[PAULUS libro octauo decimo ad edictum. ] §12.2.28.prIn duobus reis stipulandi ab altero delatum iusiurandum etiam alteri nocebit.
[PAULUS, Book XVIII on the Edict.] In the case of two joint stipulators, an oath offered by one will also be detrimental to the other.
§12.2.28.1Quod reus iurauit, etiam fideiussori proficit.
What the principal debtor has sworn to also benefits the surety.
a fideiussore exactum iusiurandum prodesse etiam reo Cassius et Iulianus aiunt: nam quia in locum solutionis succedit, hic quoque eodem loco habendum est: si modo ideo interpositum est iusiurandum, ut de ipso contractu et de re, non de persona iurantis ageretur.
Cassius and Julian say that an oath exacted from a surety also benefits the principal debtor; for because it takes the place of payment, here too it must be held in the same position; provided that the oath was introduced in such a way that the litigation concerned the contract itself and the matter, and not the person of the swearer.
§12.2.28.2Si ei, qui debitorem meum in iudicium exhibere promisit, iusiurandum detulerim isque iurauerit se omnino exhibitionem eius non promississe, prodesse debitori meo id non debet: si uero iurauerit se nihil mihi praestare oportere, distinguendum sit et replicatione emendandum, utrum ideo iurauerit an quia post promissionem exhibuerit an uero quia soluerit: quod et in fideiussorem debiti distinguendum est.
If I have offered an oath to one who promised to produce my debtor in court, and he has sworn that he did not promise his production at all, this ought not to benefit my debtor; but if he has sworn that he is not bound to render anything to me, a distinction must be made and corrective measures taken by means of a replication, as to whether he swore for that reason, or because he produced him after the promise, or because he paid; which distinction must also be made in the case of a surety for a debt.
§12.2.28.3Ex duobus reis promittendi eiusdem pecuniae alter iurauit: alteri quoque prodesse debebit.
If one of two joint debtors for the same sum of money has sworn, it must also benefit the other.
§12.2.28.4Exceptio iurisiurandi non tantum si ea actione quis utatur, cuius nomine exegit iusiurandum, opponi debet, sed etiam si alia, si modo eadem quaestio in hoc iudicium deducatur, forte si ob actionem mandati negotiorum gestorum societatis ceterasque similes iusiurandum exactum sit, deinde ex isdem causis certum condicatur, quia per alteram actionem altera quoque consumitur.
The defense of an oath should be pleaded not only if someone brings that action in connection with which he exacted the oath, but also if he brings another, provided that the same question is brought into this trial; for example, if an oath was exacted on account of an action on mandate, for unauthorized agency, on partnership, or other similar actions, and subsequently a condictio for a sum certain is brought on the same grounds, because by the one action the other also is consumed.
§12.2.28.5Si quis iurauerit se non rapuisse, non debet adiuuari hoc iureiurando in actione furti aut condictione, quia aliud est furtum fecisse, quod uel clam fieri potest.
If someone has sworn that he did not commit robbery, he ought not to be assisted by this oath in an action for theft or in a condictio; because it is one thing to have committed theft, which can be done even secretly.
§12.2.28.6Colonus, cum quo propter succisas forte arbores agebatur ex locato, si iurauerit se non succidisse, siue e lege duodecim tabularum de arboribus succisis siue e lege Aquilia damni iniuria siue interdicto quod ui aut clam postea conuenietur, per exceptionem iurisiurandi defendi poterit.
If a tenant farmer, against whom an action was brought under a lease on account of trees having perhaps been cut down, has sworn that he did not cut them down, even if he is subsequently sued either under the Law of the Twelve Tables regarding cut trees, or under the Lex Aquilia for wrongful damage, or by the interdict concerning force or secrecy, he will be able to defend himself by the defense of the oath.
§12.2.28.7Quae iurauit diuortii causa rem se non amouisse, non debet defendi per exceptionem, si cum ea in rem agatur et, si contendat suam esse, alio iureiurando opus est: contra si iurauerit suam esse, debet in actione rerum amotarum defendi.
A woman who has sworn on the occasion of a divorce that she did not remove property ought not to be defended by the exception, if an action in rem is brought against her, and if she claims that the property is hers, another oath is necessary; conversely, if she has sworn that it is hers, she ought to be defended in the action for property removed.
et omnino hoc obseruandum est, licet per aliam actionem eadem quaestio moueatur, ut exceptio iurisiurandi locum habeat.
And this rule must be observed in all cases, so that the defense of the oath may apply, even though the same question is raised through another action.
§12.2.28.8Igitur si quis iurauit se non esse condemnatum, etiamsi ex stipulatu iudicatum solui ob rem iudicatam conueniatur, defendetur per exceptionem.
Therefore, if anyone has sworn that he has not been condemned, even if he is sued on the stipulation for the payment of the judgment on account of a res iudicata, he will be defended by the exception.
contra si, cum ex stipulatu iudicatum solui conueniretur, iurauit se dare non oportere, agenti iudicati non utique obstabit exceptio: potest enim fieri, ut non sit commissa stipulatio, licet res iudicata sit: nisi ideo iurasset, quod nec damnatum se esse diceret.
On the other hand, if, when sued on the stipulation for the payment of the judgment, he has sworn that he is not bound to pay, the exception will not necessarily block one bringing the action on the judgment; for it is possible that the stipulation has not been forfeited, although there is a res iudicata; unless he had sworn for the reason that he asserted he had not even been condemned.
§12.2.28.9Item Pomponius ait eum, qui furtum sibi factum alicuius rei iurauit, non statim etiam condictionis causam nancisci.
Likewise, Pomponius says that he who has sworn that a theft of some property was committed against him does not immediately acquire a cause of action for a condictio.
§12.2.28.10Item cum ex hac parte iusiurandum et actionem et exceptionem inducat, si forte reus extra iudicium actore inferente iurauerit se dare non oportere et actor reo deferente dari sibi oportere, uel contra, posterior causa iurisiurandi potior habebitur: nec tamen praeiudicium periurio alterius fiet, quia non quaeretur, an dare eum oportet, sed an actor iurauerit.
Likewise, since on this part the oath brings about both an action and a defense, if, for example, the debtor outside of court has sworn, upon the plaintiff proposing it, that he is not bound to pay, and the plaintiff, upon the debtor proposing it, has sworn that payment ought to be made to him, or vice versa, the later cause of the oath will be held as more powerful; nor, however, will a prejudice be created against the perjury of the other, because the question will not be whether he is bound to pay, but whether the plaintiff has sworn.