← Justinian I

The Digest of Justinian

§4.4.27.pr-4.4.27.4

Restitution for Transactions by Minors and Paternal Claims

Prescribes the criteria for granting restitution in various transactions made by minors (such as wasteful disposal, loans, sales, debt releases, and novations), and defines the scope of application for fathers and third-party guarantors.

View ▾
View
Translation
Typeface
AI ↗
← PrevNext →

[GAIUS libro quarto ad edictum prouinciale.]

[GAIUS in the fourth book on the Provincial Edict.]

§4.4.27.pr

​Patri pro filio omnimodo praestanda restitutio est, licet filius restitui nolit, quia patris periculum agitur qui de peculio tenetur. ex quo apparet ceteros cognatos uel adfines alterius esse condicionis, nec aliter audiri oportere, quam si ex uoluntate adulescentis postulent aut eius uitae sit iste adulescens, ut merito etiam bonis ei debeat interdici.1

​Restitution must by all means be granted to a father on behalf of his son, even if the son does not wish to be restored, because the danger of the father, who is liable for the peculium, is at stake. From this it appears that other cognates or affines are in a different position, and they ought not to be heard otherwise than if they make the demand with the consent of the youth, or if that youth is of such a life that he deservedly ought to be interdicted from his goods.

§4.4.27.1

​Si pecuniam, quam mutuam minor accepit, dissipauit, denegare debet proconsul creditori aduersus eum actionem. quod si egenti minor crediderit, ulterius procedendum non est, quam ut2 iubeatur iuuenis actionibus suis, quas habet aduersus eum cui ipse credidisset, cedere creditori suo. praedium quoque si ex ea pecunia pluris quam oporteret emit, ita temperanda res erit, ut iubeatur uenditor reddito pretio reciperare praedium, ita ut sine alterius damno etiam creditor a iuuene suum consequatur. ex quo scilicet simul intellegimus, quid obseruari oporteat, si sua pecunia pluris quam oportet emerit, ut tamen hoc et superiore casu uenditor, qui pretium reddidit, etiam usuras quas ex ea pecunia percepit aut percipere potuit, reddat, et fructus, quibus locupletior factus est iuuenis, recipiat. item ex diuerso si minore pretio quam oporteret uendiderit adulescens, emptor quidem iuberi debebit praedia cum fructibus restituere, iuuenis autem eatenus ex pretio reddere, quatenus ex ea pecunia locupletior est.

​If a minor has wasted money which he received as a loan, the proconsul ought to deny the creditor an action against him. But if the minor has lent to an indigent person, the matter should not proceed further than to order the youth to cede to his creditor his own actions which he has against the person to whom he himself had lent. Also, if he bought land with that money at a higher price than he ought to have, the matter must be so adjusted that the seller is ordered to recover the land upon returning the price, so that without damage to another, the creditor also may obtain what is his from the youth. From this, of course, we likewise understand what ought to be observed if he bought with his own money at a higher price than he ought to, provided however that in this and in the former case the seller, who returned the price, also returns the interest which he received or could have received from that money, and receives the fruits by which the youth has been enriched. Likewise, conversely, if the youth has sold at a lower price than he ought to have, the buyer indeed must be ordered to restore the land with the fruits, but the youth must return the price only to the extent that he is enriched by that money.

§4.4.27.2

​Si minor annis uiginti quinque sine causa debitori acceptum tulerit,3 non solum in ipsum, sed et in fideiussores et in pignora actio restitui debet. et si ex duobus reis alteri acceptum tulerit, in utrumque restituenda est actio.

​If a minor under twenty-five years of age has released a debtor without cause, the action ought to be restored not only against the debtor himself, but also against the guarantors and the pledges. And if he has released one of two joint debtors, the action must be restored against both.

§4.4.27.3

​Ex hoc intellegimus, si damnosam sibi nouationem fecerit, forte si ab idoneo debitore ad inopem nouandi causa transtulerit obligationem, oportere eum in priorem debitorem restitui.

​From this we understand that, if he has made a novation disadvantageous to himself, as for instance if for the sake of making a novation he has transferred the obligation from a solvent debtor to an indigent one, he ought to be restored against the former debtor.

§4.4.27.4

​Aduersus eos quoque restitutio praestanda est, quorum de dolo agere non permittitur,4 nisi quaedam personae speciali lege exceptae sint.

​Restitution must also be granted against those against whom an action for fraud is not permitted, unless certain persons are excepted by a special law.

Syntax notes4 items
  1. 4.4.27.preius uitae sit iste adulescens, ut merito etiam bonis ei debeat interdici

    eius uitae is a genitive of quality, with the following ut-clause expressing result. In addition, bonis ei debeat interdici is an impersonal passive construction with the dative ei and the ablative of separation bonis, meaning 'he ought to be interdicted from his goods'.

  2. 4.4.27.1ulterius procedendum non est, quam ut

    procedendum est is an impersonal gerundive of obligation. The quam ut clause following the comparative adverb ulterius indicates the limit or result, meaning 'proceedings ought not to go further than that...'

  3. 4.4.27.2acceptum tulerit

    acceptum ferre is a legal idiom in Roman law meaning 'to release a debtor from an obligation' (acceptilatio), referring to a formal act that extinguishes a debt.

  4. 4.4.27.4quorum de dolo agere non permittitur

    agere de dolo is a legal idiom meaning 'to bring an action for fraud,' and permittitur ('it is permitted') is used impersonally.

Translated by Gemini 3.5 Flash (published 2026-07-12) · Revision history (1, latest 2026-09-22)
  • 2026-09-22 AI review — source 1
urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:4.4.27.pr-4.4.27.4