[ULPIANUS libro quadragensimo tertio ad Sabinum. ] §12.6.23.prEleganter Pomponius quaerit, si quis suspicetur transactionem factam uel ab eo cui heres est uel ab eo cui procurator est et quasi ex transactione dederit, quae facta non est, an locus sit repetitioni.
[ULPIANUS, On Sabinus, Book 43.] Pomponius elegantly asks, if anyone should suspect that a compromise has been made either by the person to whom he is heir or by the person for whom he is procurator, and should give as if on the basis of a compromise, which was not made, whether there is room for recovery.
et ait repeti posse: ex falsa enim causa datum est.
And he says that it can be recovered: for it was given on a false ground.
idem puto dicendum et si transactio secuta non fuerit, propter quam datum est: sed et si resoluta sit transactio, idem erit dicendum.
I think the same must be said even if the compromise, for the sake of which the payment was made, has not followed: but also if the compromise has been rescinded, the same will have to be said.
§12.6.23.1Si post rem iudicatam quis transegerit et soluerit, repetere poterit idcirco, quia placuit transactionem nullius esse momenti: hoc enim imperator Antoninus cum diuo patre suo rescripsit.
If anyone should compromise and pay after judgment, he will be able to recover for the reason that it was decided that a compromise is of no effect: for the Emperor Antoninus with his deified father so replied.
retineri tamen atque compensari in causam iudicati, quod ob talem transactionem solutum est, potest.
It is possible, however, for what was paid on account of such a compromise to be retained and set off against the judgment debt.
quid ergo si appellatum sit uel hoc ipsum incertum sit, an iudicatum sit uel an sententia ualeat? magis est, ut transactio uires habeat: tunc enim rescriptis locum esse credendum est, cum de sententia indubitata, quae nullo remedio adtemptari potest, transigitur.
What then if an appeal has been made, or if this very point is uncertain, whether there has been a judgment or whether the sentence is valid? It is more reasonable that the compromise should have force: for then it must be believed that there is room for the imperial rescripts, when the compromise is made regarding an indubitable sentence, which cannot be attacked by any remedy.
§12.6.23.2Item si ob transactionem alimentorum testamento relictorum datum sit, apparet posse repeti quod datum est, quia transactio senatus consulto infirmatur.
Likewise, if payment has been made on account of a compromise of maintenance left by a will, it is clear that what was given can be recovered, because the compromise is invalidated by a senatusconsultum.
§12.6.23.3Si quis post transactionem nihilo minus condemnatus fuerit, dolo quidem id fit, sed tamen sententia ualet.
If anyone, after a compromise, should nevertheless be condemned, this is indeed done by fraud, but the sentence is nevertheless valid.
potuit autem quis, si quidem ante litem contestatam transegerit, uolenti litem contestari opponere doli exceptionem: sed si post litem contestatam transactum est, nihilo minus poterit exceptione doli uti post secuti: dolo enim facit, qui contra ansactionem expertus amplius petit.
But anyone, if indeed he compromised before joinder of issue, could have opposed the plea of fraud to the person wishing to join issue: but if the compromise was made after joinder of issue, he will nevertheless be able to use the plea of fraud after what followed: for he acts with fraud, who, having sued contrary to the compromise, seeks more.
ideo condemnatus repetere potest, quod ex causa transactionis dedit.
Therefore, the person condemned can recover what he gave on account of the compromise.
sane quidem ob causam dedit neque repeti solet quod ob causam datum est causa secuta: sed hic non uidetur causa secuta, cum transactioni non stetur.
To be sure, he gave for a cause, and what is given for a cause is not accustomed to be recovered when the cause has followed: but here the cause does not seem to have followed, since the compromise is not stood by.
cum igitur repetitio oritur, transactionis exceptio locum non habet: neque enim utrumque debet locum habere et repetitio et exceptio.
When, therefore, recovery arises, the plea of compromise has no place: for both recovery and plea ought not to have place.
§12.6.23.4Si qua lex ab initio dupli uel quadrupli statuit actionem, dicendum est solutum ex falsa eius causa repeti posse.
If any law from the beginning has established an action for double or quadruple, it must be said that what was paid on its false ground can be recovered.