- Source
- Digesta Iustiniani Augusti. Mommsen, Theodor & Krueger, Paul, editors. Berlin: Weidmann, 1870.
- Translation
- AI-generated (gemini-3.5-flash) — machine translation; may contain errors
- Languages
- 日本語 · English · 简体中文 · 한국어
- CTS URN
- urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:2.1.11.pr-2.1.11.2
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-10-26
The text discusses the opinions of classical jurists regarding jurisdictional limits when multiple actions between the same parties exceed the limit in aggregate, when mutual actions involve different amounts, and whether individual shares or the whole property should determine jurisdiction in common actions.
[GAIUS libro primo ad edictum prouinciale.]
[GAIUS on the provincial edict, book first.]
Si idem cum eodem pluribus actionibus agat, quarum singularum quantitas intra iurisdictionem iudicantis sit, coaceruatio uero omnium excedat modum iurisdictionis eius: apud eum agi posse Sabino Cassio Proculo placuit:1 quae sententia rescripto imperatoris Antonini confirmata est.
If the same person should bring several actions against the same person, of which the amount of each individual action is within the jurisdiction of the judge, but the aggregate of all exceeds the limit of his jurisdiction, Sabinus, Cassius, and Proculus held that the actions can be brought before him; and this opinion was confirmed by a rescript of the Emperor Antoninus.
Sed et si mutuae sunt actiones et alter minorem quantitatem, alter maiorem petat, apud eundem iudicem agendum est ei qui quantitatem minorem petit, ne in potestate calumniosa aduersarii mei sit, an apud eum litigare possim.2
But also, if there are mutual actions, and one party claims a smaller amount and the other a larger amount, the one who claims the smaller amount must bring his action before the same judge, lest it should be within the malicious power of my adversary whether I can litigate before him.
Si una actio communis sit plurium personarum, ueluti familiae herciscundae, communi diuidundo, finium regundorum, utrum singulae partes spectandae sunt circa iurisdictionem eius qui cognoscit, quod Ofilio et Proculo placet, quia unusquisque de parte sua litigat: an potius tota res,3 quia et tota res in iudicium uenit et uel uni adiudicari potest, quod Cassio et Pegaso placet: et sane eorum sententia probabilis est.
If a single action is common to several persons, such as for the division of an inheritance, the division of common property, or the regulation of boundaries, should the individual shares be considered with respect to the jurisdiction of the judge who hears the case (which is the opinion of Ofilius and Proculus, because each person litigates for his own share), or rather the whole property (which is the opinion of Cassius and Pegasus, because the whole property comes into judgment and can be adjudged even to one person)? And indeed, their opinion is reasonable.
- 2.1.11.prSabino Cassio Proculo placuit
The verb placere is used impersonally with the dative (here, Sabino Cassio Proculo) to mean 'it was the opinion of...' or 'it pleased...'. The subject of placuit is the preceding accusative with infinitive clause apud eum agi posse ('that actions can be brought before him').
- 2.1.11.1ne in potestate calumniosa aduersarii mei sit, an apud eum litigare possim
Within the clause introduced by the conjunction of purpose ne, the indirect question clause an... possim ('whether I can litigate before him') functions as the subject of the verb sit. The use of the first-person pronoun in aduersarii mei ('my adversary') reflects the author's style of explaining through a concrete hypothetical scenario.
- 2.1.11.2utrum singulae partes spectandae sunt... an potius tota res
This is a double indirect question structured with utrum... an... ('whether... or...'). In the second part, an potius tota res, the verb phrase spectanda sit (or spectanda est) corresponding to the first part is omitted. The final phrase eorum sententia ('their opinion') refers to the latter view held by Cassius and Pegasus.