- 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-lat1:9.4.17.pr-9.4.17.1
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-15
This fragment discusses the effect of noxal surrender and mutual recovery between co-owners when only one of them knew of the slave's delict, as well as the defense and adjustment of rights between the owner and the usufructuary of a slave.
[PAULUS libro uicensimo secundo ad edictum.]
[PAULUS, Book 22 of the Commentary on the Edict]
Si ex duobus dominis uno sciente, altero ignorante seruus deliquit, si ante cum altero qui nesciebat actum sit et noxae dediderit seruum, iniquum est uilissimi hominis deditione alterum quoque liberari: igitur agetur et cum altero, et si quid amplius est in damni persecutione, consequetur computato pretio hominis noxae dediti. ipsi tamen inter se sic debent pensare communi diuidundo iudicium, ut, si ille quo sciente fecit1 praestiterit, non totius partem ferat, sed partem eius, quanti seruus est: sic et si alter aliquid praestiterit, eius partem fieri.2 illud iniquum est eum, qui iussit seruum facere, consequi aliquid a socio, cum ex suo delicto damnum patiatur.
If a slave committed a delict with one of his two masters knowing of it and the other ignorant, and if an action was previously brought against the other who did not know and he surrendered the slave for the noxa, it is inequitable that the other master should also be released by the surrender of a slave of very little value. Therefore, an action will also be brought against the other, and if there is anything more in the pursuit of damages, the plaintiff will obtain it, having calculated the price of the slave surrendered for the noxa. However, they must settle among themselves in an action for dividing common property in such a way that, if the one with whose knowledge the slave acted paid the damages, he does not recover a share of the whole, but only a share of what the slave is worth; and likewise, if the other master paid anything, that share should become the liability of the former. It is inequitable that he who ordered the slave to do the deed should obtain anything from his partner, since he suffers the loss from his own delict.
Si plures eiusdem serui nomine noxali mecum agere uelint uel si unus pluribus iudiciis eiusdem servi nomine agat, in quo usus fructus tuus, proprietas mea sit, officio iudicis continebitur, cum eum noxae dedero, ut etiam usum fructum actoris faciam:3 sed per praetorem id consequar ego dominus proprietatis, ut aut cogat praetor te pro aestimatione usus fructus conferre ad litis aestimationem aut usu fructu cedere, si hoc expediat. et si ego dominus proprietatis eum seruum nolui defendere, defensio tibi permittenda est, et si damnatus hominem tradas, et aduersus me tueris.4
If several persons wish to bring a noxal action against me in the name of the same slave, or if one person brings several actions in the name of the same slave, in whom you have the usufruct and I have the ownership, it will be included in the office of the judge that, when I surrender him for the noxa, I must also make the usufruct belong to the plaintiff. But I, the owner of the property, shall obtain this through the praetor: that the praetor will either compel you to contribute to the valuation of the suit in proportion to the valuation of the usufruct, or to surrender the usufruct, if this should be expedient. And if I, the owner of the property, did not wish to defend the slave, the defense must be permitted to you, and if you, having been condemned, deliver the slave, you are also protected against me.
- 9.4.17.prquo sciente fecit
The phrase 'quo sciente' is an ablative absolute construction containing a relative pronoun referring to the antecedent 'ille', meaning 'with whose knowledge [the slave] did [the deed]'.
- 9.4.17.preius partem fieri
The infinitive 'fieri' depends either on 'debent pensare' or continues the indirect discourse stemming from the 'ut' clause, meaning that 'that share must become (the liability of) him (the one who knew)'.
- 9.4.17.1officio iudicis continebitur... ut etiam usum fructum actoris faciam
The 'ut... faciam' clause expresses the substance or subject of 'continebitur' (it will be contained in the office of the judge), indicating that when the owner surrenders the slave, the judge's office requires making the usufruct also belong to the plaintiff (actor).
- 9.4.17.1tueris
'tueris' is the second-person singular present of the deponent verb 'tueor' (here with passive/reflexive meaning), indicating that the usufructuary (you) 'are protected' or 'can defend yourself' against the owner (me).