- 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-lat1:4.8.11.pr-4.8.11.4
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-09
Ulpian discusses that the praetor should not compel an arbitrator to act if the parties previously insulted him by leaving, and clarifies the requirements for a valid submission to arbitration (compromissum) under various conditions such as monetary penalties, property deposits, bare pacts, and conditional penalties.
[ULPIANUS libro tertio decimo ad edictum.]
[ULPIANUS libro tertio decimo ad edictum.]
litigatores ierint,1 mox ad eundem arbitrum redierint, praetorem non debere eum cogere inter eos disceptare, qui ei contumeliam hanc fecerunt, ut eum spernerent et ad alium irent.2
If litigants have gone [to another arbitrator] and shortly after returned to the same arbitrator, the praetor ought not to compel him to arbitrate between those who have done him this insult, namely, of despising him and going to another.
Arbitrum autem cogendum non esse sententiam dicere, nisi compromissum interuenerit.
An arbitrator, however, is not to be compelled to pronounce his award unless a submission to arbitration (compromissum) has been entered into.
Quod ait praetor: 'pecuniam compromissam3', accipere nos debere, non si utrimque poena nummaria,4 sed si et alia res uice poenae, si quis arbitri sententia non steterit, promissa sit: et ita Pomponius scribit. quid ergo, si res apud arbitrum depositae sunt eo pacto, ut ei daret qui uicerit, uel ut eam rem daret, si non pareatur sententiae, an cogendus sit sententiam dicere? et puto cogendum. tantundem et si quantitas certa ad hoc apud eum deponatur. proinde et si alter rem, alter pecuniam stipulanti promiserit, plenum compromissum est et cogetur sententiam dicere.
When the praetor says “money submitted to arbitration,” we ought to understand this as applying not only if a monetary penalty is promised on both sides, but also if some other thing is promised in place of a penalty in case anyone should not abide by the arbitrator’s award; and Pomponius writes to this effect. What then, if property is deposited with the arbitrator on the condition that he should deliver it to the winner, or deliver that property if the award is not obeyed—must he be compelled to pronounce his award? And I think he must. The same applies if a certain sum of money is deposited with him for this purpose. Consequently, even if one party promises property and the other money to the stipulator, there is a full submission to arbitration and he will be compelled to pronounce his award.
Interdum, ut Pomponius scribit, recte nudo pacto fiet compromissum, ut puta si ambo debitores fuerunt et pacti sunt, ne petat quod sibi debetur qui sententiae arbitri non paruit.
Sometimes, as Pomponius writes, a submission to arbitration is validly made by a bare pact; for example, if both were debtors and agreed that whoever does not abide by the arbitrator’s award shall not claim what is owed to him.
Item Iulianus scribit non cogendum arbitrum sententiam dicere, si alter promiserit, alter non. idem dicit, et si sub condicione fuerit poena compromissa, ueluti 'si nauis ex Asia uenerit, tot milia': non enim prius arbitrum cogendum sententiam dicere, quam condicio exstiterit: ne sit inefficax deficiente condicione.5 et ita Pomponius libro trigensimo tertio ad edictum scribit.
Likewise, Julian writes that an arbitrator is not to be compelled to pronounce his award if one party has promised and the other has not. He says the same if the penalty of the submission is subject to a condition, such as “if a ship arrives from Asia, so many thousands”; for the arbitrator is not to be compelled to pronounce his award before the condition is fulfilled, lest the award be ineffective if the condition fails. And Pomponius writes to this effect in his thirty-third book on the Edict.
- 4.8.11.prlitigatores ierint
A hypothetical subjunctive perfect (functioning similarly to a future perfect) carrying over the context from the preceding section (§4.8.10.pr). It assumes a situation where the litigants "have gone" to another arbitrator.
- 4.8.11.prut eum spernerent et ad alium irent
An appositive (or consecutive) ut-clause explaining the specific content of the demonstrative pronoun "hanc." It refers to the insulting act of "despising him and going to another."
- 4.8.11.2Quod ait praetor: 'pecuniam compromissam'
The clause-initial "Quod" is a transitional relative pronoun ("As for the fact that..."). The subject of "ait" is "praetor" (the praetor), leading into the main accusative-with-infinitive construction "accipere nos debere" which offers the interpretation of the cited phrase.
- 4.8.11.2non si utrimque poena nummaria
A "non [solum] si... sed si..." (not [only] if... but if...) structure. The verb "promissa sit" from the subsequent clause also governs this clause; thus, it should be understood as "not only if a monetary penalty is promised on both sides."
- 4.8.11.4ne sit inefficax deficiente condicione
The phrase "deficiente condicione" is an ablative absolute ("the condition failing"). "ne... sit" is a clause of purpose, expressing precaution lest the award (sententia) become legally ineffective (inefficax).
Translated by Gemini 3.5 Flash (published 2026-07-12) · Revision history (1, latest 2026-09-22)
- 2026-09-22 AI review — source 1