- 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-lat1:2.9.4.pr
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-10-28
This section discusses whether one of the co-owners of a slave must give security for his partner's share when a noxal action is brought against him, and explains his duty to defend the slave in full.
[GAIUS libro sexto ad edictum prouinciale.]
[GAIUS, in the sixth book on the Provincial Edict.]
Si cum uno ex dominis noxalis agetur, an pro parte socii satisdare deberet?1 Sabinus ait non debere: quia quodammodo totum suum hominem defenderet, cui2 in solidum defendendi necessitas esset, nec auditur,3 si pro parte paratus sit defendere.
If a noxal action is brought against one of several co-owners, should he have to give security for the share of his partner? Sabinus says that he does not have to: because in a certain sense he defends the slave as entirely his own, since he is under the necessity of defending him in full; nor is he heard if he is ready to defend only in part.
- 2.9.4.pran ... deberet
The main verb (such as "quaeritur") is omitted, and the interrogative clause is used independently to present a legal question.
- 2.9.4.prcui
Relative connection (qui-connection). In this context, the antecedent refers to the co-owner against whom the action is brought (uno ex dominis), serving as a dative of possession with "necessitas esset".
- 2.9.4.prauditur
Used in a technical procedural sense meaning "to be heard" or "to have one's plea admitted in court." Combined with the negation "nec," it indicates that the co-owner's offer to defend only his own share is rejected.