Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §12.6.36.pr

Recovery of Money Paid to Redeem an Unauthorized Pledge

Passage 2012 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

In a case where a platter lent without the master's consent was pledged, the text discusses whether the money paid by the slave can be recovered, depending on the good or bad faith of the pledgee and the capacity in which the payment was made.

[PAULUS libro quinto epitomarum Alfeni digestorum. ] §12.6.36.prSeruus cuiusdam insciente domino magidem commodauit: is cui commodauerat pignori eam posuit et fugit: qui accepit non aliter se redditurum aiebat, quam si pecuniam accepisset: accepit a seruulo et reddidit magidem: quaesitum est, an pecunia ab eo repeti possit.
[PAULUS, Book 5 of Epitomes of Alfenus' Digests.] A slave of a certain person, without his master's knowledge, lent a platter; the person to whom he had lent it pledged it and fled. The person who received it said he would not return it unless he received money. He received the money from the slave and returned the platter. The question was asked whether the money could be recovered from him.
respondit, si is qui pignori accepisset magidem alienam scit apud se pignori deponi, furti eum se obligasse ideoque, si pecuniam a seruulo accepisset redimendi furti causa, posse repeti: sed si nescisset alienam apud se deponi, non esse furem, item, si pecunia eius nomine, a quo pignus acceperat, a seruo ei soluta esset, non posse ab eo repeti.
He replied that if the person who had received the platter in pledge knew that a platter belonging to another was being pledged with him, he made himself liable for theft, and therefore, if he had received the money from the slave for the purpose of compounding the theft, it could be recovered. But if he had not known that a platter belonging to another was being pledged with him, he was not a thief; likewise, if the money had been paid to him by the slave in the name of the person from whom he had received the pledge, it could not be recovered from him.

Notes

  1. 12.6.36.prscit — Although a subjunctive (such as `sciret`) would be expected under the rule of sequence of tenses in indirect discourse introduced by `respondit`, the manuscripts preserve the present indicative `scit`. This may be an irregular retention of the tense of the direct discourse or a relic from Alfenus' original text summarized by Paul.
  2. 12.6.36.prfurti eum se obligasse — `eum` (the pledgee) is the subject accusative of `se obligasse` (to bind oneself). `furti` is a genitive of the charge or crime ("liable for theft"). It refers to the fact that receiving a property in pledge knowing it belongs to another constitutes theft (furtum).
  3. 12.6.36.prredimendi furti causa — "For the purpose of compounding the theft" or "redeeming the theft." This refers to a situation where the pledgee accepted money to clear his own unlawful act of theft (or unlawful possession of stolen property). In this case, recovery is allowed based on the ground of performance for an immoral or unlawful purpose (condictio ob turpem causam).
  4. 12.6.36.preius nomine, a quo pignus acceperat — `eius` refers to the third party who borrowed the platter, pledged it, and fled. If the slave paid the money "in the name of" (i.e., on behalf of or to discharge the debt of) this third party, it constitutes a valid discharge of the secured debt rather than an undue payment, thereby barring recovery.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §12.6.36.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:12.6.36.pr

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.