- 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-lat1:3.6.5.pr-3.6.5.1
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-07
Ulpian discusses the limit of liability for an heir to the extent of their enrichment, the principle of recovering dishonest gains from heirs, and evaluates the relationship and concurrence between this action and a condictio.
[ULPIANUS libro decimo ad edictum.]
[ULPIANUS, on the Edict, book 10]
in heredem autem competit in id quod ad eum peruenit.1 nam est constitutum turpia lucra heredibus quoque extorqueri,2 licet crimina extinguantur: ut puta ob falsum uel iudici ob gratiosam sententiam datum et heredi extorquebitur et si quid aliud scelere quaesitum.
However, it is available against an heir to the extent of what has reached him. For it has been established that dishonest gains are to be wrested also from heirs, even though crimes are extinguished: for instance, that which is given for forgery, or to a judge for a biased judgment, will be wrested from the heir as well, as will anything else acquired through crime.
Sed etiam praeter hanc actionem condictio competit, si sola turpitudo accipientis uersetur: nam si et dantis, melior causa erit possidentis. quare si fuerit condictum,3 utrum tollitur haec actio, an uero in triplum danda sit?4 an exemplo furis et in quadruplum actionem damus et condictionem? sed puto sufficere alterutram actionem. ubi autem condictio competit, ibi non est necesse post annum dare in factum actionem.
But even in addition to this action, a condictio is available, if only the immorality of the recipient is involved: for if that of the giver is involved as well, the position of the possessor will be stronger. Therefore, if a condictio has been brought, is this action barred, or indeed should it be granted for threefold? Or, following the example of a thief, do we grant both the action for fourfold and the condictio? But I think either action is sufficient. Moreover, where a condictio is available, there is no need to grant an action on the facts after a year.
- 3.6.5.prin id quod ad eum peruenit
The preposition "in" with the accusative "id," followed by the relative clause "quod ad eum peruenit" (what has reached him), defines the limit of the heir's liability to the extent of actual enrichment.
- 3.6.5.prturpia lucra heredibus quoque extorqueri
This is an accusative with infinitive (AcI) clause serving as the subject of the impersonal passive "est constitutum." "extorqueri" is a passive infinitive with "turpia lucra" as its subject, and "heredibus" is a dative of separation (or ablative) used with a verb of taking away.
- 3.6.5.1si fuerit condictum
An impersonal passive construction using the future perfect passive indicative (neuter singular) of the verb "condicere" (to bring a condictio), meaning "if a condictio has been brought."
- 3.6.5.1an uero in triplum danda sit
The second part of the double question introduced by "utrum... an...". "danda sit" is the present subjunctive of the passive periphrastic conjugation (gerundive with "esse"), expressing a deliberative question in an indirect-like context.
Translated by Gemini 3.5 Flash (published 2026-07-12) · Revision history (1, latest 2026-09-21)
- 2026-09-21 AI review — note 1