Sureties with Privileged Forum and the Place of Security — Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian Book 2 (2.8.7.pr–2.8.7.2), Latin & English

[ULPIANUS libro quarto decimo ad edictum.]

[ULPIANUS, in the fourteenth book on the Edict.]

§2.8.7.pr

Si fideiussor non negetur idoneus, sed dicatur habere fori praescriptionem et metuat petitor ne iure fori utatur:¹ uidendum quid iuris sit. et diuus Pius (ut et Pomponius libro epistularum refert et Marcellus libro tertio digestorum et Papinianus libro tertio quaestionum) Cornelio Proculo rescripsit merito² petitorem recusare talem fideiussorem: sed si alias caueri non possit, praedicendum ei³ non usurum eum priuilegio, si conueniatur.

If a surety is not denied to be suitable, but is said to possess a privilege of forum, and the plaintiff fears that he may use the law of his forum: it must be considered what the law is. And the deified Pius (as Pomponius reports in his book of Letters, Marcellus in the third book of the Digests, and Papinian in the third book of Questions) wrote back to Cornelius Proculus that the plaintiff rightly rejects such a surety; but if security cannot be provided in any other way, the surety must declare beforehand that he will not use the privilege if he is sued.

§2.8.7.1

Si necessaria satisdatio fuerit et non facile possit reus ibi eam praestare, ubi conuenitur: potest audiri, si in alia eiusdem prouinciae ciuitate satisdationem praestare paratus sit. si autem satisdatio uoluntaria est, non in alium locum remittitur: neque enim meretur qui ipse sibi necessitatem satisdationis imposuit.

If the security is necessary and the defendant cannot easily provide it in the place where he is sued, he may be heard if he is ready to provide security in another city of the same province. If, however, the security is voluntary, it is not transferred to another place; for he who has himself imposed the necessity of providing security upon himself does not deserve this.

§2.8.7.2

Si satisdatum pro re mobili non sit et persona suspecta sit, ex qua satis desideratur:⁴ apud officium deponi debebit si hoc iudici sederit,⁵ donec uel satisdatio detur uel lis finem accipiat.

If security has not been provided for a movable object and the person from whom security is required is suspect, the object must be deposited with the office of the court, if this is agreeable to the judge, until either security is given or the lawsuit comes to an end.

Syntax notes5 items

2.8.7.prne iure fori utatur
A ne clause introduced by the verb of fearing metuat (present subjunctive), meaning 'fears lest he should use...' or 'fears that he may use...' The verb utatur is the present subjunctive of the deponent verb uti, which takes the ablative iure as its object.
2.8.7.prmerito
An adverbial ablative meaning 'deservedly' or 'rightly,' which qualifies the following accusative-with-infinitive clause petitorem recusare... as being justified.
2.8.7.prpraedicendum ei
The pronoun ei accompanying the gerundive praedicendum is a dative of agent, referring to the surety (fideiussor). The subject of the following accusative-with-infinitive clause non usurum eum priuilegio is eum (also referring to the surety). Thus, it means 'the surety must declare beforehand that he will not use the privilege.'
2.8.7.2ex qua satis desideratur
The relative pronoun qua is feminine singular ablative, referring back to the antecedent persona (a feminine noun). satis is an abbreviation or short form of satisdatio (security). The whole clause means 'from whom security is required.'
2.8.7.2si hoc iudici sederit
The verb sederit (future perfect third-person singular of sedere, 'to sit') with the dative iudici is used idiomatically to mean 'if this is settled/satisfactory to the judge' or 'if the judge so decides.'

Translated by Gemini 3.5 Flash (published 2026-07-12)urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:2.8.7.pr-2.8.7.2