- 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-lat1:6.1.68.pr
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-12
Ulpian explains the general rule applicable to all proceedings, including interdicts and actions, regarding the measures taken when a defendant disobeys a restitution order: forced transfer of possession if they hold the thing, or specific standards for pecuniary condemnation based on whether the inability to restore was caused by fraud.
[ULPIANUS libro quinquagensimo primo ad edictum.]
[ULPIANUS in the fifty-first book on the Edict.]
Qui restituere iussus iudici non paret contendens non posse restituere, si quidem habeat rem, manu militari officio iudicis ab eo possessio transfertur1 et fructuum dumtaxat omnisque causae2 nomine condemnatio fit. si uero non potest restituere, si quidem dolo fecit quo minus possit,is, quantum aduersarius in litem sine ulla taxatione in infinitum iurauerit,3 damnandus est. si uero nec potest restituere nec dolo fecit quo minus possit, non pluris quam quanti res est,4 id est quanti aduersarii interfuit, condemnandus est. haec sententia generalis est et ad omnia siue interdicta, siue actiones in rem siue in personam sunt, ex quibus arbitratu iudicis quid restituitur, locus habet.
If a person, having been ordered to make restitution, does not obey the judge, contending that he cannot make restitution, then, if indeed he has the thing, possession is transferred from him by military force through the office of the judge, and condemnation is made only under the head of fruits and the whole cause. But if indeed he cannot make restitution, and if he did so by fraud in order that he might not be able to do so, he must be condemned to the extent that his adversary shall have sworn in court without any limitation to an indefinite amount. But if he neither can make restitution nor did so by fraud in order that he might not be able to do so, he must be condemned for no more than the value of the thing, that is, the amount of the interest of his adversary. This rule is general and applies to all proceedings, whether interdicts, or actions in rem, or actions in personam, in which something is restored by the arbitration of the judge.
- 6.1.68.prQui ... ab eo possessio transfertur
The clause starting with the relative pronoun 'qui' functions substantively and is resumed in the main clause by the ablative pronoun 'ab eo'. This structure of a hanging relative clause picked up by a demonstrative pronoun is common in legal Latin texts.
- 6.1.68.prfructuum dumtaxat omnisque causae
The adverb 'dumtaxat' (only, at least) restricts the condemnation to the value of the fruits and the accessories ('omnis causa'). Since the possession of the thing itself is transferred by force, the monetary condemnation is limited to these supplementary items.
- 6.1.68.prin litem ... iurauerit
This refers to the 'iusiurandum in litem' (oath in court) in Roman law. When the defendant's inability to restore is due to fraud, the plaintiff is allowed to swear to the value of the object, and the judge condemns the defendant to that amount without any limiting taxatio.
- 6.1.68.prnon pluris quam quanti res est
Both 'pluris' and 'quanti' are genitives of value/price. The phrase 'non pluris quam quanti...' limits the pecuniary condemnation to the objective value of the thing, defined here as the interest (id est quanti... interfuit) of the adversary.