[ULPIANUS libro uicensimo nono ad edictum. ] §15.1.11.prSi noxali iudicio conuentus dominus litis aestimationem obtulerit, de peculio deducendum est: quod si noxae dederit, nihil est deducendum.
[ULPIANUS libro uicensimo nono ad edictum.] If a master, sued in a noxal action, has offered the estimated value of the suit, it must be deducted from the peculium; but if he has surrendered [the slave] as noxa, nothing is to be deducted.
§15.1.11.1Sed et si quid dominus soluturum se serui nomine repromisit, deduci oportebit, quemadmodum si quid domino seruus pro debitore expromiserat.
But also, if a master has formally promised that he will pay something on behalf of his slave, it must be deducted, just as if the slave had undertaken a debt to the master on behalf of another debtor.
idem est et si pro libertate quid domino expromisit, quasi debitor domino sit effectus, sed ita demum, si manumisso eo agatur.
The same holds if the slave promised something to the master for his freedom, as if he had become a debtor to the master; but only if the action is brought after his manumission.
§15.1.11.2Sed si a debitore dominico seruus exegerit, an domini debitorem se fecerit, quaeritur: et Iulianus libro duodecimo digestorum non aliter dominum deducturum ait, quam si ratum habuisset quod exactum est: eadem et in filio familias dicenda erunt.
But if a slave has collected a debt from a debtor of his master, the question is raised whether he has made himself a debtor to his master; and Julian writes in the twelfth book of his Digests that the master cannot make a deduction unless he has ratified what was collected; and the same must be said in the case of a son-in-power.
et puto ueram Iuliani sententiam: naturalia enim debita spectamus in peculii deductione: est autem natura aequum liberari filium uel seruum obligatione eo quod indebitum uidetur exegisse.
And I think Julian's opinion is correct; for in the deduction from the peculium we look to natural debts; and it is naturally equitable for a son or a slave to be released from an obligation arising from his having collected what was apparently not due.
§15.1.11.3Est autem quaestionis, an id, quod dominus semel deduxit cum conueniretur, rursus si conueniatur, de peculio eximere debeat, an uero ueluti solutum ei uideatur semel facta deductione.
But there is a question whether, if a master has once deducted something when he was sued, he ought to subtract it again from the peculium if he is sued again, or whether indeed it is deemed to have been paid to him by the single deduction.
et Neratius et Nerua putant, item Iulianus libro duodecimo scribit, si quidem abstulit hoc de peculio, non debere deduci, si uero eandem positionem peculii reliquit, debere eum deducere.
Neratius and Nerva think, and Julian also writes in his twelfth book, that if he indeed removed this from the peculium, it ought not to be deducted; but if he left the same composition of the peculium, he ought to deduct it.
§15.1.11.4Denique scribit, si seruus uicarium quinque ualentem in peculium habuit et domino quinque deberet, pro quibus uicarium dominus deduxisset, et mortuo postea uicario alium eiusdem pretii seruus comparauerit, non desinere domini esse debitorem, quasi uicarius ille domino decesserit: nisi forte, cum eum seruo ademisset et sibi soluisset, tunc decesserit.
Finally, he writes that if a slave had a subordinate slave (vicarius) worth five in his peculium and owed five to his master, for which debt the master had deducted the subordinate slave, and, after the subordinate slave subsequently died, the slave acquired another of the same value, he does not cease to be a debtor to his master, as if that subordinate slave had died to the loss of the master; unless perhaps the master had taken him away from the slave and paid himself, and he had died after that.
§15.1.11.5Idem recte ait, si, cum uicarius ualeret decem, dominus conuentus de peculio quinque pro seruo praestitisset, quoniam quinque ipsi debebantur, mox uicarius decessisset, aduersus alium agentem de peculio decem dominum deducturum, quia et in eo, quod iam pro eo soluit, debitorem seruum sibi fecerit.
The same writer rightly says that if, while a subordinate slave was worth ten, the master, being sued, had paid five for the slave out of the peculium, and since five was owed to himself, the subordinate slave died soon after, the master, against another person bringing an action concerning the peculium, will deduct ten, because also in respect of what he has already paid for the slave, he has made the slave his debtor.
quae sententia uera est, nisi seruo ademit uicarium, ut sibi solueret.
This opinion is correct, unless the master took the subordinate slave away from the slave in order to pay himself.
§15.1.11.6Quod autem deduci debere diximus id quod debetur ei qui de peculio conuenitur, ita accipiendum est, si non hoc aliunde consequi potuit.
Moreover, what we said, that what is owed to the person sued concerning the peculium ought to be deducted, must be understood to apply only if he could not obtain this from another source.
§15.1.11.7Denique Iulianus scribit uenditorem, qui seruum cum peculio uendidit, si de peculio conueniatur, non debere deducere quod sibi debetur: potuit enim hoc ex ratione peculii detrahere et nunc condicere quasi indebitum (quoniam non est in peculio quod domino debetur).
Finally, Julian writes that a seller who has sold a slave with his peculium, if he is sued concerning the peculium, ought not to deduct what is owed to himself; for he could have subtracted this from the account of the peculium and can now claim it back as not due (since what is owed to the master is not in the peculium).
potest, inquit, etiam ex uendito agere.
He says that he can also bring an action on the sale.
quod ita erit probandum, si tantum fuit in peculio cum uenderet, ut satisfacere debito dominus possit: ceterum si postea quid accessit condicionibus debiti existentibus, quod dominus non distraxerat, contra erit dicendum.
This is to be approved only if, when he sold the slave, there was enough in the peculium for the master to satisfy the debt; but if something was subsequently added while the conditions of the debt were being fulfilled, which the master had not sold, the contrary must be said.
§15.1.11.8Idem scribit, si quis seruum, cuius nomine de peculio habebat actionem, comparasset, an possit deducere quod sibi debetur, quoniam aduersus uenditorem habeat actionem de peculio? et recte ait posse: nam et quiuis alius potest eligere, utrum cum emptore an cum uenditore ageret: hunc igitur eligere pro actione deductionem.
He also writes that if someone has purchased a slave against whom he had an action concerning the peculium, can he deduct what is owed to him, since he has an action concerning the peculium against the seller? And he rightly says that he can; for anyone else can choose whether to sue the buyer or the seller; therefore, this person chooses deduction instead of an action.
nec uideo quid habeant creditores quod querantur, cum possint ipsi uenditorem conuenire, si quid forte putant esse in peculio.
Nor do I see what reason creditors have to complain, since they themselves can sue the seller if they think there is anything in the peculium.
§15.1.11.9Non solum autem quod ei debetur qui conuenitur deducendum est, uerum etiam si quid socio eius debetur, et ita Iulianus libro duodecimo digestorum scribit: nam qua ratione in solidum alteruter conuenitur, pari ratione deducere eum oportet quod alteri debetur: quae sententia recepta est:
Moreover, not only what is owed to the person who is sued must be deducted, but also if anything is owed to his partner; and Julian writes so in the twelfth book of his Digests. For by the same reasoning that either of them is sued for the whole, by the same reasoning he ought to deduct what is owed to the other. This opinion has been accepted.