[IDEM libro octauo decimo epistularum. ] §12.2.42.prCreditore, qui de mutua pecunia contra pupillum contendebat, iusiurandum deferente pupillus iurauit se dare non oportere: eandem pecuniam a fideiussore eius petit: an excludendus sit exceptione iurisiurandi? quid tibi placet rescribe mihi.
[THE SAME, Eighteenth Book of Letters.] A creditor, who was contending against a pupillus concerning a loan of money, deferred an oath to him, and the pupillus swore that he did not ought to give it; the creditor seeks the same money from his guarantor: should he be excluded by the plea of an oath? Write back to me what you think.
eam rem apertius explicat Iulianus.
Julian explains this matter more clearly.
nam si controuersia inter creditorem et pupillum fuerit, an omnino pecuniam mutuam accepisset, et conuenit, ut ab omni condicione discederetur, si pupillus iurasset, isque iurauerit se dare non oportere, naturalis obligatio hac pactione tolletur et soluta pecunia repeti poterit.
For if the dispute between the creditor and the pupillus was whether he had received the loaned money at all, and it was agreed that they should depart from all claims if the pupillus should swear, and he swore that he did not ought to give it, the natural obligation is extinguished by this agreement and the money, if paid, can be recovered.
sin uero creditor quidem se mutuam dedisse contendebat, pupillus autem hoc solo defendebatur, quod tutor eius non interuenisset et hoc tale iusiurandum interpositum est, hoc casu fideiussorem praetor non tuebitur.
But if the creditor indeed contended that he had given the loan, while the pupillus defended himself solely on the ground that his tutor had not intervened, and such an oath was interposed, in this case the praetor will not protect the guarantor.
si autem liquido probari non potest, quid actum sit, et in obscuro erit (ut plerumque fit), de facto an de iure inter creditorem et pupillum controuersia fuerit deferente creditore pupillum iurasse, intellegere debemus id actum inter eos, ut, si iurasset se dare non oportere, ab omni condicione discederetur: atque ita et solutam pecuniam repeti posse et fideiussoribus exceptionem dari debere existimauimus.
If, however, it cannot be clearly proven what was done, and it remains obscure (as is often the case) whether the dispute between the creditor and the pupillus, upon the creditor deferring the oath and the pupillus swearing, was on a matter of fact or of law, we ought to understand that it was agreed between them that, if he swore that he did not ought to give it, they should depart from all claims; and thus we have judged both that the paid money can be recovered and that the plea ought to be granted to the guarantors.
§12.2.42.1Si fideiussor iurauerit se dare non oportere, exceptione iurisiurandi reus promittendi tutus est: atquin si, quasi omnino idem non fideiussisset, iurauit, non debet hoc iusiurandum reo promittendi prodesse.
If a guarantor has sworn that he did not ought to give it, the principal debtor is protected by the plea of the oath; but if he swore as if he had not guaranteed the debt at all, this oath ought not to benefit the principal debtor.
§12.2.42.2Sed et si actore deferente defensor absentis uel praesentis iurauit eum quem defendit dare non oportere, exceptio iurisiurandi ei cuius nomine iurandum fuerit dari debebit.
But also, if upon the plaintiff deferring the oath, the defender of an absent or present person has sworn that the person whom he defends did not ought to give it, the plea of the oath ought to be granted to the person in whose name the oath was to be taken.
eadem ratio est et si fideiussoris defensor iurauerit: reo enim detur exceptio:
The same reasoning applies if the defender of a guarantor has sworn; for the plea should be granted to the principal debtor.
§12.2.42.3Item si reus iurauit, fideiussor tutus sit, quia et res iudicata secundum alterutrum eorum utrique proficeret.
Likewise, if the principal debtor has sworn, the guarantor should be protected, because a res iudicata in favor of either of them would benefit both.