- 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-lat1:5.3.33.pr-5.3.33.1
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-11
This fragment explains the exception where a slave stipulates from the heir's property, and presents Julian's view on the restitution of either the price or the slave himself in an inheritance petition when the possessor has sold a slave.
[ULPIANUS libro quinto decimo ad edictum.]
nisi ex re heredis scripti stipulatus sit.1
unless the slave made the stipulation from the property of the instituted heir.
Iulianus scribit, si hominem possessor distraxerit, si quidem non necessarium hereditati, petitione hereditatis pretium praestaturum: imputaretur enim ei, si non distraxisset:2 quod si necessarium hereditati, si quidem uiuit, ipsum praestandum,3 si decesserit, fortassis nec pretium: sed non passurum iudicem qui cognoscit possessorem pretium lucrari4 scribit, et uerius est.
Julian writes that if the possessor has sold a slave, and if indeed the slave was not necessary to the inheritance, the possessor must hand over the price in the petition for inheritance; for it would have been imputed to him if he had not sold him. But if the slave was necessary to the inheritance, if indeed he is alive, the slave himself must be handed over, but if he has died, perhaps not even the price is due; however, Julian writes that the judge who hears the case will not allow the possessor to make a profit from the price, and this is the more correct view.
- 5.3.33.prstipulatus sit
The subject of the subjunctive verb stipulatus sit is not explicitly expressed but is understood to be the "slave" (seruus) from per seruum in the preceding fragment (5.3.32.pr).
- 5.3.33.1imputaretur enim ei, si non distraxisset
A contrary-to-fact conditional sentence consisting of the pluperfect subjunctive distraxisset in the protasis (if he had not sold) and the imperfect subjunctive imputaretur in the apodosis (it would have been imputed to him). This suggests that if the possessor had retained the unnecessary slave instead of selling him, and the slave subsequently died, the loss would have been imputed to the possessor's fault.
- 5.3.33.1pretium praestaturum... ipsum praestandum
These are infinitives in indirect discourse introduced by scribit. pretium praestaturum is a future active infinitive with the omitted possessorem (the possessor) as its subject ("the possessor will pay the price"). On the other hand, ipsum praestandum is a gerundive (passive periphrastic infinitive) with ipsum (the slave himself, accusative) as its subject ("the slave himself must be handed over").
- 5.3.33.1non passurum iudicem qui cognoscit possessorem pretium lucrari
A double accusative-and-infinitive construction (indirect discourse) introduced by scribit. iudicem (the judge) is the subject of non passurum [esse] (will not allow). In turn, passurum (future infinitive of patior) takes another accusative-and-infinitive clause possessorem... lucrari (that the possessor make a profit) as its object. The relative clause qui cognoscit modifies iudicem.