[ULPIANUS libro uicensimo nono ad edictum. ] §15.1.19.prHinc quaeritur, si ordinarii serui nomine actum sit de peculio, an agi possit et uicariorum: et puto non posse.
[ULPIANUS in the twenty-ninth book on the Edict.] Hence it is asked, if an action is brought concerning the peculium in the name of an ordinary slave, whether one can also be brought concerning that of the vicarii; and I think it cannot.
sed si actum sit de peculio uicarii, agi poterit et de peculio ordinarii.
But if an action is brought concerning the peculium of a vicarius, an action can also be brought concerning the peculium of the ordinary slave.
§15.1.19.1Potest esse apud me duplicis iuris peculium: ut puta seruus est dotalis, potest habere peculium, quod ad me respiciat, potest et quod ad mulierem.
There can be in my possession a peculium of a double legal status; for instance, if a slave is dotal, he can have a peculium which relates to me, and also one which relates to the wife.
nam quod ex re mariti quaesiit uel ex operis suis, id ad maritum pertinet: et ideo, si respectu mariti heres sit institutus uel ei legatum datum, id eum non debere restituere Pomponius scribit.
For what he has acquired from the property of the husband or from his own labors belongs to the husband; and therefore, if he is appointed heir or given a legacy in respect of the husband, Pomponius writes that the husband does not have to restore it.
si igitur mecum agatur ex eo contractu qui ad me respicit, utrum omne deducam quodquod debetur mihi, siue ex mea causa siue ex ea quae ad uxorem respicit? an uero separamus causas quasi in duobus peculiis, ut et causa debiti quod petitur spectetur? ut, si quidem ex eo peculio agatur, quod ad mulierem spectat, id deducam, quod ex eo contractu debeatur, si ex eo contractu, qui ad me respicit, meum deducam? quae quaestio dilucidius est in fructuario tractata, utrum ex eo demum contractu potest de peculio conueniri, quod ad se pertinet, an ex omni.
If, therefore, an action is brought against me on that contract which relates to me, do I deduct everything that is owed to me, whether on my own account or on that which relates to the wife? Or do we indeed separate the causes as if in two peculia, so that the cause of the debt which is claimed is also considered? So that, if indeed the action is brought concerning that peculium which relates to the wife, I deduct what is owed on that contract, and if on the contract which relates to me, I deduct my own? This question is discussed more clearly in the case of a usufructuary: whether he can be sued concerning the peculium only on that contract which relates to him, or on every contract.
et Marcellus etiam fructuarium teneri scribit et ex omni contractu: eum enim qui contrahit totum serui peculium uelut patrimonium intuitum.
And Marcellus writes that even a usufructuary is held liable on every contract; for he who contracts looks to the whole peculium of the slave as if it were his patrimony.
certe illud admittendum omnimodo dicit, ut priore conuento, ad quem res respicit, in superfluum is, cui quaesitum non est, conueniatur: quae sententia probabilior est et a Papiniano probatur.
Certainly, he says that this must be admitted by all means, so that when the one to whom the matter relates is sued first, the one to whom it was not acquired is sued for the surplus. This opinion is more plausible and is approved by Papinian.
quod et in duobus bonae fidei emptoribus erit dicendum.
Which must also be said in the case of two bona fide purchasers.
sed in marito melius est dicere simpliciter eum de peculio teneri.
But in the case of a husband, it is better to say simply that he is held liable on the peculium.
sin autem maritus huiusmodi serui nomine aliquid praestiterit, an aduersus mulierem agentem dotis nomine deducere id possit? et ait, si id quod creditori praestitum est ad utriusque generis peculium pertinebit, pro rata utrique peculio decedere debere.
But if the husband has paid something on account of such a slave, can he deduct it against the wife when she sues on account of the dowry? And he says that, if what was paid to the creditor relates to both kinds of peculium, it ought to be deducted from each peculium pro rata.
ex quo intellegi potest, si ad alterum peculium contractus pertinebit, modo soli uxori detrahi, modo non detrahi, si ad id peculium pertinuit contractus, quod apud maritum resedit.
From which it can be understood that, if the contract relates to only one of the two peculia, sometimes it is deducted from the wife alone, and sometimes it is not deducted, if the contract related to that peculium which remained with the husband.
§15.1.19.2Interdum et ipsi fructuario aduersus dominum datur actio de peculio, ut puta si apud eum habeat peculium, apud ipsum uero aut nihil aut minus, quam fructuario debetur.
Sometimes an action concerning the peculium is given even to the usufructuary himself against the owner, for instance, if the slave has a peculium in the owner's possession, but in that of the usufructuary himself either nothing or less than what is owed to the usufructuary.
idem etiam contra eueniet, quamuis in duobus dominis sufficiat pro socio uel communi diuidundo actio:
The same will also happen conversely, although in the case of two owners the action pro socio or for the division of common property is sufficient.