[ULPIANUS libro uicensimo octauo ad edictum. ] §14.1.1.12Igitur praepositio certam legem dat contrahentibus.
Therefore, the appointment gives a specific condition to the contracting parties.
quare si eum praeposuit naui ad hoc solum, ut uecturas exigat, non ut locet (quod forte ipse locauerat), non tenebitur exercitor: si magister locauerit: uel si ad locandum tantum, non ad exigendum, idem erit dicendum: aut si ad hoc, ut uectoribus locet, non ut mercibus nauem praestet, uel contra, modum egressus non obligabit exercitorem: sed et si ut certis mercibus eam locet, praepositus est, puta legumini, cannabae, ille marmoribus uel alia materia locauit, dicendum erit non teneri.
For this reason, if he appointed him to the ship for this purpose only, to collect fares, and not to charter it (which perhaps the exercitor himself had chartered), the exercitor will not be held liable if the master charters it. Or if he appointed him only to charter it, and not to collect fares, the same must be said. Or if he appointed him for this purpose, to charter it to passengers and not to provide the ship for cargo, or vice versa, the one who has exceeded the limit will not bind the exercitor. Furthermore, even if he was appointed to charter it for specific cargoes, say, legumes or hemp, and he chartered it for marble or other materials, it must be said that the exercitor is not liable.
quaedam enim naues onerariae, quaedam (ut ipsi dicunt) ἐπιβατηγοὶ sunt: et plerosque mandare scio, ne uectores recipiant, et sic, ut certa regione et certo mari negotietur, ut ecce sunt naues, quae Brundisium a Cassiopa uel a Dyrrachio uectores traiciunt ad onera inhabiles, item quaedam fluuii capaces ad mare non sufficientes.
For some ships are cargo vessels, while others (as they themselves say) are passenger carriers; and I know that most people give instructions not to receive passengers, and likewise to trade only in a certain region and on a certain sea, just as, for instance, there are ships that carry passengers to Brundisium from Cassiopa or from Dyrrachium but are unfit for cargo, and likewise some that are capable for a river but not sufficient for the sea.
§14.1.1.13Si plures sint magistri non diuisis officiis, quodcumque cum uno gestum erit, obligabit exercitorem: si diuisis, ut alter locando, alter exigendo, pro cuiusque officio obligabitur exercitor.
If there are several masters without their duties being divided, whatever business is transacted with one of them will bind the exercitor. If their duties are divided, so that one is for chartering and the other for collecting fares, the exercitor will be bound according to the office of each.
§14.1.1.14Sed et si sic praeposuit, ut plerique faciunt, ne alter sine altero quid gerat, qui contraxit cum uno sibi imputabit.
But if he appointed them on such terms, as most people do, that one should not transact anything without the other, he who contracted with only one must blame himself.
§14.1.1.15Exercitorem autem eum dicimus, ad quem obuentiones et reditus omnes perueniunt, siue is dominus nauis sit siue a domino nauem per auersionem conduxit uel ad tempus uel in perpetuum.
We call the exercitor, however, the person to whom all the receipts and profits come, whether he is the owner of the ship or has hired the ship from the owner for a lump sum, either for a time or in perpetuity.
§14.1.1.16Parui autem refert, qui exercet masculus sit an mulier, pater familias an filius familias uel seruus: pupillus autem si nauem exerceat, exigemus tutoris auctoritatem.
It matters little whether the person who operates the ship is a male or a female, a paterfamilias, a filiusfamilias, or a slave; but if a ward should operate a ship, we shall require the authority of his tutor.
§14.1.1.17Est autem nobis electio, utrum exercitorem an magistrum conuenire uelimus.
We have, moreover, the choice whether we wish to sue the exercitor or the master.
§14.1.1.18Sed ex contrario exercenti nauem aduersus eos, qui cum magistro contraxerunt, actio non pollicetur, quia non eodem auxilio indigebat, sed aut ex locato cum magistro, si mercede operam ei exhibet, aut si gratuitam, mandati agere potest.
But on the contrary, no action is promised to the operator of a ship against those who contracted with the master, because he did not stand in need of the same assistance; but he can sue either on the contract of hire with the master, if the master provides his services for a wage, or on mandate, if the services are gratuitous.
solent plane praefecti propter ministerium annonae, item in prouinciis praesides prouinciarum extra ordinem eos iuare ex contractu magistrorum.
Clearly, on account of the grain supply service, the prefects, and likewise in the provinces the governors of the provinces, are accustomed to assist them extra ordinem on the contracts of the masters.
§14.1.1.19Si is, qui nauem exercuerit, in aliena potestate erit eiusque uoluntate nauem exercuerit, quod cum magistro eius gestum erit, in eum, in cuius potestate is erit qui nauem exercuerit, iudicium datur.
If the person who operated the ship is under the power of another, and operated the ship with that person's consent, an action is granted against the person under whose power the operator of the ship is, for whatever was transacted with his master.
§14.1.1.20Licet autem detur actio in eum, cuius in potestate est qui nauem exercet, tamen ita demum datur, si uoluntate eius exerceat.
But although an action is granted against the person under whose power the operator of the ship is, nevertheless it is only granted if he operates with his consent.
ideo autem ex uoluntate in solidum tenentur qui habent in potestate exercitorem, quia ad summam rem publicam nauium exercitio pertinet.
Moreover, those who have the exercitor under their power are held liable in solidum on the basis of their consent, because the operation of ships pertains to the highest public interest.
at institorum non idem usus est: ea propter in tributum dumtaxat uocantur, qui contraxerunt cum eo, qui in merce peculiari sciente domino negotiatur.
But with shop managers there is not the same utility; therefore, those who have contracted with one who trades in peculiar merchandise with the knowledge of his master are only summoned to a distribution.
sed si sciente dumtaxat, non etiam uolente cum magistro contractum sit, utrum quasi in uolentem damus actionem in solidum an uero exemplo tributoriae dabimus? in re igitur dubia melius est uerbis edicti seruire et neque scientiam solam et nudam patris dominiue in nauibus onerare neque in peculiaribus mercibus uoluntatem extendere ad solidi obligationem.
But if a contract was made with a master with the owner's knowledge indeed, but not also with his consent, do we grant an action in solidum as against one who consents, or shall we grant it after the example of the action for distribution? In a doubtful matter, therefore, it is better to adhere to the words of the edict, and neither to burden the father or master on his sole and bare knowledge in the case of ships, nor to extend consent to an obligation in solidum in the case of peculiar merchandise.
et ita uidetur et Pomponius significare, si sit in aliena potestate, si quidem uoluntate gerat, in solidum eum obligari, si minus, in peculium.
And Pomponius also seems to indicate this, namely, that if he is under another's power, if indeed he acts with his consent, he is bound in solidum, if not, to the extent of his peculium.
§14.1.1.21In potestate autem accipiemus utriusque sexus uel filios uel filias uel seruos uel seruas.
By those under power, moreover, we shall understand either sons or daughters, or male or female slaves, of either sex.
§14.1.1.22Si tamen seruus peculiaris uolente filio familias in cuius peculio erat, uel seruo uicarius eius nauem exercuit, pater dominusue, qui uoluntatem non accommodauit, dumtaxat de peculio tenebitur, sed filius ipse in solidum.
If, however, a slave belonging to a peculium operated a ship with the consent of a filiusfamilias in whose peculium he was, or if an under-slave of a slave did so, the father or master, who did not give his consent, will only be held liable to the extent of the peculium, but the son himself in solidum.
plane si uoluntate domini uel patris exerceant, in solidum tenebuntur et praeterea et filius, si et ipse uoluntatem accommodauit, in solidum erit obligatus.
Clearly, if they operate with the consent of the master or father, they will be held liable in solidum, and furthermore, the son also, if he himself too gave his consent, will be bound in solidum.
§14.1.1.23Quamquam autem, si cum magistro eius gestum sit, dumtaxat pollicetur praetor actionem, tamen, ut Iulianus quoque scribsit, etiamsi cum ipso exercitore sit contractum, pater minusue in solidum tenebitur.
Although, however, the praetor promises an action only if the business was transacted with his master, nevertheless, as Julian also wrote, even if the contract was made with the exercitor himself, the father or master will be held liable in solidum.
§14.1.1.24Haec actio ex persona magistri in exercitorem dabitur, et ideo, si cum utro eorum actum est, cum altero agi non potest.
This action will be granted against the exercitor on account of the person of the master, and therefore, if an action has been brought against either of them, it cannot be brought against the other.
sed si quid sit solutum, si quidem a magistro ipso iure minuitur obligatio: sed et si ab exercitore, siue suo nomine, id est propter honorariam obligationem, siue magistri nomine soluerit, minuetur obligatio, quoniam et alius pro me soluendo me liberat.
But if any payment is made, if indeed by the master, the obligation is diminished ipso iure; but even if it is paid by the exercitor, whether in his own name, that is, on account of the honorary obligation, or in the name of the master, the obligation will be diminished, since another also releases me by paying on my behalf.
§14.1.1.25Si plures nauem exerceant, cum quolibet eorum in solidum agi potest,
If several persons operate a ship, an action can be brought against any of them in solidum,