- 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-lat1:2.15.8.13-2.15.8.25
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-01
This chunk discusses the praetor's jurisdiction over compromises regarding alimony and other provisions, the invalidity of unauthorized compromises, the imputation of payments to past alimony, and how status or changes in the form of benefits affect these compromises.
[IDEM libro quinto de omnibus tribunalibus.]
[THE SAME in the fifth book on all tribunals.]
Sed et si quis de alimentis transegerit, non habebit necesse etiam de habitatione uel ceteris inuitus transigere: poterit igitur uel de omnibus simul uel de quibusdam facere transactionem.
But even if someone has compromised concerning alimony, he will not have any necessity to compromise also concerning habitation or other matters against his will; therefore, he will be able to make a compromise either concerning all of them together or concerning certain ones.
De calciario quoque arbitrio praetoris transigendum est.
Concerning shoe money as well, a compromise must be made according to the judgment of the praetor.
Si uni pluribusue fundus ad alimenta fuerit relictus uelintque eum distrahere: necesse est praetorem de distractione eius et transactione arbitrari. sed si pluribus fundus ad alimenta fuerit relictus et hi inter se transigant: sine praetoris auctoritate facta transactio rata esse non debet. idem est et si ager fuerit in alimenta obligatus: nam nec pignus ad hoc datum inconsulto praetore poterit liberari.
If a tract of land has been left to one or several persons for alimony and they wish to sell it, it is necessary for the praetor to judge concerning its sale and the compromise. But if a tract of land has been left to several persons for alimony and they compromise among themselves, a compromise made without the authority of the praetor ought not to be valid. The same is true even if a field has been obligated for alimony; for not even a pledge given for this purpose can be released without consulting the praetor.
Arbitratu praetoris uel de uniuersis alimentis uel de parte eorum transigi oportere plus quam manifestum est.
It is more than clear that a compromise must be made by the judgment of the praetor either concerning the whole of the alimony or concerning a part of it.
Si praetor aditus citra causae cognitionem transigi permiserit, transactio nullius erit momenti: praetori enim ea res quaerenda commissa est, non neglegenda nec donanda. sed et si non de omnibus inquisierit, quae oratio mandat, hoc est de causa de modo de personis transigentium, dicendum est, quamuis de quibusdam quaesierit, transactionem esse irritam.1
If the praetor, when approached, has permitted a compromise to be made without a hearing of the cause, the compromise will be of no force; for that matter has been committed to the praetor to be investigated, not to be neglected or gifted away. But even if he has not inquired into all the things which the Speech commands—that is, concerning the cause, the amount, and the person of those compromising—it must be said that, although he has inquired into some of them, the compromise is void.
Sed nec mandare ex hac causa iurisdictionem uel praeses prouinciae uel praetor poterit.
But neither the governor of a province nor the praetor will be able to delegate jurisdiction in this matter.
Transactiones alimentorum etiam apud procuratorem Caesaris fieri possunt: scilicet si a fisco petantur alimenta. secundum quae et apud praefectos aerarii transigi poterit.
Compromises of alimony can also be made before the procurator of Caesar, that is, if the alimony is claimed from the fiscus. In accordance with this, a compromise can also be made before the prefects of the treasury.
Si cum lis quidem esset de alimentis, transactum autem de lite fuisset: transactio ualere inconsulto praetore non potest, ne circumueniatur oratio. fingi enim lites poterunt, ut transactio etiam citra praetoris fiat auctoritatem.
If, while there was indeed a lawsuit concerning alimony, a compromise had been made concerning the lawsuit, the compromise cannot be valid without consulting the praetor, lest the Speech be circumvented. For lawsuits can be feigned so that a compromise may be made even without the authority of the praetor.
Si eidem alimenta et praeterea legatum praesenti die datum sit, et transactum fuerit citra praetoris auctoritatem: id quod datum est imputabitur prius in legatum quod praesenti die datum est, superfluum in alimentariam causam.
If alimony and, besides, a legacy payable immediately have been given to the same person, and a compromise has been made without the authority of the praetor, that which has been given will be imputed first to the legacy payable immediately, and any surplus to the cause of alimony.
Si quis de alimentis transegerit sine praetoris auctoritate, id quod datum est in praeterita alimenta cedet. nec interest tantum in quantitate sit debita, quantum datum est, an minus, an plus: nam et si minus sit, adhuc tamen id quod in solutum datum est in praeterita alimenta imputabitur. sane si is, qui de alimentis transegit, locupletior factus sit ea solutione: in quod2 factus sit locupletior aequissimum erit in eum dari repetitionem: nec enim debet ex alieno damno esse locuples.
If anyone has compromised concerning alimony without the authority of the praetor, that which has been given will go toward past alimony. And it makes no difference whether the amount due is as much as what has been given, or less, or more; for even if it is less, that which has been given in payment will still be imputed to past alimony. To be sure, if he who compromised concerning alimony has been made richer by that payment, it will be most equitable for a recovery to be granted against him to the extent that he was made richer; for he ought not to be enriched from another’s loss.
Si in annos singulos certa quantitas alicui fuerit relicta homini honestioris loci ueluti salarium annuum uel usus fructus, transactio et sine praetore fieri poterit: ceterum si usus fructus modicus alimentorum uice sit relictus, dico transactionem citra praetorem factam nullius esse momenti.
If a certain annual sum has been left to a person of more honorable status, for instance, as an annual salary or a usufruct, a compromise can be made even without the praetor; but if a moderate usufruct has been left in place of alimony, I say that a compromise made without the praetor is of no force.
Si cui non nummus ad alimenta, sed frumentum atque oleum et cetera, quae ad uictum necessaria sunt, fuerint relicta: non poterit de his transigere, siue annua siue menstrua ei relinquantur. si tamen ita sine praetore transegerit, ut in uicem eorum nummum quotannis uel quotmensibus acciperet et neque diem neque modum permutauit, sed tantum genus: uel ex contrario si pactus fuerit, ut in generibus alimenta acciperet, quae in nummis ei relicta fuissent: uel si uinum pro oleo uel oleum pro uino uel quid aliud commutauit: uel locum permutauit, ut quae erant ei Romae alimenta relicta, in municipio uel in prouincia acciperet uel contra: uel personam commutauit, ut quod a pluribus erat accepturus, ab uno acciperet: uel alium pro alio debitorem acceperit: haec omnia habent disceptationem3 praetoris et pro utilitate alimentarii recipienda sunt.
If, not money, but grain, oil, and other things necessary for sustenance have been left to someone for alimony, he will not be able to compromise concerning these, whether they are left to him annually or monthly. If, however, he has compromised without the praetor in such a way that, in place of them, he should receive money yearly or monthly, and changed neither the time nor the amount, but only the class; or, on the contrary, if he agreed to receive alimony in kind which had been left to him in money; or if he exchanged wine for oil, or oil for wine, or something else; or changed the place, so that he should receive in a municipality or in a province the alimony which had been left to him at Rome, or vice versa; or changed the person, so that he should receive from one person what he was going to receive from several; or accepted one debtor instead of another: all these matters require the examination of the praetor and are to be accepted in accordance with the benefit of the recipient of the alimony.
Si ad habitationem certa quantitas sit annua relicta et ita sit transactum sine praetore, ut habitatio praestetur, ualet transactio, quia fructus habitationis praestatur, licet ruinae uel incendio subiecta transactio est. per contrarium quoque si pro habitatione, quae erat relicta, placuerit certam quantitatem praestari, transactio rata est et citra praetorem.
If a certain annual sum has been left for habitation and a compromise has been made without the praetor in such a way that habitation itself is provided, the compromise is valid, because the fruit of habitation is provided, although the compromise is subject to ruin or fire. Conversely also, if it has been agreed that a certain sum be provided in place of the habitation which had been left, the compromise is valid even without the praetor.
- 2.15.8.17transactionem esse irritam
This accusative with infinitive clause is governed by dicendum est ("it must be said"), forming the main conclusion of the sentence despite the intervening concession clause introduced by quamuis ("although he has inquired into some of them").
- 2.15.8.22in quod
The preposition in with the accusative neuter singular relative pronoun quod (with the antecedent, such as id, implied), functioning to restrict the scope: "to the extent that" or "in so far as he was made richer."
- 2.15.8.24habent disceptationem
Literally "have the discussion of the praetor," but used idiomatically here to mean "require the examination and decision of the praetor" or "are subject to the judicial determination of the praetor."