70 ad ed.

Paulus 70 on the edict.

Singulis controversiis singulas actiones unumque iudicati finem sufficere probabili ratione placuit, ne aliter modus litium multiplicatus summam atque inexplicabilem faciat difficultatem, maxime si diversa pronuntiarentur. parere ergo exceptionem rei iudicatae frequens est.

It has been approved on a reasonable rationale that for individual controversies individual actions and a single final adjudication suffice, lest otherwise the measure of lawsuits, when multiplied, make a massive and inextricable difficulty, especially if divergent pronouncements were delivered. parere therefore to the exception of res judicata is common.

Dig. 44.2.7pr.

Digest 44.2.7 pr.

Ulpianus 75 ad ed.

Ulpian, 75 on the Edict.

Si quis, cum totum petisset, partem petat, exceptio rei iudicatae nocet, nam pars in toto est: eadem enim res accipitur et si pars petatur eius, quod totum petitum est. nec interest, utrum in corpore hoc quaeratur an in quantitate vel in iure. proinde si quis fundum petierit, deinde partem petat vel pro diviso vel pro indiviso, dicendum erit exceptionem obstare.

If someone, after having claimed the whole, then claims a part, the exception of res judicata applies, for a part is in the whole: for the same thing is deemed to be at issue even if a part is claimed of that which was claimed in its entirety. Nor does it matter whether this is sought in the corpus (the thing itself) or in the quantity or in the right. Accordingly, if someone has claimed a tract of land (fundus), and thereafter claims a part, either for a divided share (pro diviso) or an undivided one (pro indiviso), it must be said that the exception stands in the way.

proinde et si proponas mihi certum locum me petere ex eo fundo, quem peti, obstabit exceptio. idem erit probandum et si duo corpora fuerint petita, mox alterutrum corpus petatur: nam nocebit exceptio. item si quis fundum petierit, mox arbores excisas ex eo fundo petat, aut insulam petierit, deinde aream petat, vel tigna vel lapides petat: item si navem petiero, postea singulas tabulas vindicem: si ancillam praegnatem petiero et post litem contestatam conceperit et pepererit, mox partum eius petam: utrum idem petere videor an aliud, magnae quaestionis est.

accordingly, even if you posit that I am claiming a definite place out of that estate which was claimed, the exception will obstruct. the same must be held also if two bodies (corpora) were claimed, and soon either one body is claimed: for the exception will be harmful. likewise, if someone has claimed an estate, and soon claims the trees cut down from that estate; or if he has claimed an insula, then claims the site; or claims the beams or the stones: likewise, if I have claimed a ship, thereafter I vindicate the individual planks; if I have claimed a pregnant maidservant, and after the suit has been joined (litis contestatio) she conceives and gives birth, and soon I claim her offspring: whether I seem to be claiming the same thing or something else is a great question.

et quidem ita definiri potest totiens eandem rem agi, quotiens apud iudicem posteriorem id quaeritur, quod apud priorem quaesitum est.

And indeed it can be defined thus: the same matter is in litigation as often as that is sought before a later judge which was sought before the earlier.

Dig. 44.2.7.1

Digest 44.2.7.1

Ulpianus 75 ad ed.

Ulpian 75 on the Edict.

In his igitur fere omnibus exceptio nocet: sed in cementis et tignis diversum est: nam is, qui insulam petit, si cementa vel tigna vel quid aliud suum petat, in ea condicione est, ut videatur aliud petere: etenim cuius insula est, non utique et cementa sunt: denique ea, quae iuncta sunt aedibus alienis, separata dominus vindicare potest.

In almost all these cases, therefore, the exception is prejudicial: but in the case of cement-work and beams it is otherwise: for he who seeks a tenement, if he claims the cement or the beams or anything else as his own, is in such a condition as to seem to be seeking something different: for the person whose tenement it is does not thereby also have the cement: finally, those things which have been joined to another’s house, once separated, the owner can vindicate.

Dig. 44.2.7.2

Digest 44.2.7.2

Ulpianus 75 ad ed.

Ulpian 75 on the Edict.

De fructibus eadem quaestio est et de partu: haec enim nondum erant in rebus humanis, sed ex ea re sunt, quae petita est: magisque est, ut ista exceptio non noceat. plane si in restitutionem vel fructus vel etiam partus venerunt aestimatique sunt, consequens erit dicere exceptionem obiciendam.

About the fruits the same question arises as about the offspring: for these were not yet in the sphere of human affairs, but are from the thing that is sued for; and it is rather the case that that exception should not prejudice. Clearly, if in the restitution either the fruits or even the offspring have come and have been appraised, it will follow to say that the exception is to be set up.

Dig. 44.2.7.3

Digest 44.2.7.3

Ulpianus 75 ad ed.

Ulpian 75 On the Edict.

Et generaliter, ut iulianus definit, exceptio rei iudicatae obstat, quotiens inter easdem personas eadem quaestio revocatur vel alio genere iudicii. et ideo si hereditate petita singulas res petat vel singulis rebus petitis hereditatem petat, exceptione summovebitur.

And generally, as Julian defines, the exception of res judicata bars the way whenever between the same persons the same question is brought up again, even under another kind of judgment; and therefore, if, the inheritance having been claimed, he should claim individual things, or, individual things having been claimed, he should claim the inheritance, he will be precluded by the exception.

Dig. 44.2.7.4

Digest 44.2.7.4

Ulpianus 75 ad ed.

Ulpian, 75 on the edict.

Idem erit probandum et si quis debitum petierit a debitore hereditario, deinde hereditatem petat, vel contra si ante hereditatem petierit et postea debitum petat: nam et hic obstabit exceptio: nam cum hereditatem peto, et corpora et actiones omnes, quae in hereditate sunt, videntur in petitionem deduci.

The same is to be proved also if someone has demanded the debt from the hereditary debtor and then claims the inheritance, or conversely if he has first claimed the inheritance and afterwards demands the debt: for here too the exception will stand in the way; for when I claim the inheritance, both the corporeal things and all the actions which are in the inheritance are seen to be drawn into the petition.

Dig. 44.2.8

Digest 44.2.8

Iulianus 51 Dig.

Julian 51 Digest.

Item parte fundi petita si familiae herciscundae vel communi dividundo agit, aeque exceptione submovebitur.

Likewise, where a part of a fundus is claimed, if he proceeds by familiae herciscundae or communi dividundo, he will be equally removed by the exception.

Dig. 44.2.9pr.

Digest 44.2.9pr.

Ulpianus 75 ad ed.

Ulpian 75 on the Edict.

Si a te hereditatem petam, cum nihil possideres, deinde, ubi coeperis aliquid possidere, hereditatem petam, an noceat exceptio ista? et putem, sive fuit iudicatum hereditatem meam esse, sive adversarius, quia nihil possidebat, absolutus est, non nocere exceptionem.

If I claim the inheritance from you, when you were possessing nothing, then, when you begin to possess something, I claim the inheritance, does that exception harm? And I think that, whether it was adjudged that the inheritance is mine, or the adversary was absolved because he possessed nothing, the exception does not harm.

Dig. 44.2.9.1

Digest 44.2.9.1

Ulpianus 75 ad ed.

Ulpian 75 on the Edict.

Si quis fundum, quem putabat se possidere, defenderit, mox emerit: re secundum petitorem iudicata an restituere cogatur? et ait neratius, si actori iterum petenti obiciatur exceptio rei iudicatae, replicare eum oportere de re secundum se iudicata.

If someone has defended a landed estate which he thought he possessed, and soon after bought it: with the matter adjudged in favor of the claimant, is he compelled to restore it? And Neratius says that, if the exception of res judicata is objected to the plaintiff suing again, he ought to replicate that the matter was adjudged in his favor.

Dig. 44.2.9.2

Digest 44.2.9.2

Ulpianus 75 ad ed.

Ulpian, 75 on the Edict.

Iulianus scribit exceptionem rei iudicatae a persona auctoris ad emptorem transire solere, retro autem ab emptore ad auctorem reverti non debere. quare si hereditariam rem vendideris, ego eandem ab emptore petiero et vicero, petenti tibi non opponam exceptionem " at si ea res iudicata non sit inter me et eum, cui vendidisti".

Iulianus writes that the exception of res judicata is accustomed to pass from the person of the seller to the buyer, but ought not to revert back from the buyer to the seller. Therefore, if you have sold an hereditary thing, and I shall have claimed the same from the buyer and prevailed, I will not oppose to you, when you sue, the exception " at if that matter be not adjudged between me and him to whom you sold".

Dig. 44.2.10

Digest 44.2.10

Iulianus 51 Dig.

Julian 51 Digest.

Item si victus fuero, tu adversus me exceptionem non habebis.

Likewise, if I shall have been defeated, you will not have an exception against me.

Dig. 44.2.11pr.

Digest 44.2.11pr.

Ulpianus 75 ad ed.

Ulpian, Book 75 on the Edict.

Si mater filii impuberis defuncti ex senatus consulto bona vindicaverit idcirco, quia putabat rupto patris eius testamento neminem esse substitutum, victaque fuerit, quia testamentum patris ruptum non erat, postea autem apertis pupillaribus tabulis apparuit non esse ei substitutum: si peteret rursus hereditatem, obstaturam exceptionem rei iudicatae neratius ait. ego exceptionem obesse ei rei iudicatae non dubito: sed ex causa succurrendum erit ei, quae unam tantum causam egit rupti testamenti.

If the mother of an under‑pubes son who has died should, by virtue of a senatus consultum, claim the estate for this reason, that she supposed that, the will of his father having been broken, no one had been substituted, and she should be defeated because the father’s will was not broken, but afterwards, when the pupillary tablets were opened, it appeared that no substitute had been appointed for him: if she were to seek the inheritance again, Neratius says the exception of res judicata would stand in the way. I do not doubt that the exception of res judicata would prejudice her; but relief should be afforded to her on equitable grounds, since she pleaded only a single ground, that of a broken will.

Dig. 44.2.11.1

Digest 44.2.11.1

Ulpianus 75 ad ed.

Ulpian, 75 on the Edict.

Denique et celsus scribit, si hominem petiero, quem ob eam rem meum esse existimavi, quod mihi traditus ab alio est, cum is ex hereditaria causa meus esset, rursus petenti mihi obstaturam exceptionem.

Finally, Celsus also writes that, if I shall have claimed a person whom I thought to be mine for this reason, that he was delivered to me by another, whereas he was mine by hereditary cause, an exception will stand in my way when I sue again.

Dig. 44.2.11.2

Digest 44.2.11.2

Ulpianus 75 ad ed.

Ulpian, 75 on the Edict.

Si quis autem petat fundum suum esse eo, quod titius eum sibi tradiderit, si postea alia ex causa petat causa adiecta, non debet summoveri exceptione.

If, however, someone claims that an estate is his on the ground that Titius delivered it to him, if afterwards he claims on another ground, with an additional ground added, he ought not to be barred by an exception.

Dig. 44.2.11.3

Digest 44.2.11.3

Ulpianus 75 ad ed.

Ulpian, 75 on the Edict.

Item iulianus scribit: cum ego et tu heredes titio exstitissemus, si tu partem fundi, quem totum hereditarium dicebas, a sempronio petieris et victus fueris, mox eandem partem a sempronio emero, agenti tibi mecum familiae erciscundae exceptio obstabit, quia res iudicata sit inter te et venditorem meum: nam et si ante eandem partem petissem et agerem familiae erciscundae, obstaret exceptio " quod res iudicata sit inter me et te"

Likewise Julian writes: when you and I had become heirs to Titius, if you were to claim from Sempronius a part of the farm which you alleged to be wholly hereditary and were defeated, and soon thereafter I purchase the same part from Sempronius, then, when you bring against me the action for partition of the inheritance, the exception will stand in your way, because the matter is res judicata between you and my vendor: for even if I had earlier claimed the same part and were bringing the action for partition of the inheritance, the exception would stand, “that the matter has been adjudged between me and you.”

Dig. 44.2.11.4

Digest 44.2.11.4

Ulpianus 75 ad ed.

Ulpian 75 On the Edict.

Eandem causam facit etiam origo petitionis. ceterum si forte petiero fundum vel hominem, mox alia causa nova post petitionem mihi accesserit, quae mihi dominium tribuat, non me repellet ista exceptio, nisi forte intermissum dominium in medio tempore rediit quodam postliminio. quid enim, si homo, quem petieram, ab hostibus fuerit captus, mox postliminio receptus?

The origin of the petition likewise makes the same cause. But if perchance I should have sued for a farm or a slave, and soon thereafter some other new cause, after the petition, should accrue to me which grants me ownership, that exception will not repel me, unless perhaps the ownership, having been interrupted, in the meantime returned by a kind of postliminium. For what, indeed, if the slave whom I had claimed had been captured by the enemy, and soon was received back by postliminium?

hic exceptione summovebor, quia eadem res esse intellegitur. at si ex alia causa dominium fuerim nactus, non nocebit exceptio: et ideo si forte sub condicione res legata mihi fuerit, deinde medio tempore adquisito dominio petam, mox existente condicione legati rursus petam, putem exceptionem non obstare: alia enim causa fuit prioris dominii, haec nova nunc accessit.

here I shall be removed by the exception, because it is understood to be the same thing. But if from another cause I shall have gotten dominion, the exception will not harm: and therefore, if perchance a thing shall have been bequeathed to me under a condition, then in the meantime, dominion having been acquired, I sue; soon, the condition of the legacy existing, I sue again, I would think the exception does not obstruct: for another cause was that of the prior dominion; this new one has now been added.

Dig. 44.2.11.5

Digest 44.2.11.5

Ulpianus 75 ad ed.

Ulpian 75 on the Edict.

Itaque adquisitum quidem postea dominium aliam causam facit. mutata autem opinio petitoris non facit. ut puta opinabatur ex causa hereditaria se dominium habere: mutavit opinionem et coepit putare ex causa donationis: haec res non parit petitionem novam: nam qualecumque et undecumque dominium adquisitum habuit, vindicatione prima in iudicium deduxit.

Accordingly, ownership acquired afterwards does indeed make a different cause (of action). But a changed opinion of the claimant does not. For instance, he was of the opinion that he had ownership on an hereditary cause; he changed his opinion and began to think it was on the cause of a donation: this circumstance does not beget a new petition; for whatever sort and from whatever source he had ownership acquired, he brought it into judgment by the first vindication.

Dig. 44.2.11.6

Digest 44.2.11.6

Ulpianus 75 ad ed.

Ulpian 75 on the Edict.

Si quis iter petierit, deinde actum petat, puto fortius defendendum aliud videri tunc petitum, aliud nunc, atque ideo exceptionem rei iudicatae cessare.

If someone has sought an iter, and then seeks an actus, I think it should be more strongly maintained that one thing was then sought and another now, and therefore the exception of res judicata does not apply.

Dig. 44.2.11.7

Digest 44.2.11.7

Ulpianus 75 ad ed.

Ulpian 75 on the Edict.

Hoc iure utimur, ut ex parte actoris in exceptione rei iudicatae hae personae continerentur, quae rem in iudicium deducunt: inter hos erunt procurator, cui mandatum est, tutor, curator furiosi vel pupilli, actor municipum: ex persona autem rei etiam defensor numerabitur, quia adversus defensorem qui agit, litem in iudicium deducit.

We employ this law, that on the plaintiff’s side, in the exception of res judicata, those persons are included who bring the matter into judgment: among these will be the procurator, to whom a mandate has been given, the tutor, the curator of a madman or of a ward, the actor of the municipes: but on the defendant’s side the defensor will also be counted, because he who sues against a defensor brings the suit into judgment.

Dig. 44.2.11.8

Digest 44.2.11.8

Ulpianus 75 ad ed.

Ulpian 75 on the Edict.

Si quis hominem a filio familias petierit, deinde eundem a patre petat, locum habet haec exceptio.

If someone has sought a slave from a son under paternal power, then seeks the same from the father, this exception has place.

Dig. 44.2.11.9

Digest 44.2.11.9

Ulpianus 75 ad ed.

Ulpian 75 on the Edict.

Si egero cum vicino aquae pluviae arcendae, deinde alteruter nostrum praedium vendiderit et emptor agat vel cum eo agatur, haec exceptio nocet, sed de eo opere, quod iam erat factum, cum iudicium acciperetur.

If I have proceeded against my neighbor by the action for warding off rain‑water, and then either one of us sells his praedium, and the purchaser either brings an action or is proceeded against, this exception is effective—but in respect of that work which had already been done when the action was received.

Dig. 44.2.11.10

Digest 44.2.11.10

Ulpianus 75 ad ed.

Ulpian 75 On the Edict.

Item si rem, quam a te petierat, titius pignori seio dederit, deinde seius pigneraticia adversus te utatur, distinguendum erit, quando pignori dedit titius: et si quidem antequam peteret, non oportet ei nocere exceptionem: nam et ille petere debuit et ego salvam habere debeo pigneraticiam actionem. sed si posteaquam petit, pignori dedit, magis est, ut noceat exceptio rei iudicatae.

Likewise, if the thing which he had demanded from you titius gave in pledge to seius, and then seius employs the pignoratitious action against you, a distinction must be made as to when titius gave it in pledge: and if indeed before he brought the claim, the exception ought not to harm him; for both he ought to have brought the claim and I ought to have the pignoratitious action preserved. But if after he sued he gave it in pledge, it is rather the case that the res judicata exception should harm.

Dig. 44.2.12

Digest 44.2.12

Paulus 70 ad ed.

Paulus 70 On the Edict.

Cum quaeritur, haec exceptio noceat nec ne, inspiciendum est, an idem corpus sit,

When it is inquired whether this exception is prejudicial or not, it must be examined whether it is the same corpus,

Dig. 44.2.13

Digest 44.2.13

Ulpianus 75 ad ed.

Ulpian, 75 On the Edict.

Quantitas eadem, idem ius,

The same quantity, the same right,

Dig. 44.2.14pr.

Digest 44.2.14 pr.

Paulus 70 ad ed.

Paulus 70 on the Edict.

Et an eadem causa petendi et eadem condicio personarum: quae nisi omnia concurrunt, alia res est. idem corpus in hac exceptione non utique omni pristina qualitate vel quantitate servata, nulla adiectione deminutioneve facta, sed pinguius pro communi utilitate accipitur.

And whether there is the same cause of demanding and the same condition of the persons: unless all these concur, it is a different matter. The same corpus, in this exception, is not, to be sure, taken only if every former quality or quantity has been preserved, with no addition or diminution made, but is taken more liberally for the common utility.

Dig. 44.2.14.1

Digest 44.2.14.1

Paulus 70 ad ed.

Paulus 70 on the Edict.

Qui, cum partem usus fructus haberet, totum petit, si postea partem adcrescentem petat, non summovetur exceptione, quia usus fructus non portioni, sed homini adcrescit.

He who, when he had a part of the usufruct, claims the whole—if thereafter he seeks the accreted portion—is not barred by the exception, because the usufruct accrues not to the portion but to the person.

Dig. 44.2.14.2

Digest 44.2.14.2

Paulus 70 ad ed.

Paulus 70 on the Edict.

Actiones in personam ab actionibus in rem hoc differunt, quod, cum eadem res ab eodem mihi debeatur, singulas obligationes singulae causae sequuntur nec ulla earum alterius petitione vitiatur: at cum in rem ago non expressa causa, ex qua rem meam esse dico, omnes causae una petitione adprehenduntur. neque enim amplius quam semel res mea esse potest, saepius autem deberi potest.

Actions in personam differ from actions in rem in this respect: when the same thing is owed to me by the same person, individual obligations follow individual causes, and none of them is vitiated by the petition for another; but when I sue in rem without the cause expressed on which I say the thing is mine, all causes are comprehended in one petition. For a thing cannot be mine more than once, but it can be owed more frequently.

Dig. 44.2.14.3

Digest 44.2.14.3

Paulus 70 ad ed.

Paulus 70 on the edict.

Si quis interdicto egerit de possessione, postea in rem agens non repellitur per exceptionem, quoniam in interdicto possessio, in actione proprietas vertitur.

If anyone has proceeded by interdict concerning possession, afterward, suing in rem he is not repelled by an exception, since in the interdict it is possession, while in the action it is property that is at issue.

Dig. 44.2.15

Digest 44.2.15

Gaius 30 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 30 on the Provincial Edict.

Si inter me et te controversia de hereditate sit et quasdam res ex eadem tu possides, quasdam ego: nihil vetat et me a te et invicem te a me hereditatem petere. quod si post rem iudicatam a me petere coeperis, interest, utrum meam esse hereditatem pronuntiatum sit an contra: si meam esse, nocebit tibi rei iudicatae exceptio, quia eo ipso, quod meam esse pronuntiatum est, ex diverso pronuntiatum videtur tuam non esse: si vero meam non esse, nihil de tuo iure iudicatum intellegitur, quia potest nec mea hereditas esse nec tua.

If between me and you there is a controversy concerning an inheritance, and you possess certain things from the same and I others, nothing prevents both my claiming the inheritance from you and, in turn, your claiming it from me. But if, after the matter has been adjudged, you begin to claim from me, it matters whether it has been pronounced that the inheritance is mine or the contrary: if that it is mine, the exception of res judicata will harm you, because by that very fact, that it has been pronounced to be mine, it is seen conversely to have been pronounced that it is not yours; but if that it is not mine, it is understood that nothing has been adjudged concerning your right, because it is possible that the inheritance is neither mine nor yours.

Dig. 44.2.16

Digest 44.2.16

Iulianus 51 Dig.

Julian 51 Dig.

Evidenter enim iniquissimum est proficere rei iudicatae exceptionem ei, contra quem iudicatum est.

For it is evidently most iniquitous that the exception of res judicata should profit the one against whom it has been adjudged.

Dig. 44.2.17

Digest 44.2.17

Gaius 30 ad ed. provinc.

Gaius 30 on the Provincial Edict

Si rem meam a te petiero, tu autem ideo fueris absolutus, quod probaveris sine dolo malo te desisse possidere, deinde postea coeperis possidere et ego a te petam: non nocebit mihi exceptio rei iudicatae.

If I demand my property from you, and you are acquitted for this reason, that you have proved that, without fraudulent intent (dolus malus), you had ceased to possess; then afterwards you begin to possess and I demand it from you: the exception of res judicata will not prejudice me.

Dig. 44.2.18

Digest 44.2.18

Ulpianus 80 ad ed.

Ulpian book 80 on the Edict.

Si quis ad exhibendum egerit, deinde absolutus fuerit adversarius, quia non possidebat, et dominus iterum agat nancto eo possessionem: rei iudicatae exceptio locum non habebit, quia alia res est.

If someone has brought an action ad exhibendum, and then the adversary has been absolved because he did not possess, and the owner sues again once that person has come into possession: the exceptio of res judicata will not have place, because it is a different matter.

Dig. 44.2.19

Digest 44.2.19

Marcellus 19 Dig.

Marcellus 19 Digest.

Duobus diversis temporibus eandem rem pignori dedit: egit posterior cum priore pigneraticia et optinuit: mox ille agere simili actione instituit: quaesitum est, an exceptio rei iudicatae obstaret. si opposuerat exceptionem rei sibi ante pigneratae et nihil aliud novum et validum adiecerit, sine dubio obstabit: eandem enim quaestionem revocat in iudicium.

He gave the same thing in pledge at two different times: the later creditor brought a pignoratitious action against the earlier and prevailed; soon that one began to proceed by a similar action: it was asked whether the exception of res judicata would obstruct. If he had set up the exception that the thing had previously been pledged to himself, and has added nothing else new and valid, without doubt it will bar; for he calls the same question back into judgment.

Dig. 44.2.20

Digest 44.2.20

Pomponius 16 ad sab.

Pomponius 16 on Sabinus.

Si ex testamento actum sit cum herede ab eo, qui, cum totum argentum ei legatum erat, mensas dumtaxat sibi legatas putaret earumque dumtaxat aestimationem in iudicio fecisset: postea eundem petiturum de argento quoque legato trebatius ait nec obstaturam ei exceptionem, quod non sit petitum, quod nec actor petere putasset nec iudex in iudicio sensisset.

If, under a will, an action has been brought against the heir by someone who, although all the silverware had been bequeathed to him, supposed that only the tables had been bequeathed to him and had in the action made only an estimation of their value: Trebatius says that afterward the same man will also sue concerning the silver likewise bequeathed, and that the exception that it was not sought will not stand in his way, since neither would the plaintiff have thought to seek it nor would the judge have perceived it in the trial.

Dig. 44.2.21pr.

Digest 44.2.21, beginning.

Pomponius 31 ad sab.

Pomponius 31 on Sabinus.

Si, cum argentum mihi testamento legatum esset, egerim cum herede et postea codicillis prolatis vestem quoque mihi legatam esse appareat, non est deducta in superius iudicium vestis causa, quia neque litigatores neque iudex de alio quam de argento actum intellegant.

If, when silver had been bequeathed to me by testament, I have litigated with the heir, and afterwards, codicils having been produced, it appears that clothing too had been bequeathed to me, the matter of the clothing is not regarded as having been brought into the prior suit, because neither the litigants nor the judge understand the action to have concerned anything other than the silver.

Dig. 44.2.21.1

Digest 44.2.21.1

Pomponius 31 ad sab.

Pomponius, 31 on Sabinus.

Si petiero gregem et vel aucto vel minuto numero gregis iterum eundem gregem petam, obstabit mihi exceptio. sed et si speciale corpus ex grege petam, si adfuit in eo grege, puto obstaturam exceptionem.

If I shall have sought a herd, and, the number of the herd having either been augmented or diminished, I again seek the same herd, the exception will bar me. But also, if I seek a special body out of the herd, if it was in that herd, I think the exception will stand in the way.

Dig. 44.2.21.2

Digest 44.2.21.2

Pomponius 31 ad sab.

Pomponius 31 on Sabinus.

Si stichum et pamphilum tuos esse petieris et absoluto adversario stichum tuum esse petas ab eodem, exceptionem obstare tibi constat.

If you have sued for Stichus and Pamphilus as yours, and, the adversary having been absolved, you seek from that same person that Stichus is yours, it is established that an exception stands in your way.

Dig. 44.2.21.3

Digest 44.2.21.3

Pomponius 31 ad sab.

Pomponius 31 on sab.

Si fundum meum esse petiero, deinde postea usum fructum eiusdem fundi petam, qui ex illa causa, ex qua fundus meus erat, meus sit: exceptio mihi obstabit, quia qui fundum habet, usum fructum suum vindicare non potest. sed si usum fructum, cum meus esset, vindicavi, deinde proprietatem nanctus iterum de usu fructu experiar, potest dici alia res esse, quoniam postquam nanctus sum proprietatem fundi, desinit meus esse prior usus fructus et iure proprietatis quasi ex nova causa rursus meus esse coepit.

If I shall have claimed that a tract (fundus) is mine, and then afterwards I claim the usufruct of the same tract to be mine from that same cause by which the tract was mine: an exception will stand in my way, because he who has the tract cannot vindicate his own usufruct. But if I vindicated the usufruct, when it was mine, and then, having obtained the ownership (proprietas), I again bring suit concerning the usufruct, it can be said to be a different matter, since after I acquired the ownership of the tract, the prior usufruct ceases to be mine, and by right of ownership, as if from a new cause, it began again to be mine.

Dig. 44.2.21.4

Digest 44.2.21.4

Pomponius 31 ad sab.

Pomponius 31 on Sabinus.

Si pro servo meo fideiusseris et mecum de peculio actum sit, si postea tecum eo nomine agatur, excipiendum est de re iudicata.

If you have stood as surety for my slave and suit has been conducted with me concerning the peculium, if thereafter you are sued on that ground, the exception of res judicata must be pleaded.

Dig. 44.2.22

Digest 44.2.22

Paulus 31 ad ed.

Paulus 31 on the Edict.

Si cum uno herede depositi actum sit, tamen et cum ceteris heredibus recte agetur nec exceptio rei iudicatae eis proderit: nam etsi eadem quaestio in omnibus iudiciis vertitur, tamen personarum mutatio, cum quibus singulis suo nomine agitur, aliam atque aliam rem facit. et si actum sit cum herede de dolo defuncti, deinde de dolo heredis ageretur, exceptio rei iudicatae non nocebit, quia de alia re agitur.

If an action on deposit has been brought against one heir, nevertheless it will also be rightly brought against the other heirs, nor will the exception of res judicata benefit them: for although the same question is in issue in all the trials, nevertheless the change of persons, with whom individually it is litigated in their own name, makes a different matter each time. And if action has been brought against the heir concerning the fraud of the deceased, then, if suit is brought concerning the heir’s own fraud, the exception of res judicata will not harm, because a different matter is being litigated.

Dig. 44.2.23

Digest 44.2.23

Ulpianus 3 disp.

Ulpian 3 Disputations

Si in iudicio actum sit usuraeque solae petitae sint, non est verendum, ne noceat rei iudicatae exceptio circa sortis petitionem: quia enim non competit, nec opposita nocet. eadem erunt et si quis ex bonae fidei iudicio velit usuras tantum persequi: nam nihilo minus futuri temporis cedunt usurae: quamdiu enim manet contractus bonae fidei, current usurae.

If in a trial the matter has been litigated and only interest has been sought, it is not to be feared that the exception of res judicata will harm with respect to the demand for the principal: since indeed it does not lie, nor, when opposed, does it harm. The same will hold also if someone, from a good‑faith action, should wish to pursue interest only: for nonetheless interest accrues for the time to come: for as long as the good‑faith contract remains, interest will run.

Dig. 44.2.24

Digest 44.2.24

Iulianus 9 Dig.

Julianus 9 Digest.

Si quis rem a non domino emerit, mox petente domino absolutus sit, deinde possessionem amiserit et a domino petierit, adversus exceptionem " si non eius sit res" replicatione hac adiuvabitur " at si res iudicata non sit".

If someone has purchased a thing from a non-owner, and, when the owner soon brings suit, he is acquitted, then loses possession and sues the owner, he will be aided, against the exception "if the thing is not his," by this replication: "but if the matter be not res iudicata."

Dig. 44.2.25pr.

Digest 44.2.25, preface.

Iulianus 51 Dig.

Julian 51 Digest

Si is, qui heres non erat, hereditatem petierit et postea heres factus eandem hereditatem petet, exceptione rei iudicatae non summovebitur.

If one who was not heir has brought suit for the inheritance, and afterwards, having become heir, brings suit for the same inheritance, he will not be barred by the exception of res judicata.

Dig. 44.2.25.1

Digest 44.2.25.1

Iulianus 51 Dig.

Julian 51 Dig.

Est in potestate emptoris intra sex menses, redhibitoria agere mallet an ea quae datur, quanti minoris homo cum veniret fuerit. nam posterior actio etiam redhibitionem continet, si tale vitium in homine est, ut eum ob id actor empturus non fuerit: quare vere dicetur eum, qui alterutra earum egerit, si altera postea agat, rei iudicatae exceptione summoveri.

It is within the buyer’s power, within six months, whether he would prefer to bring the redhibitory action, or the action that is given for how much less the slave was worth at the time of sale; for the latter action also contains redhibition, if there is such a defect in the slave that on that account the plaintiff would not have bought him: wherefore it will be rightly said that he who has proceeded by either of them, if he later brings the other, is barred by the exception of res judicata.

Dig. 44.2.25.2

Digest 44.2.25.2

Iulianus 51 Dig.

Julian 51 Digest.

Si te negotiis meis optuleris et fundum nomine meo petieris, deinde ego hanc petitionem tuam ratam non habuero, sed mandavero tibi, ut ex integro eundem fundum peteres, exceptio rei iudicatae non obstabit: alia enim res facta est interveniente mandatu. idem est, si non in rem, sed in personam actum fuerit.

If you have offered yourself to my affairs and have claimed the estate in my name, and then I have not ratified this your claim, but have mandated you to claim the same estate afresh, the exception of res judicata will not stand in the way: for a different matter has been made by the intervention of a mandate. The same is so if the action has been brought not in rem but in personam.

Dig. 44.2.26pr.

Digest 44.2.26, preface.

Africanus 9 quaest.

Africanus 9 questions.

Egi tecum ius mihi esse aedes meas usque ad decem pedes altius tollere: post ago ius mihi esse usque ad viginti pedes altius tollere: exceptio rei iudicatae procul dubio obstabit. sed et si rursus ita agam ius mihi esse altius ad alios decem pedes tollere, obstabit exceptio, cum aliter superior pars iure haberi non possit, quam si inferior quoque iure habeatur.

I litigated with you that I have the right to raise my house higher up to ten feet: afterwards I bring suit that I have the right to raise it higher up to twenty feet: the exceptio of res iudicata will without doubt obstruct. But even if I again thus bring suit that I have the right to raise it higher by another ten feet, the exception will obstruct, since the upper part cannot be held by right otherwise than if the lower also is held by right.

Dig. 44.2.26.1

Digest 44.2.26.1

Africanus 9 quaest.

Africanus 9 Questions.

Item si fundo petito postea insula, quae e regione eius in flumine nata erit, petatur, exceptio obstatura est.

Likewise, if, after the tract of land has been sued for, an island which will have arisen in the river opposite it is thereafter claimed, the exception will be a bar.

Dig. 44.2.27

Digest 44.2.27

Nerva 7 membr.

Nerva 7 Parchments.

Cum de hoc, an eadem res est, quaeritur, haec spectanda sunt: personae, id ipsum de quo agitur, causa proxima actionis. nec iam interest, qua ratione quis eam causam actionis competere sibi existimasset, perinde ac si quis, posteaquam contra eum iudicatum esset, nova instrumenta causae suae repperisset.

When the question is raised whether it is the same matter, the following must be considered: the persons, the very thing at issue, and the proximate cause of the action. Nor does it now matter by what rationale someone had supposed that that cause of action was available to him, just as if, after judgment had been given against him, he had discovered new instruments (documents) of his case.

Dig. 44.2.28

Digest 44.2.28

Papinianus 27 quaest.

Papinianus 27 questions.

Exceptio rei iudicatae nocebit ei, qui in dominium successit eius qui iudicio expertus est.

The exception of res judicata will prejudice him who has succeeded to the dominion of one who has gone to judgment.

Dig. 44.2.29pr.

Digest 44.2.29, preface.

Papinianus 11 resp.

Papinian, book 11 of Responses.

Iudicatae quidem rei praescriptio coheredi, qui non litigavit, obstare non potest, nec in servitutem videtur peti post rem pro libertate iudicatam nondum ex causa fideicommissi manumissus: sed praetoris oportet in ea re sententiam servari, quam pro parte victi praestari non potest: nam et cum alterum ex coheredibus inofficiosi quaestio tenuit aut etiam duobus separatim agentibus alter optinuit, libertates competere placuit, ita tamen, ut officio iudicis indemnitati victoris futurique manumissoris consulatur.

Indeed, the prescription of an adjudged matter cannot obstruct a coheir who did not litigate; nor does it seem that a person can be claimed into servitude after the matter has been adjudged for liberty, although he has not yet been manumitted by reason of a fideicommissum: but in that matter the praetor’s sentence ought to be observed, which cannot be enforced with respect to the share of the defeated. For even when the inofficiosum inquiry held against one of the coheirs, or even when, with two proceeding separately, the one prevailed, it has been held that the manumissions are competent—yet in such a way that, by the office of the judge, provision is made for the indemnity of the victor and of the future manumittor.

Dig. 44.2.29.1

Digest 44.2.29.1

Papinianus 11 resp.

Papinian Book 11, Responses.

Si debitor de dominio rei, quam pignori dedit, non admonito creditore causam egerit et contrariam sententiam acceperit, creditor in locum victi successisse non videbitur, cum pignoris conventio sententiam praecesserit.

If the debtor, concerning the dominion of the thing which he gave in pledge, with the creditor not having been admonished, prosecutes the case and receives an adverse judgment, the creditor will not be deemed to have succeeded into the place of the defeated, since the agreement of pledge preceded the judgment.

Dig. 44.2.30pr.

Digest 44.2.30pr.

Paulus 14 quaest.

Paul 14 questions.

Ex sextante heres institutus, qui intestato legitimus heres esse potest, cum de iure testamenti faceret quaestionem, ab uno ex institutis dimidiam partem hereditatis petiit nec optinuit. videtur in illa petitione etiam partem sextantis vindicasse et ideo, si coeperit ab eodem ex testamento eandem portionem petere, obstabit ei exceptio rei iudicatae.

An heir instituted for a sextans (one-sixth), who can be the lawful heir in intestacy, when he litigated about the right under the testament, claimed from one of the instituted heirs half of the inheritance and did not prevail. it seems that in that claim he also asserted the portion of the sextans, and therefore, if he begins to seek the same portion from that same person on the basis of the testament, the plea of res judicata will bar him.

Dig. 44.2.30.1

Digest 44.2.30.1

Paulus 14 quaest.

Paulus 14 questions.

Latinus largus: cum de hereditate inter maevium, ad quem pertinebat, et titium, qui controversiam moverat, transigeretur, traditio rerum hereditariarum maevio heredi a titio facta est, in qua traditione etiam fundum ei suum proprium, quem ante multos annos avo eiusdem maevii heredis obligaverat quemque alii postea in obligationem deduxerat, ex causa pacti tradidit. his gestis posterior titii creditor ius suum persecutus est et optinuit. post hoc iudicium maevius heres repperit in rebus avitis chirographum eiusdem titii ante multos annos conscriptum, per quod apparuit eum fundum, qui in causam transactionis venerat, etiam avo suo ab eodem titio fuisse obligatum.

Latinus largus: when a settlement concerning an inheritance was being concluded between maevium, to whom it belonged, and titium, who had set the controversy in motion, a delivery (traditio) of the hereditary assets was made by titium to maevium the heir; and in that delivery he also, on the ground of a pact, delivered to him his own proper fundus (estate), which many years before he had obligated to the grandfather of that same maevium the heir, and which he had afterwards brought into obligation to another. With these acts done, a later creditor of titium pursued his right and prevailed. After this judgment, maevium the heir found among the ancestral effects a chirograph of that same titium drawn up many years before, by which it appeared that the fundus which had come into the matter of the transaction had also been obligated to his own grandfather by that same titium.

cum ergo constet prius avo maevii heredis in obligationem eundem fundum datum, de quo maevius superatus est, quaero, an ius avi sui, quod tunc, cum de eodem fundo ageretur, ignorabat, nulla exceptione opposita exsequi possit. respondi: si de proprietate fundi litigatur et secundum actorem pronuntiatum fuisset, diceremus petenti ei, qui in priore iudicio victus est, obstaturam rei iudicatae exceptionem, quoniam de eius quoque iure quaesitum videtur, cum actor petitionem implet. quod si possessor absolutus amissa possessione eundem ab eodem, qui prius non optinuit, peteret, non obesset ei exceptio: nihil enim in suo iudicio de iure eius statutum videretur.

since therefore it is established that earlier the same estate was given in obligation to Maevus the heir’s grandfather, in regard to which Maevus was defeated, I ask whether he can pursue his grandfather’s right, which at the time when suit was being brought about the same estate he did not know, no exception having been opposed. I replied: if the dispute is about the proprietorship of the estate and a judgment had been pronounced in favor of the plaintiff, we would say that the plea of res judicata would bar the demander who was defeated in the prior trial, since inquiry is deemed to have been made into his right also, when the plaintiff makes good his claim. But if the possessor, having been acquitted, after losing possession were to demand the same thing from the same person who previously did not prevail, the exception would not harm him: for nothing in his own case would seem to have been determined about his right.

cum autem pigneraticia actum est adversus priorem creditorem, potest fieri, ut de iure possessoris non sit quaesitum, quia non, ut in proprietatis quaestione quod meum est alterius non est, ita in obligatione utique consequens est, ut non sit alii obligatum, quod hic probabit sibi teneri. et probabilius dicitur non obstare exceptionem, quoniam de iure possessoris quaesitum non est, sed de sola obligatione. in proposita autem quaestione magis me illud movet, numquid pignoris ius extinctum sit dominio adquisito: neque enim potest pignus perseverare domino constituto creditore.

but when a pignoratitious action has been brought against the prior creditor, it can happen that no inquiry has been made into the possessor’s right, because, not as in a question of property—where what is mine is not another’s—so in obligation it by no means follows that what this man will prove to be held for himself is not pledged to another. And it is more probable to say that the exception does not obstruct, since inquiry was not made into the possessor’s right, but only into the obligation. In the question proposed, however, this moves me more: whether the right of pledge has been extinguished by ownership having been acquired; for a pledge cannot persist when the owner has been constituted the creditor.

actio tamen pigneraticia competit: verum est enim et pigneri datum et satisfactum non esse, quare puto non obstare rei iudicatae exceptionem.

Nevertheless, the pignoratitious action lies: for it is true both that it was given in pledge and that satisfaction has not been rendered; therefore I think that the plea of res judicata does not obstruct.

Dig. 44.2.31

Digest 44.2.31

Paulus 3 resp.

Paulus 3 responses.

Paulus respondit ei, qui in rem egisset nec tenuisset, postea condicenti non obstare exceptionem rei iudicatae.

Paulus responded that, for one who had brought an action in rem and had not prevailed, the exception of res judicata does not obstruct him when later bringing a condictio.

Dig. 44.3.0. De diversis temporalibus praescriptionibus et de accessionibus possessionum.

Digest 44.3.0. On various temporal prescriptions and on the accessions of possessions.

Dig. 44.3.1

Digest 44.3.1

Ulpianus 74 ad ed.

Ulpian 74 on the Edict.

Quia tractatus de utilibus diebus frequens est, videamus, quid sit experiundi potestatem habere. et quidem in primis exigendum est, ut sit facultas agendi. neque sufficit reo experiundi secum facere potestatem, vel habere eum qui se idonee defendat, nisi actor quoque nulla idonea causa impediatur experiri.

Because the discussion about useful days is frequent, let us see what it is to have the power of proceeding. And indeed, first of all it must be required that there be the faculty of acting. Nor is it sufficient for the defendant to afford with himself the power of proceeding, or to have someone who may suitably defend him, unless the plaintiff also is not hindered by any adequate cause from proceeding.

proinde sive apud hostes sit sive rei publicae causa absit sive in vinculis sit aut si tempestate in loco aliquo vel in regione detineatur, ut neque experiri neque mandare possit, experiundi potestatem non habet. plane is, qui valetudine impeditur, ut mandare possit, in ea causa est, ut experiundi habeat potestatem. illud utique neminem fugit experiundi potestatem non habere eum, qui praetoris copiam non habuit: proinde hi dies cedunt, quibus ius praetor reddit.

accordingly, whether he be among enemies, or be absent for the sake of the commonwealth, or be in chains, or if by a tempest he is detained in some place or in some region, so that he can neither bring suit nor give a mandate, he does not have the power of bringing suit. clearly, he who is hindered by ill-health, in such wise that he can give a mandate, is in such a case that he has the power of bringing suit. this, to be sure, escapes no one: that he does not have the power of bringing suit who has not had access to the praetor; accordingly, those days count on which the praetor renders justice.

Dig. 44.3.2

Digest 44.3.2

Marcellus 6 Dig.

Marcellus 6 Digest.

In tempore constituto iudicatis an intercalaris dies proficere iudicato nec ne debeat, quaeritur. item de tempore, quo lis perit, sic sine dubio existimandum est, ut auctum litis tempus intercalari die existimetur, veluti si de usucapione sit quaestio, quae tempore constituto expleri solet, aut de actionibus, quae certo tempore finiuntur, ut aediliciae pleraeque actiones. et si quis fundum ea lege vendiderit, ut, nisi in diebus triginta pretium esset solutum, inemptus esset fundus, dies intercalaris proficiet emptori.

As to time fixed for judgments, the question is raised whether the intercalary day ought to be of avail to the judgment creditor or not. Likewise concerning the time at which a suit perishes, it is to be thought without doubt thus: that the time of the suit is deemed augmented by the intercalary day, for instance if the question is about usucapion, which is accustomed to be completed at a set time, or about actions which are finished at a fixed time, as most aedilician actions. And if someone has sold a farm on this condition, that unless the price were paid within thirty days the farm would be unbought, the intercalary day will profit the buyer.

mihi contra videtur.

It seems the contrary to me.

Dig. 44.3.3

Digest 44.3.3

Modestinus 6 diff.

Modestinus 6 Diff.

Longae possessionis praescriptionem tam in praediis quam in mancipiis locum habere manifestum est.

It is manifest that the prescription of long possession has place both in estates and in slaves.

Dig. 44.3.4

Digest 44.3.4

Iavolenus 7 epist.

Iavolenus 7 epistles.

Si servus hereditarius aut eius, qui in hostium potestate sit, satis acceperit, continuo dies satisdationis cedere incipiet: intueri enim debemus, an experiundi potestas fuerit adversus eum, qui obligatus est, non an is agere potuerit, qui rem in obligationem deduxerit: alioquin erit iniquissimum ex condicione actorum obligationes reorum extendi, per quos nihil factum erit, quo minus cum his agi possit.

If an hereditary slave, or the slave of one who is in the power of the enemy, has received surety, immediately the days of the satisdation will begin to run: for we must look to whether there was the power of bringing suit against him who is obligated, not whether he who brought the matter into obligation was able to sue; otherwise it would be most inequitable that, from the condition of the plaintiffs, the obligations of the defendants be extended, when nothing has been done by them to hinder action from being brought against them.

Dig. 44.3.5pr.

Digest 44.3.5, preface.

Ulpianus 3 disp.

Ulpian Disputations, Book 3.

An vitium auctoris vel donatoris eiusve qui mihi rem legavit mihi noceat, si forte auctor meus iustum initium possidendi non habuit, videndum est. et puto neque nocere neque prodesse: nam denique et usucapere possum, quod auctor meus usucapere non potuit.

Whether a defect of the author or donor or of him who bequeathed the thing to me should harm me, if perhaps my author did not have a just inception of possessing, must be considered. And I think it neither harms nor benefits: for, after all, I too can acquire by usucapion what my author could not acquire by usucapion.

Dig. 44.3.5.1

Digest 44.3.5.1

Ulpianus 3 disp.

Ulpian book 3, Disputations.

Ex facto propositum est quendam, cum rem pignori dedisset, eandem distraxisse heredemque eius redemisse: quaeritur, an heres adversus pignoris persecutionem exceptione longae possessionis uti possit. dicebam hunc heredem, qui pignus ab extraneo redemit, posse exceptione uti, quia in extranei locum successit, non in eius qui pignori dederat, quemadmodum si ante redemisset, sic deinde heres exstitisset.

From the stated facts it is put forward that a certain person, after he had given a thing in pledge, sold the same, and his heir bought it back: the question is whether the heir can use the exception of long possession against the pursuit of the pledge. I said that this heir, who redeemed the pledge from a stranger, can use the exception, because he has succeeded to the position of the stranger, not of the one who had given it in pledge, just as if he had redeemed it beforehand and had thereafter become heir.

Dig. 44.3.6pr.

Digest 44.3.6 beginning.

Africanus 9 quaest.

Africanus 9 questions.

Si duobus eandem rem separatim vendiderim, ea possessio, quae utramque venditionem praecesserit, soli priori emptori, cui et tradita sit, proficit. denique et si, quam rem tibi vendiderim, rursus a te emam et titio vendam, et meam omnem et tuam possessionem titio accessuram, videlicet quod et tu mihi et ego ei possessionem praestare debeamus.

if I have sold the same thing separately to two persons, that possession which has preceded both sales benefits only the prior buyer, to whom it has also been delivered. finally, even if the thing which I sold to you I then buy back from you and sell to titius, the whole of my possession and yours will accrue to titius, namely because both you must furnish possession to me and I to him.

Dig. 44.3.6.1

Digest 44.3.6.1

Africanus 9 quaest.

Africanus 9 Questions.

Vendidi tibi servum et convenit, ut, nisi certa die pecunia soluta esset, inemptus esset: quod cum evenerit, quaesitum est, quid de accessione tui temporis putares. respondit id quod servetur, cum redhibitio sit facta: hunc enim perinde haberi ac si retrorsus homo mihi venisset, ut scilicet, si venditor possessionem postea nactus sit, et hoc ipsum tempus et quod venditionem praecesserit et amplius accessio haec ei detur cum eo, quod apud eum fuit, a quo homo redhibitus sit.

I sold you a slave, and it was agreed that, unless the money were paid on a certain day, he would be as unbought: when this occurred, the question was asked what you thought about the accession (tacking) of your time. He replied that the rule which is observed when a redhibition has been effected applies; for he is treated just as if the man had come back to me back again, namely that, if the seller has afterward obtained possession, both this very time and that which preceded the sale, and, moreover, this accession be granted to him together with that time which was with the one from whom the man has been redhibited.

Dig. 44.3.7

Digest 44.3.7

Marcianus 3 inst.

Marcianus Institutes 3.

Si quisquam in fluminis publici deverticulo solus pluribus annis piscatus sit, alterum eodem iure uti prohibet.

If anyone has fished alone for many years in a side-channel of a public river, he does not prevent another from using the same right.

Dig. 44.3.8

Digest 44.3.8

Ulpianus 1 reg.

Ulpian 1 Rules.

In accessione temporis et id tempus, quo in fuga sit servus, domino eius procedere verum est.

In the accession of time, it is true that even the time during which the slave is in flight proceeds to his owner.

Dig. 44.3.9

Digest 44.3.9

Marcianus 5 reg.

Marcianus book 5 of the Rules.

Rescriptis quibusdam divi magni antonini cavetur, ut in rebus mobilibus locus sit praescriptioni diutinae possessionis.

By certain rescripts of the deified great Antoninus it is provided that, in movable property, there is room for the prescription of long possession.

Dig. 44.3.10pr.

Digest 44.3.10pr.

Papinianus 13 resp.

Papinianus 13 Responses

Intra quattuor annos vacantium bonorum delator facta denuntiatione destitit: post quattuor annos secundo delatori venienti prior nuntiatio, quo minus praescriptione temporis summoveatur, non proderit, nisi prioris praevaricatio detegetur: quo declarato praescriptio, sed et negotii quaestio peremetur.

Within four years the informer of vacant goods, after a denunciation has been made, ceased; after four years, for a second informer who comes, the prior notification will not avail, so as to prevent his being removed by the prescription of time, unless the collusion of the former is uncovered: once that is declared, the prescription—and indeed the very question of the matter—will be perempted.

Dig. 44.3.10.1

Digest 44.3.10.1

Papinianus 13 resp.

Papinian 13 Responses

Quadriennii tempus, quod bonis vacantibus nuntiandis praescriptum est, non ex opinione hominum, sed de substantia vacantium bonorum dinumeratur. quattuor autem anni post irritum testamentum factum et intestati possessionem ab omnibus repudiatam, qui gradatim petere potuerunt, vel temporis finem, quod singulis praestitutum est, computabuntur.

The four-year period which is prescribed for announcing vacant goods is counted not from the opinion of men, but from the substance of the vacant goods. Moreover, the four years will be computed after a will has been made void and the possession of the intestate estate has been repudiated by all who could have sought it in order, or after the end of the time which has been prescribed for each individual.

Dig. 44.3.11

Digest 44.3.11

Papinianus 2 def.

Papinian 2 definitions.

Cum heres in ius omne defuncti succedit, ignoratione sua defuncti vitia non excludit, veluti cum sciens alienum illum illo vel precario possedit: quamvis enim precarium heredem ignorantem non teneat nec interdicto recte conveniatur, tamen usucapere non poterit, quod defunctus non potuit. idem iuris est, cum de longa possessione quaeritur: neque enim recte defendetur, cum exordium ei bonae fidei ratio non tueatur.

When the heir succeeds to all the right of the deceased (defunct), he does not, by his own ignorance, exclude the defects of the deceased; for example, when the deceased, knowing it to be another’s, possessed that thing either on that basis or by precarium: for although a precarium does not bind an ignorant heir, nor is he properly proceeded against by interdict, nevertheless he will not be able to acquire by usucapion what the deceased could not. The same law holds when long possession is in question: for he will not be rightly defended, since the inception is not supported for him by the reason of good faith.

Dig. 44.3.12

Digest 44.3.12

Paulus 16 resp.

Paulus 16 responses

Creditor, qui praescriptione longae possessionis a possessore pignoris summoveri possit, pignus distraxit: quaero, an possessori salva sit exceptio adversus emptorem. paulus respondit etiam adversus emptorem eandem exceptionem competere.

A creditor, who could be removed by the possessor of the pledge by the prescription of long possession, sold the pledge: I ask whether the exception remains available to the possessor against the purchaser. paulus responded that the same exception is likewise available against the purchaser.

Dig. 44.3.13pr.

Digest 44.3.13 pr.

Hermogenianus 6 iuris epit.

Hermogenianus 6, Epitome of Law.

In omnibus fisci quaestionibus exceptis causis, in quibus minora tempora servari specialiter constitutum est, viginti annorum praescriptio custoditur.

In all fiscal inquiries, excepting the cases in which it has been specially established that shorter periods are to be observed, a prescription of 20 years is observed.

Dig. 44.3.13.1

Digest 44.3.13.1

Hermogenianus 6 iuris epit.

Hermogenianus Book 6 of the Epitome of Law.

Rei publicae rationes subscriptae et expunctae adversus eum quidem, qui administravit, ultra viginti, adversus heredem vero ultra decem annos retractari non possunt.

The commonwealth’s accounts, subscribed and expunged, cannot be reconsidered against the one who administered beyond 20 years, and against the heir indeed beyond 10 years.

Dig. 44.3.14pr.

Digest 44.3.14, preface.