- 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-lat1:4.4.13.pr-4.4.13.1
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-08
The passage discusses the criteria for the praetor to grant relief to minors and their guarantors or mandators, and the conditions under which restitution in rem is allowed against third-party possessors.
[ULPIANUS libro undecimo ad edictum.]
[ULPIANUS in the eleventh book on the Edict.]
In causae cognitione uersabitur, utrum soli ei succurrendum sit, an etiam his qui pro eo obligati sunt, ut puta fideiussoribus. itaque si cum scirem minorem et ei fidem non haberem, tu fideiusseris pro eo, non est aequum fideiussori in necem meam subueniri,1 sed potius ipsi deneganda erit mandati actio. in summa perpendendum erit praetori, cui potius subueniat, utrum creditori an fideiussori: nam minor captus neutri tenebitur. facilius in mandatore dicendum erit non debere ei subuenire: hic enim uelut adfirmator fuit et suasor, ut cum minore contraheretur. unde tractari potest, minor in integrum restitutionem utrum aduersus creditorem an et aduersus fideiussorem implorare debeat. et puto tutius aduersus utrumque: causa enim cognita et praesentibus aduersariis uel si per contumaciam desint2 in integrum restitutiones perpendendae sunt.
In the investigation of the case, it will be considered whether relief should be granted to him alone, or also to those who are bound for him, as, for example, sureties. Therefore, if while I knew he was a minor and had no confidence in him, you became a surety for him, it is not equitable for relief to be granted to the surety to my prejudice, but rather the action of mandate must be denied to him. In short, the praetor will have to weigh whom he should rather relieve, whether the creditor or the surety; for the minor who was defrauded will be liable to neither. It will be said more easily in the case of a mandator that relief ought not to be given to him; for he was, as it were, a guarantor and persuader that the contract should be made with the minor. From this it can be discussed whether the minor ought to implore restitution in integrum against the creditor, or also against the surety. And I think it is safer against both; for restitutions in integrum must be weighed after the case has been investigated, and with the adversaries present, or if they are absent through contumacy.
Interdum autem restitutio et in rem datur minori, id est aduersus rei eius possessorem, licet cum eo non sit contractum. ut puta rem a minore emisti et alii uendidisti: potest desiderare interdum aduersus possessorem restitui, ne rem suam perdat uel re sua careat, et hoc uel cognitione praetoria uel rescissa alienatione dato in rem iudicio. Pomponius quoque libro uicensimo octauo scribit Labeonem existimasse, si minor uiginti quinque annis fundum uendidit et tradidit, si emptor rursus eum alienauit, si quidem emptor sequens scit rem ita gestam, restitutionem aduersus eum faciendam: si ignorauit et prior emptor soluendo esset, non esse faciendam: sin uero non esset soluendo, aequius esse minori succurri etiam aduersus ignorantem, quamuis bona fide emptor est.3
Sometimes, however, restitution is also granted to a minor in rem, that is, against the possessor of the thing, even though no contract was made with him. As, for example, you bought a thing from a minor and sold it to another; he can sometimes desire to be restored against the possessor, lest he should lose his property or be deprived of it, and this either by the praetorian investigation or by an action in rem being granted after the alienation has been rescinded. Pomponius also writes in his twenty-eighth book that Labeo thought that if a minor under twenty-five years of age sold and delivered a tract of land, and the purchaser alienated it again, if indeed the subsequent purchaser knew that the transaction had been so conducted, restitution ought to be made against him; if he was ignorant, and the prior purchaser was solvent, it should not be made; but if the prior purchaser was not solvent, it is more equitable for the minor to be relieved even against the ignorant purchaser, although he is a purchaser in good faith.
- 4.4.13.prfideiussori in necem meam subueniri
The intransitive verb subuenio (to relieve) is used impersonally in the passive voice (subueniri), taking the dative (fideiussori) for the person relieved. The phrase in necem meam (with in + accusative) expresses result or purpose, meaning "to my ruin" or "to my fatal prejudice."
- 4.4.13.prcausa enim cognita et praesentibus aduersariis uel si per contumaciam desint
To express the prerequisites for restitution, two ablative absolute phrases (causa... cognita "after the case has been investigated" and praesentibus aduersariis "with the adversaries present") are coordinated with a conditional clause (si... desint "or if they are absent") introduced by uel.
- 4.4.13.1quamuis bona fide emptor est
The conjunction quamuis (although) is followed by the indicative verb (est) instead of the subjunctive mood which is standard in classical Latin; this usage is frequently found in post-classical and imperial prose. The phrase bona fide is an ablative of quality (or description) used predicatively to mean "of good faith."