[PAULUS libro nono decimo ad edictum. ] §11.3.14.prut tantum ueniat in hereditatis petitionem quantum in hanc actionem.
[PAULUS, from the nineteenth book on the Edict.] so that only as much comes into the petition for inheritance as would come into this action.
§11.3.14.1De filio filiaue familias corruptis huic edicto locus non est, quia serui corrupti constituta actio est, qui in patrimonio nostro esset, et pauperiorem se factum esse dominus probare potest dignitate et fama domus integra manente: sed utilis competit officio iudicis aestimanda, quoniam interest nostra animum liberorum nostrorum non corrumpi.
There is no place for this edict concerning the corruption of a son or daughter under paternal power, because the action established is for the corruption of a slave who was in our patrimony, and the master can prove that he has been made poorer even while the dignity and reputation of the house remain unimpaired; but a useful action is available, to be assessed by the office of the judge, since it is in our interest that the minds of our children should not be corrupted.
§11.3.14.2Si seruus communis meus et tuus proprium meum seruum corruperit, Sabinus non posse agi cum socio, perinde atque si proprius meus seruus corrupisset conseruum.
If a slave owned in common by you and me corrupts my own slave, Sabinus says that there can be no action against the co-owner, just as if my own slave had corrupted his fellow slave.
item si seruus communis extraneum corruperit, uidendum est, utrum cum duobus agi debeat an et cum singulis exemplo ceterarum noxarum: et magis est, ut unusquisque in solidum teneatur, altero autem soluente alterum liberari.
Likewise, if a common slave corrupts a slave belonging to a third party, we must consider whether the action should be brought against both co-owners or against each individually, following the example of other cases of noxal liability; and it is more correct that each should be liable for the whole, but that if one pays, the other is released.
§11.3.14.3Si is, in quo usum fructum habeo, seruum meum corruperit, erit mihi actio cum domino proprietatis.
If a slave in whom I have a usufruct corrupts my own slave, I will have an action against the owner of the property.
§11.3.14.4Pignoris dati nomine debitor habet hanc actionem.
The debtor has this action on account of a pledge given.
§11.3.14.5In hac actione non extra rem duplum est: id enim quod damni datum est duplatur.
In this action, the double amount is not outside the matter; for the damage actually caused is doubled.
§11.3.14.6His consequenter et illud probatur, ut, si seruo meo persuaseris, ut Titio furtum faciat, non solum in id teneris, quo deterior seruus effectus est, sed et in id quod Titio praestaturus sim.
Consequently, this is also proved: that if you persuade my slave to commit a theft against Titius, you are liable not only for the amount by which the slave has been made worse, but also for that which I will have to pay to Titius.
§11.3.14.7Item non solum si mihi damnum dederit consilio tuo, sed etiam si extraneo, eo quoque nomine mihi teneris, quod ego lege Aquilia obnoxius sim: aut si ex conducto teneor alicui, quod ei seruum locaui et propter te deterior factus sit, teneberis et hoc nomine, et si qua talia sint.
Likewise, you are liable to me not only if he causes damage to me by your advice, but also if he causes it to a third party, on the ground that I am liable under the Lex Aquilia; or if I am liable to someone under a contract of hire because I hired out the slave to him and the slave was made worse because of you, you will also be liable on this account, and if there are any other such cases.
§11.3.14.8Aestimatio autem habetur in hac actione, quanti seruus uilior factus sit, quod officio iudicis expedietur:
The valuation in this action, however, is based on how much less valuable the slave has been made, which will be determined by the office of the judge.
§11.3.14.9Interdum tamen et inutilis sit, ut non expediat talem seruum habere.
Sometimes, however, the slave may become so useless that it is not expedient to keep such a slave.
utrum ergo et pretium cogitur dare sollicitator et seruum dominus lucrifacit, an uero cogi debet dominus restituere seruum et pretium serui accipere? et uerius est electionem domino dari, siue seruum detinere cupit et damnum, quanti deterior seruus factus est, in duplum accipere, uel seruo restituto, si copiam huius rei habeat, pretium consequi, quod si non habeat, pretium quidem simili modo accipere, cedere autem sollicitatori periculo eius de dominio serui actionibus.
Should, therefore, the solicitor be compelled to pay the price and the master keep the slave as a profit, or indeed should the master be compelled to restore the slave and receive the slave's price? And it is more correct that the choice be given to the master, whether he wishes to retain the slave and receive double the damage representing how much worse the slave has been made, or, if he has the capacity to do so, to restore the slave and obtain the price; but if he does not have this capacity, to receive the price in like manner and cede to the solicitor, at the latter's risk, the actions concerning the ownership of the slave.
quod tamen de restitutione hominis dicitur, tunc locum habet, cum homine uiuo agitur.
However, what is said about the restoration of the person applies only when the action is brought while the person is alive.
quid autem si manumisso eo agatur? non facile apud iudicem audietur dicendo ideo se manumississe, quoniam habere noluerat domi, ut et pretium habeat et libertum.
But what if the action is brought after his manumission? He will not easily be heard before the judge by saying that he manumitted him for the reason that he did not want to have him at home, so that he may have both the price and the freedman.