- 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-lat1:2.13.10.pr-2.13.10.3
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-10-29
Gaius explains why only bankers are compelled to produce accounts, the scope of such production, and the plaintiff's remedy to recover losses if the accounts were not produced.
[GAIUS libro primo ad edictum prouinciale.]
[GAIUS, on the Provincial Edict, book 1]
Argentarius rationes edere iubetur: nec interest cum ipso argentario controuersia sit an cum alio.
A banker is ordered to produce accounts; and it makes no difference whether the dispute is with the banker himself or with another.
Ideo autem argentarios tantum neque alios ullos absimiles eis edere rationes cogit, quia officium eorum atque ministerium publicam habet causam et haec principalis eorum opera est, ut actus sui rationes diligenter conficiant.
But the reason why he compels only bankers, and no others unlike them, to produce accounts, is because their duty and service has a public character, and this is their principal task, to diligently make up accounts of their transactions.
Edi autem ratio ita intellegitur, si a capite1 edatur, nam ratio nisi a capite inspiciatur, intellegi non potest: scilicet ut non totum cuique codicem rationum totasque membranas inspiciendi describendique potestas fiat, sed ut ea sola pars rationum, quae ad instruendum aliquem pertineat, inspiciatur et describatur.
But accounts are understood to be produced in this way, if they are produced from the beginning; for accounts cannot be understood unless they are inspected from the beginning. That is to say, not that everyone is given the power of inspecting and copying the entire ledger of accounts and all the parchments, but that only that part of the accounts which pertains to preparing someone should be inspected and copied.
Cum autem in id action competit, quanti agentis intersit editas sibi rationes esse:2 eueniet, ut, siue quis condemnatus sit siue quod petierit non optinuerit eo, quod non habuerit rationes ex quibus causam suam tueri possit, id ipsum, quod ita perdiderit, hac actione consequatur. sed an hoc procedat uideamus: nam si apud hunc iudicem, qui inter eum et argentarium iudicat, potest probare se illo iudicio, quo uictus est, uincere potuisse, poterat et tunc probare: et si non probauit aut probantem iudex non curauit, de se ipso aut de iudice queri debet. sed non ita est. fieri enim potest, ut nunc, rationes uel ipso edente uel alio modo nanctus, aut aliis instrumentis uel testibus, quibus illo tempore aliqua ex causa uti non potuit, possit probare potuisse se uincere. sic enim et de cautione subrepta aut corrupta3 competit condictio et damni iniuriae actio: quia quod ante non potuimus intercepta cautione probare et ob id amisimus, hoc nunc aliis instrumentis aut testibus, quibus tum uti non potuimus, probare possumus.
But since an action is available for this amount, namely, how much it is in the interest of the plaintiff that the accounts be produced to him, it will happen that, whether someone was condemned or did not obtain what he sought because he did not have the accounts by which he could defend his case, he will recover by this action that very thing which he thus lost. But let us see whether this is appropriate; for if before this judge, who judges between him and the banker, he can prove that he could have won in that trial by which he was defeated, he could also have proved it then; and if he did not prove it, or if the judge did not care for him when he was proving it, he ought to complain of himself or of the judge. But this is not so. For it can happen that now, having obtained the accounts either by the banker’s production of them or in some other way, or by other documents or witnesses which at that time he could not use for some reason, he can prove that he could have won. For in this way, too, a condictio and an action for wrongful damage are available for a stolen or corrupted security; because what we could not prove before, because the security was intercepted, and consequently lost, we can now prove by other documents or witnesses which we could not use then.
- 2.13.10.2a capite
Literally "from the head". It indicates the practical requirement that accounts must be produced from their very beginning or heading to be understood, rather than in isolation.
- 2.13.10.3quanti agentis intersit editas sibi rationes esse
A construction with the impersonal verb intersit. It takes the genitive of value quanti and the genitive of the person concerned agentis, with the accusative-and-infinitive clause editas sibi rationes esse functioning as the subject of intersit. This indirect question explains the pronoun id after the preposition in.
- 2.13.10.3de cautione subrepta aut corrupta
Discussion regarding a written security (cautio) that has been stolen (subrepta) or corrupted/destroyed (corrupta). This is introduced as an analogous case where a party who lost a previous lawsuit due to the absence of the document can later seek compensation through condictio or actio damni iniuriae once they can prove their case.