Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §15.1.21.pr-15.1.21.3

Inclusion of Peculium Diminished by Fraud of Master

Passage 2280 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

The text discusses the inclusion of assets removed from the peculium through the master's malicious intent, the liability of pupils for the malice of their tutors, and the obligation of masters or fathers to defend peculium actions.

[ULPIANUS libro uicensimo nono ad edictum. ] §15.1.21.prSumma cum ratione etiam hoc peculio praetor imputauit, quod dolo malo domini factum est, quo minus in peculio esset.
[ULPIANUS in the twenty-ninth book on the Edict.] With the greatest reason, the praetor has also imputed to this peculium that which has been done by the malicious intent of the master so that it should not be in the peculium.
sed dolum malum accipere debemus, si ei ademit peculium: sed et si eum intricare peculium in necem creditorum passus est, Mela scribit dolo malo eius factum.
But we must understand it as malicious intent if he has taken the peculium away from him. But also if he has permitted him to entangle the peculium to the detriment of the creditors, Mela writes that it has been done by his malicious intent.
sed et si quis, cum suspicaretur alium secum acturum, alio peculium auertat, dolo non caret.
But also if anyone, when suspecting that another will bring an action against him, diverts the peculium elsewhere, he is not free from malicious intent.
sed si alii soluit, non dubito de hoc, quin non teneatur, quoniam creditori soluitur et licet creditori uigilare ad suum consequendum.
But if he has paid another, I have no doubt of this, that he is not held liable, since payment is made to a creditor, and it is permitted for a creditor to be vigilant to obtain what is his.
§15.1.21.1Si dolo tutoris uel curatoris furiosi uel procuratoris factum sit, an pupillus uel furiosus uel dominus de peculio conueniatur, uidendum.
If it has been done by the malicious intent of a tutor, or of the curator of an insane person, or of a procurator, it must be considered whether the pupil, the insane person, or the master can be sued on the peculium.
et puto, si soluendo tutor sit, praestare pupillum ex dolo eius, maxime si quid ad eum peruenit, et ita Pomponius libro octauo epistularum scribit.
And I think that, if the tutor is solvent, the pupil must answer for his malicious intent, especially if anything has come to him, and so Pomponius writes in the eighth book of his Letters.
idem et in curatore et procuratore erit dicendum.
The same must also be said in the case of a curator and a procurator.
§15.1.21.2Emptor autem ex dolo uenditoris non tenebitur nec heres uel alius successor, nisi in id quod ad se peruenit.
But a buyer shall not be held liable for the malicious intent of the seller, nor shall an heir or other successor, except to the extent of what has come to him.
Siue autem post iudicium acceptum siue ante dolo factum sit, continetur officio iudicis.
Moreover, whether the malicious act was committed after the joinder of issue or before, it is comprehended in the office of the judge.
§15.1.21.3Si dominus uel pater recuset de peculio actionem, non est audiendus, sed cogendus est quasi aliam quamuis personalem actionem suscipere.
If a master or a father refuses to defend the action on the peculium, he is not to be heard, but must be compelled to undertake the defense, just as in any other personal action.

Notes

  1. §15.1.21.prhoc peculio praetor imputauit, quod dolo malo domini factum est, quo minus in peculio esset — The preceding demonstrative pronoun `hoc` and the `quod` clause are in apposition, indicating the specific content that the praetor imputed to the peculium. The `quo minus` clause introduces the result of the master's malicious act, i.e., 'that it should not be in the peculium.'
  2. §15.1.21.1si soluendo tutor sit — `soluendo` is the dative of the gerundive `soluendus`, forming part of the legal idiom `soluendo esse`, meaning 'to be solvent' or 'to have the capacity to pay.'
  3. §15.1.21.3actionem suscipere — A term in Roman law referring to 'undertaking the defense of an action.' The master or father is not sued directly for his own debt, but has an obligation to 'undertake the action' as a defendant regarding the liability arising from the acts of a slave or son-in-power.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §15.1.21.pr-15.1.21.3. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:15.1.21.pr-15.1.21.3

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.