- 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-lat1:4.3.24.pr
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-08
In a freedom lawsuit, if a representative's fraud prevents a judgment for freedom from being pronounced in the opponent's presence, an action for fraud is granted against the representative, as a judgment for freedom should not be revoked once given.
[ULPIANUS libro undecimo ad edictum.]
[ULPIANUS libro undecimo ad edictum.]
Si dolo acciderit eius, qui uerba faciebat pro eo, qui de libertate contendebat,1 quo minus praesente aduersario secundum libertatem pronuntietur,2 puto statim de dolo dandam in eum actionem, quia semel pro libertate dictam sententiam retractari3 non oportet.
If, through the fraud of the person who was speaking on behalf of the one contending for his freedom, it should happen that a judgment in favor of freedom is prevented from being pronounced in the presence of the adversary, I think that an action for fraud should immediately be granted against him, because a judgment once pronounced in favor of freedom ought not to be revoked.
- 4.3.24.preius, qui uerba faciebat pro eo, qui de libertate contendebat
eius is a genitive qualifying dolo. The relative clause qui uerba faciebat pro eo refers to the 'assertor of freedom' (adsertor libertatis), who acts as a representative in a freedom lawsuit on behalf of the person claiming to be free, who cannot legally represent himself.
- 4.3.24.pracciderit ... quo minus ... pronuntietur
The verb acciderit (subjunctive perfect of accido) followed by the quo minus clause functions as an impersonal construction meaning 'it happens that... is prevented'. Here, it describes a situation where the representative's fraud prevented a lawful judgment from being pronounced in the presence of the opposing party (the owner).
- 4.3.24.prretractari
From the perspective of favor libertatis (favor of freedom), a judgment once pronounced in favor of freedom should not be revoked (retractari). Therefore, even if the judgment was fraudulently obtained, its validity is maintained, and the law balances this by granting an action for fraud (actio de dolo) against the representative who committed the fraud.