- 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-lat1:2.1.19.pr-2.1.19.1
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-10-26
Ulpian discusses how a woman's change of jurisdiction through marriage affects the execution or rendering of a judgment, and states that the jurisdictional amount is determined by the sum claimed, not what is actually owed.
[ULPIANUS libro sexto fideicommissorum.]
[ULPIAN, on Trusts, Book VI.]
Cum quaedam puella apud competentem iudicem litem susceperat, deinde condemnata erat, posteaque ad uiri matrimonium alii iurisdictioni subiecti peruenerat, quaerebatur, an prioris iudicis sententia exsequi possit. dixi posse, quia ante fuerat sententia dicta: sed et si post susceptam cognitionem ante sententiam hoc eueniet, idem putarem,1 sententiaque a priore iudice recte fertur. quod generaliter et in omnibus huiuscemodi casibus obseruandum est.
When a certain girl had undertaken a lawsuit before a competent judge, and had then been condemned, and afterwards had married a husband subject to another jurisdiction, it was asked whether the judgment of the prior judge could be executed. I said that it could, because the judgment had been pronounced before. But even if this should happen after the trial is undertaken but before the judgment, I would think the same, and the judgment is rightly rendered by the prior judge. This is to be observed generally and in all cases of this kind.
Quotiens de quantitate ad iurisdictionem pertinente quaeritur, semper quantum petatur2 quaerendum est, non quantum debeatur.
Whenever there is a question concerning the amount pertaining to jurisdiction, it must always be asked how much is claimed, not how much is owed.
- 2.1.19.pridem putarem
The subjunctive imperfect 'putarem', accompanied by the conditional clause, expresses a potential or counterfactual result ('I would think the same') regarding a hypothetical situation (marriage occurring before the final judgment).
- 2.1.19.1quantum petatur
These are subjunctives in indirect questions ('petatur' and 'debeatur') introduced by 'quaerendum est'. They indicate that the jurisdictional limit depends on the amount claimed by the plaintiff, not the actual amount owed.