- 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-lat1:3.5.18.pr-3.5.18.5
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-06
Paulus comments on Neratius, discussing debt relations after manumission, business management by slaves or free persons, restitution duties involving usucapion, the settling of interest, and management during captivity.
[IDEM libro secundo ad Neratium.]
[THE SAME, On Neratius, book two]
Adquin natura debitor fuit etiam si in peculio nihil habuit, et si postea habuit, sibi postea soluere debet in eodem actu perseuerans: sicut is, qui temporali actione tenebatur, etiam post tempus exactum negotiorum gestorum actione id praestare cogitur.
However, he was a natural debtor even if he had nothing in his peculium, and if he afterwards had something, he ought afterwards to pay himself, continuing in the same activity; just as one who was bound by a temporary action is compelled, even after the time has expired, to make it good in an action for business management.
Scaeuola noster ait putare se, quod Sabinus scribit debere a capite rationem reddendum1 sic intellegi, ut appareat, quid reliquum fuerit tunc, cum primum liber esse coeperit, non ut dolum aut culpam in seruitute admissam in obligationem reuocet: itaque si inueniatur uel malo more pecunia in seruitute erogata, liberabitur.
Our Scaevola says he thinks that what Sabinus writes, namely that an account must be rendered by the slave himself, is to be understood in such a way that it appears what was remaining at the exact time when he first began to be free, not so as to bring back into liability fraud or negligence committed during slavery; therefore, even if it is found that money was spent during slavery in an improper manner, he will be released.
Si libero homini, qui bona fide mihi seruiebat, mandem, ut aliquid agat, non fore cum eo mandati actionem Labeo ait, quia non libera uoluntate exsequitur rem sibi mandatam, sed quasi ex necessitate seruili: erit igitur negotiorum gestorum actio,2 quia et gerendi negotii mei habuerit affectionem et is fuit, quem obligare possem.
Labeo says that if I mandate a free man, who was serving me in good faith, to do something, there will be no action of mandate against him, because he does not execute the matter mandated to him with free will, but as if from a slave’s necessity; therefore, there will be an action for business management, because he would have had the intention of managing my business, and he was someone whom I could bind.
Cum me absente negotia mea gereres, imprudens rem meam emisti et ignorans usucepisti: mihi negotiorum gestorum ut restituas obligatus non es. sed si, antequam usucapias, cognoscas rem meam esse, subicere debes aliquem, qui a te petat meo nomine, ut et mihi rem et tibi stipulationem euictionis committat:3 nec uideris dolum malum facere in hac subiectione: ideo enim hoc facere debes, ne actione negotiorum gestorum tenearis.
When you were managing my affairs in my absence, you unknowingly bought my property and in ignorance acquired it by usucapion: you are not bound by the action for business management to restore it to me. But if, before you acquire it by usucapion, you learn that the property is mine, you ought to substitute someone to claim it from you in my name, so that he may make over the property to me and the stipulation against eviction to you; and you are not deemed to act with fraud in this substitution: for you ought to do this precisely so that you may not be held by the action for business management.
Non tantum sortem, uerum etiam usuras ex pecunia aliena perceptas negotiorum gestorum iudicio praestabimus, uel etiam quas percipere potuimus. contra quoque usuras, quas praestauimus uel quas ex nostra pecunia percipere potuimus quam in aliena negotia impendimus, seruabimus negotiorum gestorum iudicio.
We shall make good in the judgment for business management not only the principal, but also the interest received from another’s money, or even that which we could have received. On the other hand, we shall also recover in the judgment for business management the interest which we have paid, or which we could have received from our own money which we spent on another’s business.
Dum apud hostes esset Titius, negotia eius administraui, postea reuersus est: negotiorum gestorum mihi actio competit, etiamsi eo tempore quo gerebantur dominum non habuerunt.
While Titius was in the hands of the enemy, I managed his affairs, and he afterwards returned: the action for business management is available to me, even if at the time they were managed the affairs had no master.
- 3.5.18.1debere a capite rationem reddendum
The word "caput" here refers to the slave himself (hence "a capite" means "from the person of the slave himself"). The phrase "rationem reddendum (esse)" functions as a gerundive construction denoting the obligation "that accounts must be rendered," standing in an accusative and infinitive structure depending on "scribit."
- 3.5.18.2erit igitur negotiorum gestorum actio
The subject of "erit" is "negotiorum gestorum actio." Labeo reasons that because the party lacked free will due to a quasi-servile condition, the contractual action of mandate (actio mandati) does not lie; however, because the intent to manage the business (affectio) was present, the quasi-contractual action for business management is granted instead.
- 3.5.18.3ut et mihi rem et tibi stipulationem euictionis committat
The subject of the subjunctive "committat" is "aliquem" (the third party put forward to claim the property). The verb "committere" here means to bring into effect or to trigger a legal condition. The legal mechanism is designed so that the third party's action will restore the property to the owner (me) while simultaneously rendering the stipulation against eviction enforceable for the manager (you).