[ULPIANUS libro uicensimo quarto ad edictum. ] §10.4.3.prIn hac actione actor omnia nosse debet et dicere argumenta rei de qua agitur.
[Ulpian in the twenty-fourth book on the Edict.] In this action, the plaintiff must know and state all the identifying features of the thing in question.
§10.4.3.1Qui ad exhibendum agit, non utique dominum se dicit nec debet ostendere, cum multae sint causae ad exhibendum agendi.
He who brings the action for production does not necessarily claim that he is the owner, nor does he have to show it, since there are many grounds for bringing the action for production.
§10.4.3.2Praeterea in hac actione notandum est, quod reus contumax per in litem iusiurandum petitoris damnari possit ei iudice quantitatem taxante.
Furthermore, it must be noted in this action that a contumacious defendant can be condemned to him through the plaintiff's oath on the value of the suit, with the judge fixing the limit.
§10.4.3.3Est autem personalis haec actio et ei competit qui in rem acturus est qualicumque in rem actione, etiam pigneraticia Seruiana siue hypothecaria, quae creditoribus competunt.
Moreover, this action is in personam, and it lies for anyone who is about to bring any kind of action in rem, even the Servian action on pledge or the hypothecary action, which are available to creditors.
§10.4.3.4Sed et usum fructum petituro competere ad exhibendum Pomponius ait.
But Pomponius says that the action for production is also available to one who is about to claim a usufruct.
§10.4.3.5Sed et si quis interdicturus rem exhiberi desideret, audiatur.
But also, if anyone who is about to apply for an interdict desires the thing to be produced, he should be heard.
§10.4.3.6Item si optare uelim seruum uel quam aliam rem, cuius optio mihi relicta est, ad exhibendum me agere posse constat, ut exhibitis possim uindicare.
Likewise, if I wish to choose a slave or any other thing, the choice of which has been left to me, it is well established that I can bring the action for production, so that I can claim them once they are produced.
§10.4.3.7Si quis noxali iudicio experiri uelit, ad exhibendum ei actio est necessaria: quid enim si dominus quidem paratus sit defendere, actor uero destinare non possit nisi ex praesentibus, quia aut seruum non recognoscit aut nomen non tenet? nonne aequum est ei familiam exhiberi, ut noxium seruum adgnoscat? quod ex causa debet fieri ad designandum eum, cuius nomine noxali quis agit, recensione seruorum facta.
If anyone wishes to proceed by a noxal action, the action for production is necessary for him; for what if the master indeed is ready to defend, but the plaintiff cannot identify the slave unless from those present, because he either does not recognize the slave or does not recall his name? Is it not equitable that the household of slaves be produced for him, so that he may identify the wrongdoing slave? This ought to be done on cause shown, in order to identify the one on whose account the noxal action is brought, after a roll-call of the slaves has been made.
§10.4.3.8Si quis extra heredem tabulas testamenti uel codicillos uel quid aliud ad testamentum pertinens exhiberi uelit, dicendum est per hanc actionem agendum non esse, cum sufficiunt sibi interdicta in hanc rem competentia: et ita Pomponius.
If anyone other than the heir wishes tablets of a testament or codicils or anything else pertaining to a testament to be produced, it must be said that he should not proceed by this action, since the interdicts available for this purpose are sufficient for him; and so Pomponius writes.
§10.4.3.9Sciendum est autem non solum eis quos diximus competere ad exhibendum actionem, uerum ei quoque, cuius interest exhiberi: iudex igitur summatim debebit cognoscere, an eius intersit, non an eius res sit, et sic iubere uel exhiberi, uel non, quia nihil interest.
It must be known, however, that the action for production is available not only to those whom we have mentioned, but also to anyone who has an interest in the production; therefore, the judge will have to investigate summarily whether it is in his interest, not whether the thing belongs to him, and so order either that it be produced, or not, on the ground that there is no interest.
§10.4.3.10Plus dicit Iulianus, etsi uindicationem non habeam, interim posse me agere ad exhibendum, quia mea interest exhiberi: ut puta si mihi seruus legatus sit quem Titius optasset: agam enim ad exhibendum, quia mea interest exhiberi, ut Titius optet et sic uindicem, quamuis exhabitum ego optare non possim.
Julian says even more: even if I do not have an action for recovery, I can in the meantime bring the action for production because I have an interest in its being produced; for example, if a slave has been bequeathed to me whom Titius had the right to choose; for I shall bring the action for production because it is in my interest that he be produced, so that Titius may make his choice and I may thus claim him, although I cannot make the choice myself once he is produced.
§10.4.3.11Si mecum fuerit actum ad exhibendum, ego ob hoc, quod conuentus sum ad exhibendum actione, agere ad exhibendum non possum, quamuis uideatur interesse mea ob hoc, quod teneor ad restituendum.
If an action for production has been brought against me, I cannot, on the ground that I have been sued by the action for production, bring an action for production, although it may seem to be in my interest because I am bound to restore.
sed hoc non sufficit: alioquin et qui dolo fecit quo minus possideret poterit ad exhibendum agere, cum neque uindicaturus neque interdicturus sit, et fur uel raptor poterit: quod nequaquam uerum est.
But this is not sufficient; otherwise, even one who has by fraud ceased to possess could bring the action for production, although he is about to neither claim nor apply for an interdict, and a thief or a robber could do so; which is by no means true.
eleganter igitur definit Neratius iudicem ad exhibendum hactenus cognoscere, an iustam et probabilem causam habeat actionis, propter quam exhiberi sibi desideret.
Elegantly, therefore, Neratius defines that the judge in an action for production investigates only this far: whether the plaintiff has a just and probable cause for the action on account of which he desires the thing to be produced to him.
§10.4.3.12Pomponius scribit eiusdem hominis nomine recte plures ad exhibendum agere posse: forte si homo primi sit, secundi in eo usus fructus sit, tertius possessionem suam contendat, quartus pigneratum sibi eum adfirmet: omnibus igitur ad exhibendum actio competit, quia omnium interest exhiberi hominem.
Pomponius writes that several persons can rightly bring the action for production in respect of the same slave; for instance, if the slave belongs to the first, a second has a usufruct in him, a third claims possession of him, and a fourth asserts that the slave has been pledged to him; therefore, the action for production is available to all of them, because it is in the interest of all of them that the slave be produced.
§10.4.3.13Ibidem subiungit iudicem per arbitrium sibi ex hac actione commissum etiam exceptiones aestimare, quas possessor obicit, et si qua tam euidens sit, ut facile repellat agentem, debere possessorem absolui, si obscurior uel quae habeat altiorem quaestionem, differendam in directum iudicium re exhiberi iussa: de quibusdam tamen exceptionibus omnimodo ipsum debere disceptare, qui ad exhibendum actione iudicat, ueluti pacti conuenti, doli mali, iurisiurandi reique iudicatae.
In the same place he adds that the judge, through the discretionary power committed to him under this action, also evaluates the defenses which the possessor raises; and if any is so obvious that it easily repels the plaintiff, the possessor ought to be acquitted; if it is more obscure or involves a deeper inquiry, it should be postponed to the main trial after the thing has been ordered to be produced. However, concerning certain defenses, the one who judges in the action for production must decide under all circumstances, such as the defenses of an agreed pact, of fraud, of oath, and of res judicata.
§10.4.3.14Interdum aequitas exhibitionis efficit, ut, quamuis ad exhibendum agi non possit, in factum tamen actio detur, ut Iulianus tractat.
Sometimes the equity of production brings it about that, although the action for production cannot be brought, an action on the facts is nevertheless granted, as Julian discusses.
seruus, inquit, uxoris meae rationes meas conscripsit: hae rationes a te possidentur: desidero eas exhiberi.
A slave of my wife, he says, wrote down my accounts; these accounts are possessed by you; I desire them to be produced.
ait Iulianus, si quidem mea charta scriptae sint, locum esse huic actioni, quia et uindicare eas possum: nam cum charta mea sit, et quod scriptum est meum est: sed si charta mea non fuit, quia uindicare non possum, nec ad exhibendum experiri: in factum igitur mihi actionem competere.
Julian says: if indeed they were written on my paper, there is room for this action, because I can also claim them; for since the paper is mine, what is written on it is also mine; but if the paper was not mine, because I cannot claim it, neither can I proceed by the action for production; therefore, an action on the facts is available to me.
§10.4.3.15Sciendum est aduersus possessorem hac actione agendum non solum eum qui ciuiliter, sed et eum qui naturaliter incumbat possessioni.
It must be known that this action must be brought against a possessor, not only one who possesses civilly, but also one who possesses naturally.
denique creditorem, qui pignori rem accepit, ad exhibendum teneri placet:
Finally, it is accepted that a creditor who has received a thing in pledge is bound to produce it.