- 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-lat1:2.12.1.pr-2.12.1.2
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-10-29
Based on the speech of the divine Marcus, this text discusses the restriction on summoning adversaries to court during harvest and vintage seasons, and outlines the exceptional cases where such summons is permitted due to urgency, such as the imminent loss of an action.
[ULPIANUS libro quarto de omnibus tribunalibus.]
[ULPIANUS, On All Tribunals, book 4]
Ne quis messium uindemiarumque tempore aduersarium cogat1 ad iudicium uenire, oratione diui Marci exprimitur, quia occupati circa rem rusticam in forum conpellendi non sunt.
That no one should compel their adversary to come to court during the time of harvest and vintage is expressed in the speech of the divine Marcus, because those occupied with rural matters ought not to be forced into the forum.
Sed si praetor aut per ignorantiam uel socordiam euocare eos perseuerauerit hique sponte uenerint: si quidem sententiam dixerit praesentibus illis et sponte litigantibus, sententia ualebit, tametsi non recte fecerit qui eos euocauerit: sin uero, cum abesse perseuerauerint, sententiam protulerit etiam absentibus illis, consequens erit dicere sententiam nullius esse momenti2 (neque enim praetoris factum iuri derogare oportet): et citra appellationem igitur sententia infirmabitur.
But if the praetor, either through ignorance or negligence, persists in summoning them, and they come voluntarily: if indeed he pronounces judgment while they are present and litigating voluntarily, the judgment will be valid, even though he who summoned them did not act rightly. If on the other hand, while they persist in being absent, he pronounces judgment even in their absence, the logical consequence will be to say that the judgment is of no effect (for the act of a praetor ought not to derogate from the law); and therefore, even without an appeal, the judgment will be invalidated.
Sed excipiuntur certae causae, ex quibus cogi poterimus et per id temporis, cum messes uindemiaeque sunt, ad praetorem uenire: scilicet si res tempore peritura sit, hoc est si dilatio actionem sit peremptura.3 Sane quotiens res urguet, cogendi quidem sumus ad praetorem uenire, uerum ad hoc tantum cogi aequum est ut lis contestetur, et ita ipsis uerbis orationis exprimitur: denique alterutro recusante post litem contestatam litigare4 dilationem oratio concessit.
But certain cases are excepted, in which we can be compelled to come to the praetor even during the time of harvest and vintage: namely, if the thing is about to perish through time, that is, if delay is going to destroy the action. Indeed, whenever the matter is urgent, we must indeed be compelled to come to the praetor, but it is equitable that we be compelled only for the purpose of joining issue, and it is so expressed in the very words of the speech: finally, if either party refuses to litigate after the issue has been joined, the speech has granted an adjournment.
- 2.12.1.prNe quis ... cogat
The ne-clause with the subjunctive (cogat) functions as the subject nominative of the passive verb exprimitur used impersonally. Typically, a ne-clause expressing a negative volition or command forming a noun clause as a subject is standard in legal texts to represent indirect commands or prohibitions.
- 2.12.1.1nullius esse momenti
This is a genitive of quality (genitivus qualitatis) acting as a predicate of sententiam via the copula verb esse. It means 'to be of no weight/importance,' which in legal contexts translates to 'to be void' or 'to have no effect.'
- 2.12.1.2actionem sit peremptura
This is a periphrastic subjunctive (coniunctivus periphrasticus) combining the active future participle peremptura and the present subjunctive sit, which expresses a future expectation or likelihood ('is going to destroy') within the conditional si-clause.
- 2.12.1.2alterutro recusante ... litigare
alterutro recusante is an ablative absolute construction with a present participle. The infinitive litigare (to litigate) functions as the object (complementary infinitive) of the participle recusante (refusing). The whole phrase means 'if either party refuses to carry on the litigation.'