Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §11.3.11.pr-11.3.11.2

Liability for Subsequent Misdeeds and Concurrence of Actions

Passage 1781 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Based on the opinions of Neratius and Ulpian, this section discusses whether subsequent thefts or misdeeds after corrupting a slave enter into the valuation of the action, and explains the relation and concurrence of the action for a corrupted slave with the action for theft and the condictio.

[ULPIANUS libro uicensimo tertio ad edictum. ] §11.3.11.prNeratius ait postea furta facta in aestimationem non uenire.
[ULPIANUS, from the twenty-third book on the Edict.] Neratius says that thefts committed subsequently do not enter into the valuation.
quam sententiam ueram puto: nam et uerba edicti 'quanti ea res erit' omne detrimentum recipiunt.
I believe this opinion to be correct; for even the words of the Edict, "whatever the value of the property shall be," cover all damage.
§11.3.11.1Seruo persuasi, ut chirografa debitorum corrumpat: uidelicet tenebor.
I persuaded a slave to destroy the bonds of debtors; obviously, I shall be held liable.
sed si consuetudine peccandi postea et rationes ceteraque similia instrumenta subtraxerit uel interleuerit deleuerit, dicendum erit corruptorem horum nomine non teneri.
But if, through a habit of wrongdoing, he subsequently carried away, or interpolated, or erased account books and other similar documents, it must be said that the corrupter is not liable on account of these.
§11.3.11.2Quamuis autem rerum subtractarum nomine serui corrupti competat actio, tamen et furti agere possumus, ope enim consilio sollicitatoris uidentur res abesse: nec sufficiet alterutra actione egisse, quia altera alteram non minuit.
Furthermore, although an action for a corrupted slave lies on account of things carried away, nevertheless we can also bring an action for theft; for through the assistance and counsel of the instigator, the things are deemed to be missing. Nor will it be sufficient to have sued by either action, because the one does not diminish the other.
idem et in eo, qui seruum recepit et celauit et deteriorem fecit, Iulianus scribit: sunt enim diuersa maleficia furis et eius qui deteriorem seruum facit: hoc amplius et condictionis nomine tenebitur.
Julian writes that the same applies to him who received, concealed, and made a slave worse; for the wrongful acts of a thief and of him who makes a slave worse are different. In addition to this, he will also be held liable on account of a condictio.
quamuis enim condictione hominem, poenam autem furti actione consecutus sit, tamen et quod interest debebit consequi actione serui corrupti,
For although one has recovered the slave himself by the condictio, and the penalty by the action for theft, nevertheless he must also recover his interest by the action for a corrupted slave.

Notes

  1. §11.3.11.prquam sententiam — The relative pronoun is used as a relative adjective ('connecting relative') modifying the noun sententiam. It refers back to the preceding opinion of Neratius.
  2. §11.3.11.2uidentur res abesse — A personal construction of the passive verb uideri ('to seem' or 'to be deemed'), where res (nominative plural) serves as the subject and abesse as the infinitive, rather than an impersonal construction with an accusative and infinitive.
  3. §11.3.11.2quod interest — A nominalized relative clause from the impersonal verb interest ('it matters'), which in legal contexts refers to the plaintiff's 'interest' (id quod interest), meaning the actual financial interest or residual damages to be recovered beyond what is already obtained by other actions.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §11.3.11.pr-11.3.11.2. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:11.3.11.pr-11.3.11.2

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.