- 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-lat1:5.3.18.pr-5.3.18.2
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-11
Ulpian discusses the liability of an inheritance possessor who lost sale proceeds due to a banker's failure, distinguishing between good faith and bad faith; states that one who acquired hereditary property after the lawsuit is liable; and begins the analysis of what is included in the petition.
[ULPIANUS libro quinto decimo ad edictum.]
[ULPIAN in the fifteenth book on the Edict.]
Item uidendum, si possessor hereditatis uenditione per argentarium facta pecuniam apud eum perdiderit, an petitione hereditatis teneatur, quia nihil habet nec consequi potest. sed Labeo putat eum teneri, quia suo periculo male argentario credidit:1 sed Octauenus ait nihil eum praeter actiones praestaturum,2 ob has igitur actiones petitione hereditatis teneri. mihi autem in eo, qui mala fide possedit, Labeonis sententia placet: in altero uero, qui bona fide possessor est, Octaueni sententia sequenda esse uidetur.
Likewise, it should be considered, if a possessor of an inheritance, having made a sale through a banker, has lost the money with him, whether he is liable under the petition for inheritance, since he has nothing and can obtain nothing. But Labeo thinks that he is liable, because at his own risk he unwisely trusted the banker; but Octavenus says that he will make good nothing except the actions, and therefore on account of these actions he is liable under the petition for inheritance. For my part, however, in the case of one who possessed in bad faith, Labeo’s opinion pleases me; but in the case of the other, who is a possessor in good faith, it seems that Octavenus’s opinion should be followed.
Si quis, cum peteretur ab eo hereditas, neque rei neque iuris3 uelut possessor erat, uerum postea aliquid adeptus est, an petitione hereditatis uideatur teneri? et Celsus libro quarto digestorum recte scribit hunc condemnandum, licet initio nihil possedit.
If anyone, when an inheritance was being claimed from him, was a possessor neither of a thing nor of a right, but afterwards acquired something, does he seem to be liable under the petition for inheritance? And Celsus in the fourth book of his Digests correctly writes that this person should be condemned, even if at the beginning he possessed nothing.
Nunc uideamus, quae ueniant in hereditatis petitione. et placuit uniuersas res hereditarias in hoc iudicium uenire, siue iura siue corpora sint,
Now let us see what things come within the petition for inheritance. And it was accepted that all hereditary things come into this judgment, whether they are rights or physical bodies,
- 5.3.18.prmale argentario credidit
The adverb male modifies the verb credidit, meaning "unwisely" or "negligently" trusting. This emphasizes the negligence of the possessor.
- 5.3.18.prnihil eum praeter actiones praestaturum
An accusative with infinitive clause in indirect speech introduced by the verb ait. esse is omitted after praestaturum. The subject accusative is eum.
- 5.3.18.1neque rei neque iuris
The genitives rei and iuris are objective genitives modifying the noun possessor. The former refers to the possession of a physical thing (corporeal), and the latter to the possession of a right (incorporeal).