[ULPIANUS libro uicensimo sexto ad edictum. ] §12.4.3.prDedi tibi pecuniam, ne ad iudicem iretur: quasi decidi.
[ULPIANUS, Twenty-Sixth Book on the Edict.] I gave you money so that there would be no proceedings before a judge: as if I made a settlement.
an possim condicere, si mihi non caueatur ad iudicem non iri? et est uerum multum interesse, utrum ob hoc solum dedi, ne eatur, an ut et mihi repromittatur non iri: si ob hoc, ut et repromittatur, condici poterit, si non repromittatur: si ut ne eatur, condictio cessat quamdiu non itur.
Can I bring a condictio if no security is given to me that there will be no proceedings? And it is true that there is a great difference whether I gave it solely for this purpose, that there should be no proceedings, or so that it should also be promised to me that there will be no proceedings: if for the purpose that it should also be promised, a condictio will be possible if it is not promised; if so that there should be no proceedings, the condictio is barred as long as there are no proceedings.
§12.4.3.1Idem erit et si tibi dedero, ne Stichum manumittas: nam secundum distinctionem supra scriptam aut admittenda erit repetitio aut inhibenda.
The same will apply if I give you money so that you do not manumit Stichus: for according to the distinction written above, the recovery must either be allowed or barred.
§12.4.3.2Sed si tibi dedero, ut Stichum manumittas: si non facis, possum condicere, aut si me paeniteat, condicere possum.
But if I give you money so that you manumit Stichus: if you do not do so, I can bring a condictio; or if I change my mind, I can bring a condictio.
§12.4.3.3Quid si ita dedi, ut intra certum tempus manumittas? si nondum tempus praeteriit, inhibenda erit repetitio, nisi paeniteat: quod si praeteriit, condici poterit.
What if I gave it on the condition that you manumit him within a certain time? If the time has not yet passed, the recovery must be barred, unless I change my mind; but if it has passed, a condictio can be brought.
sed si Stichus decesserit, an repeti quod datum est possit? Proculus ait, si post id temporis decesserit, quo manumitti potuit, repetitionem esse, si minus, cessare.
But if Stichus dies, can what was given be recovered? Proculus says that if he died after the time in which he could have been manumitted, there is a recovery; if before, it is barred.
§12.4.3.4Quin immo et si nihil tibi dedi, ut manumitteres, placuerat tamen, ut darem, ultro tibi competere actionem, quae ex hoc contractu nascitur, id est condictionem defuncto quoque eo.
Indeed, even if I gave you nothing so that you should manumit him, but it had been agreed that I should give, an action arising from this contract, that is, a condictio, is available to you of your own right, even if he is dead.
§12.4.3.5Si liber homo, qui bona fide seruiebat, mihi pecuniam dederit, ut eum manumittam, et fecero: postea liber probatus an mihi condicere possit, quaeritur.
If a free man, who was serving in good faith as a slave, gave me money so that I should manumit him, and I did so: it is asked whether, after he is proved to be free, he can bring a condictio against me.
et Iulianus libro undecimo digestorum scribit competere manumisso repetitionem.
And Julian writes in the eleventh book of his Digests that recovery is available to the manumitted person.
Neratius etiam libro membranarum refert Paridem pantomimum a Domitia Neronis filia decem, quae ei pro libertate dederat, repetisse per iudicem nec fuisse quaesitum, an Domitia sciens liberum accepisset.
Neratius also reports in his Book of Parchments that Paris the pantomime recovered through a judge from Domitia, daughter of Nero, ten thousand sesterces which he had given her for his freedom, and it was not inquired whether Domitia knew that he was free when she accepted them.
§12.4.3.6Si quis quasi statuliber mihi decem dederit, cum iussus non esset, condicere eum decem Celsus scribit.
If anyone gave me ten as if he were a statuliber, when he had not been ordered to do so, Celsus writes that he can bring a condictio for the ten.
§12.4.3.7Sed si seruus, qui testamento heredi iussus erat decem dare et liber esse, codicillis pure libertatem accepit et id ignorans dederit heredi decem, an repetere possit? et refert patrem suum Celsum existimasse repetere eum non posse: sed ipse Celsus naturali aequitate motus putat repeti posse.
But if a slave, who by a will was ordered to give ten to the heir and be free, received unconditional freedom by codicils and, ignorant of this, gave ten to the heir, can he recover it? And he reports that his father Celsus thought that he could not recover it; but Celsus himself, moved by natural equity, thinks that it can be recovered.
quae sententia uerior est, quamquam constet, ut et ipse ait, eum qui dedit ea spe, quod se ab eo qui acceperit remunerari existimaret uel amiciorem sibi esse eum futurum, repetere non posse opinione falsa deceptum.
This opinion is more correct, although it is established, as he himself says, that he who gave in the hope that he would be rewarded by the recipient or that the recipient would be more friendly to him, cannot recover it, having been deceived by a false opinion.
§12.4.3.8Suptilius quoque illud tractat, an ille, qui se statuliberum putauerit, nec fecerit nummos accipientis, quoniam heredi dedit quasi ipsius heredis nummos daturus, non quasi suos, qui utique ipsius fuerunt, adquisiti scilicet post libertatem ei ex testamento competentem.
He also treats more subtly the question whether he who thought himself a statuliber did not make the coins the property of the recipient, since he gave them to the heir as if he were going to give the heir's own coins, not as if they were his own—which indeed were his own, having been acquired, of course, after the freedom belonging to him under the will.
et puto, si hoc animo dedit, non fieri ipsius: nam et cum tibi nummos meos quasi tuos do, non facio tuos.
And I think that if he gave with this intention, they do not become the property of the recipient; for also when I give you my coins as if they were yours, I do not make them yours.
quid ergo, si hic non heredi, sed alii dedit, cui putabat se iussum? si quidem peculiares dedit, nec fecit accipientis: si autem alius pro eo dedit aut ipse dedit iam liber factus, fient accipientis.
What then, if he gave not to the heir, but to another person to whom he thought he was ordered to give? If indeed he gave coins from his peculium, he did not make them the property of the recipient; but if another gave on his behalf, or he himself gave after he had already become free, they will become the property of the recipient.
§12.4.3.9Quamquam permissum sit statulibero etiam de peculio dare implendae condicionis causa, si tamen uult heres nummos saluos facere, potest eum uetare dare: sic enim fiet, ut et statuliber perueniat ad libertatem quasi impleta condicione cui parere prohibitus est, et nummi non peribunt.
Although a statuliber is permitted to give even from his peculium for the sake of fulfilling a condition, yet if the heir wishes to save the coins, he can forbid him to give; for in this way it will happen both that the statuliber attains his freedom as if the condition, which he was forbidden to obey, had been fulfilled, and the coins will not be lost.
sed is, quem testator accipere uoluit, aduersus heredem in factum actione agere potest, ut testatori pareatur.
But he whom the testator wished to receive them can sue the heir by an action in factum, so that the will of the testator may be obeyed.