- 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-lat1:4.9.3.pr-4.9.3.5
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-10
Ulpian discusses the liability of shipowners and others for the loss of passengers' goods, the relationship between various civil actions (leasing, hiring, deposit) and the praetorian action on receipt, as well as exemptions for superior force and the attribution of liability through agents like slaves.
[ULPIANUS libro quarto decimo ad edictum.]
[ULPIANUS in his fourteenth book on the Edict.]
Et ita de facto uectorum1 etiam Pomponius libro trigensimo quarto scribit. idem ait, etiamsi nondum sint res in nauem receptae, sed in litore perierint, quas semel recepit,2 periculum ad eum pertinere.
And Pomponius also writes thus in his thirty-fourth book concerning the act of passengers. He says the same, that even if the things have not yet been received into the ship, but have perished on the shore, the risk belongs to him, provided he has once received them.
Ait praetor: 'nisi restituent, in eos iudicium dabo'. ex hoc edicto in factum actio proficiscitur. sed an sit necessaria, uidendum; quia agi ciuili actione ex hac causa poterit: si quidem merces interuenerit, ex locato uel conducto:3 sed si tota nauis locata sit, qui conduxit ex conducto etiam de rebus quae desunt agere potest: si uero res perferendas nauta conduxit,4 ex locato conuenietur: sed si gratis res susceptae sint, ait Pomponius depositi agi potuisse. miratur igitur, cur honoraria actio sit inducta, cum sint ciuiles: nisi forte, inquit, ideo, ut innotesceret5 praetor curam agere reprimendae improbitatis hoc genus hominum: et quia in locato conducto culpa, in deposito dolus dumtaxat praestatur, at hoc edicto omnimodo qui receperit tenetur, etiam si sine culpa eius res periit uel damnum datum est, nisi si quid damno fatali contingit. inde Labeo scribit, si quid naufragio aut per uim piratarum perierit, non esse iniquum exceptionem ei dari. idem erit dicendum et si in stabulo aut in caupona uis maior contigerit.
The praetor says: ‘Unless they restore, I will grant an action against them.’ From this edict an action on the facts arises. But we must see whether it is necessary; because an action can be brought from this cause by a civil action: for if indeed a price has intervened, from leasing or hiring; but if the whole ship was leased, he who hired can sue also for things which are missing by the action on hiring; if, however, the sailor undertook things to be carried, he will be sued by the action on leasing; but if the things were undertaken gratuitously, Pomponius says that an action on deposit could have been brought. He wonders, therefore, why an honorary action was introduced, since there are civil actions; unless perhaps, he says, for this reason, so that it might become known that the praetor takes care to repress the dishonesty of this class of men; and because in leasing and hiring fault is made good, in deposit only malice, but by this edict he who has received is held liable in every way, even if the thing has perished or damage has been done without his fault, unless something happens by fatal damage. Hence Labeo writes that if anything has perished by shipwreck or by the force of pirates, it is not unjust that an exception be granted to him. The same must be said also if superior force has occurred in a stable or in an inn.
Eodem modo tenentur caupones et stabularii, quo exercentes negotium suum recipiunt: ceterum si extra negotium receperunt, non tenebuntur.
Innkeepers and stablekeepers are held liable in the same manner, in which, carrying on their business, they receive things; but if they have received them outside their business, they will not be held liable.
Si filius familias aut seruus receperit et uoluntas patris domini interuenit, in solidum erit conueniendus. item si seruus exercitoris subripuit uel damnum dedit, noxalis actio cessabit, quia ob receptum suo nomine dominus conuenitur. sin uero sine uoluntate exerceant, de peculio dabitur.
If a son-in-power or a slave has received them, and the consent of the father or master has intervened, he must be sued for the whole amount. Likewise, if a slave of a ship-operator has stolen or done damage, a noxal action will cease, because the master is sued in his own name on account of the receipt. But if they carry on the business without his consent, an action will be granted to the extent of the peculium.
Haec autem rei persecutionem continet, ut Pomponius ait, et ideo et in heredem et perpetuo datur.
Moreover, this action contains a pursuit of the thing, as Pomponius says, and therefore it is granted both against the heir and perpetually.
Nouissime uidendum, an eiusdem rei nomine et de recepto honoraria actione et furti agendum sit: et Pomponius dubitat: sed magis est, ut uel officio iudicis uel doli exceptione alterutra esse contentus debeat.
Lastly, we must see whether we should sue on account of the same thing both by the honorary action on receipt and by the action for theft; and Pomponius doubts; but it is more correct that he ought to be content with either one, either by the office of the judge or by the exception of fraud.
- 4.9.3.pruectorum
Genitive plural of uector (passenger). It corresponds to uiatorum (travellers) in the preceding text of Gaius, specifying the passengers as the subjects who deliver goods on a ship.
- 4.9.3.prquas semel recepit
The relative pronoun quas has res (the subject of the conditional clause etiamsi nondum sint...) as its antecedent. This relative clause means 'which he [the sailor] once received' and serves as a conditional limitation on the main verbal phrase of the indirect statement pertinere.
- 4.9.3.1ex locato uel conducto
Refers to the two counterpart civil actions arising from the contract of letting and hiring (locatio conductio), namely actio ex locato (action of the lessor) and actio ex conducto (action of the lessee), with the noun actio being omitted.
- 4.9.3.1res perferendas nauta conduxit
res perferendas is a gerundive construction denoting purpose/obligation ('things to be carried') and serves as the direct object of conduxit ('undertook' or 'contracted for'). The phrase as a whole describes a scenario where the sailor undertook the carriage of goods as an obligation.
- 4.9.3.1nisi forte, inquit, ideo, ut innotesceret
nisi forte (unless perhaps) introduces an ironical or exceptional reason addressing the preceding puzzle of why the honorary action was necessary when civil actions existed. The imperfect subjunctive innotesceret is used in a purpose clause introduced by ut, subordinate to the implied past main verb.