[ULPIANUS libro uicensimo secundo ad edictum. ] §12.2.13.prSi duo patroni essent et libertus altero deferente iurasset se libertum eius non esse, utrum alteri totius debitae patronis portionis an uero dimidiae debitae eis partis bonorum possessio competeret? et ait, si is cui iuratum est patronus fuisset, alteri suae partis bonorum possessionem competere nec ei prodesse, quod aduersus alterum libertus iurasset: multum tamen fidei et auctoritatis apud iudicem patronum habiturum, quo magis solum se patronum probaret, quod libertus iurasset alterum patronum non esse.
[ULPIAN, Book XXII on the Edict.] If there were two patrons and the freedman, upon the tender of the oath by one of them, had sworn that he was not his freedman, would the other be entitled to the bonorum possessio of the entire portion owed to the patrons, or indeed only to the half part owed to them? And he says that even if the one to whom the oath was sworn had been a patron, the other is entitled to the bonorum possessio of his own share, and it does not benefit him that the freedman had sworn against the other; however, that patron will have much credit and authority before the judge, the more to prove that he alone is the patron, because the freedman had sworn that the other was not the patron.
§12.2.13.1Iulianus ait eum, qui iurauit fundum suum esse, post longi temporis praescriptionem etiam utilem actionem habere debere.
Julian says that he who has sworn that a tract of land is his, ought to have even a useful action after the prescription of a long time.
§12.2.13.2Idem Iulianus scribit eum, qui iurauit furtum se non fecisse, uideri de toto iurasse, atque ideo neque furti neque condicticia tenetur, quia condicticia, inquit, solus fur tenetur.
The same Julian writes that he who has sworn that he did not commit a theft, is deemed to have sworn concerning the whole, and therefore is held neither for theft nor by the condictio, because, he says, only the thief is held by the condictio.
numquid ergo qui iurauit se furtum ne fecisse hoc solo nomine, condictione si conueniatur, exceptione utatur? ceterum si contendat qui condicit quasi cum herede se furis agere, non debet repelli et quasi μονομερὴς condictio ei dari debet aduersus furis heredem nec pati eum iudex debet, si coeperit temptare probare furem.
Should therefore he who has sworn that he did not commit a theft, on this ground alone, if he is sued by the condictio, use an exception? But if the one who brings the condictio contends that he is acting as if against the heir of the thief, he ought not to be repelled, and a sort of unilateral (μονομερὴς) condictio ought to be given to him against the heir of the thief, nor ought the judge to permit him if he begins to try to prove that he was the thief.
§12.2.13.3Si quis iurauerit uendidisse me ei rem centum, ex empto agere poterit, ut ei cetera praestentur, id est res tradatur et de euictione caueatur: an tamen ad pretium consequendum ex uendito conueniri possit, uidendum.
If someone has sworn that I sold him a thing for one hundred, he will be able to sue on the purchase (ex empto) so that the other things may be performed for him, that is, the thing may be delivered and security against eviction be given; but whether he can be sued on the sale (ex uendito) to obtain the price, must be seen.
et si quidem et de hoc ipso iuratum est, quod pretium solutum est, nulla pro pretio actio superest: si uero hoc non fuerit iuratum, tunc consequens est de pretio eum teneri.
And if indeed it was sworn also concerning this very thing, namely that the price was paid, no action remains for the price; but if this was not sworn, then it follows that he is held for the price.
§12.2.13.4Idem dicemus et si quis societatem fecisse iurauerit: nam et is pro socio poterit conueniri.
We shall say the same even if someone has sworn that he formed a partnership; for he too can be sued on the partnership (pro socio).
§12.2.13.5Marcellus etiam scribit, si quis iurauerit ob decem pignori dedisse fundum, non alias eum pigneraticia agere posse, quam si decem soluerit: sed et illud adici fortassis eum etiam in decem ex iureiurando suo posse conueniri, quod magis probat.
Marcellus also writes that if someone has sworn that he gave a tract of land in pledge for ten, he cannot sue on the pledge (pigneraticia) otherwise than if he has paid the ten; but it must perhaps also be added that he can even be sued for the ten on his own oath, which Marcellus rather approves.
cui Quintus Saturninus consentit argumentoque utitur eius, qui iurauit eam, quae uxor sua fuerit, rem sibi in dotem dedisse: nam et hic uxori ait utilem de dote actionem dandam.
Quintus Saturninus agrees with him and uses the argument of him who swore that the woman who had been his wife gave him a thing as dowry; for here too he says that a useful action on the dowry (de dote) must be given to the wife.
quae non esse extra aequitatem posita non negauerim.
I would not deny that these things are not placed outside of equity.
§12.2.13.6Si quis iurauerit in re pecuniaria per genium principis dare se non oportere et peierauerit uel dari sibi oportere, uel intra certum tempus iurauerit se soluturum nec soluit: imperator noster cum patre rescripsit fustibus eum castigandum dimittere et ita ei superdici: προπετώς μὴ ὄμνγε.
If someone, in a pecuniary matter, has sworn by the genius of the emperor that he ought not to give, and has perjured himself, or that it ought to be given to him, or has sworn that he would pay within a certain time and did not pay: our emperor with his father wrote back that he should be dismissed after being chastised with clubs, and that this should be said to him in addition: προπετώς μὴ ὄμνυε.