Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §13.7.9.pr-13.7.9.5

Distinction of Pledge and Hypothec and Recovery upon Satisfaction

Passage 2147 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Ulpian discusses the availability of the contrary action for malicious or third-party pledging, the distinction between pledge and hypothec, and the conditions under which the action for recovery of the pledge arises through payment or other modes of satisfaction of the creditor.

[ULPIANUS libro uicensimo octauno ad edictum. ] §13.7.9.prSi rem alienam mihi debitor pignori dedit aut malitiose in pignore uersatus sit, dicendum est locum habere contrarium iudicium.
[ULPIAN, on the Edict, Book XXVIII] If a debtor has given me another person's property in pledge or has acted maliciously in respect of the pledge, it must be said that there is ground for the contrary action.
§13.7.9.1Non tantum autem ob pecuniam, sed et ob aliam causam pignus dari potest, ueluti si quis pignus alicui dederit, ut pro se fideiubeat.
Moreover, a pledge can be given not only on account of money, but also for another cause, for example, if someone has given a pledge to another in order that the latter may become a surety for him.
§13.7.9.2Proprie pignus dicimus, quod ad creditorem transit, hypothecam, cum non transit nec possessio ad creditorem.
Strictly speaking, we call it a pledge when it passes to the creditor, and a hypothec when it does not pass, nor does the possession pass to the creditor.
§13.7.9.3Omnis pecunia exsoluta esse debet aut eo nomine satisfactum esse, ut nascatur pigneraticia actio.
All the money must have been paid off or satisfaction given on that account, in order for the action on pledge to arise.
satisfactum autem accipimus, quemadmodum uoluit creditor, licet non sit solutum: siue aliis pignoribus sibi caueri uoluit, ut ab hoc recedat, siue fideiussoribus siue reo dato siue pretio aliquo uel nuda conuentione nascitur pigneraticia actio.
Now we understand 'satisfaction' to mean in whatever way the creditor wished, even if payment has not been made: whether he wished security to be given to him by other pledges so that he might withdraw from this one, or by sureties, or by a co-debtor being provided, or by some price, or by a simple agreement, the action on pledge arises.
et generaliter dicendum erit, quotiens recedere uoluit creditor a pignore, uideri ei satisfactum, si ut ipse uoluit sibi cauit, licet in hoc deceptus sit.
And generally it must be said that whenever the creditor wished to withdraw from the pledge, if security was given to him as he himself wished, he is deemed to have been satisfied, even if he was deceived in this.
§13.7.9.4Is quoque, qui rem alienam pignori dedit, soluta pecunia potest pigneraticia experiri.
He also who has given another person's property in pledge can, when the money has been paid, bring the action on pledge.
§13.7.9.5Qui ante solutionem egit pigneraticia, licet non recte egit, tamen, si offerat in iudicio pecuniam, debet rem pigneratam et quod sua interest consequi.
He who brought the action on pledge before payment, although he did not act rightly, nevertheless, if he offers the money in court, ought to obtain the pledged property and his interest.

Notes

  1. §13.7.9.2nec possessio ad creditorem — Parallel to "quod ad creditorem transit" (what passes to the creditor) in the first clause, the clause introduced by "cum" contains two parts: "non transit [possessio]" (when possession does not pass) and "nec possessio [transit] ad creditorem" (nor does possession pass to the creditor), where the verb "transit" is elided in the latter.
  2. §13.7.9.3satisfactum — An accusative with infinitive construction with "esse" omitted ("satisfactum esse"), depending on "debet" in the main clause. In substantive law, it indicates that if the creditor is satisfied (e.g., by agreement or alternative security), this is deemed equivalent to payment for the purpose of initiating the direct action on pledge for recovery.
  3. §13.7.9.5quod sua interest — The construction of the impersonal verb "interest" (it is of importance to). With the relative pronoun "quod" (neut. acc. sg.) as subject, the ablative feminine singular of the possessive adjective "sua" is used instead of a genitive because the interested party is third-person singular. It refers to the plaintiff's "interest" or damages resulting from the wrongful withholding of the pledge.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §13.7.9.pr-13.7.9.5. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:13.7.9.pr-13.7.9.5

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.