[GAIUS libro nono ad edictum prouinciale. ] §15.1.27.prEt ancillarum nomine et filiarum familias in peculio actio datur: maxime si qua sarcinatrix aut textrix erit aut aliquod artificium uulgare exerceat, datur propter eam actio.
[GAIUS in the ninth book on the provincial edict.] An action concerning the peculium is granted both in the name of female slaves and in the name of daughters-in-power: especially if she is a seamstress or weaver, or exercises some common trade, an action is granted on her account.
depositi quoque et commodati actionem dandam earum nomine Iulianus ait: sed et tributoriam actionem, si peculiari merce sciente patre dominoue negotientur, dandam esse.
Julian says that actions for deposit and loan for use should also be granted in their name: but also that a tributorian action is to be granted, if they do business with the goods of their peculium with the knowledge of their father or master.
longe magis non dubitatur, et si in rem uersum est, quod iussu patris dominiue contractum sit.
It is much less doubted, also if it has turned to their profit, or what has been contracted by the order of the father or master.
§15.1.27.1Constat heredem domini id quoque deducere debere, quod seruus, cuius nomine cum eo de peculio ageretur, ante aditam hereditatem ex bonis hereditariis amouisset consumpsisset corrupisset.
It is established that the heir of the master must also deduct what the slave, in whose name the action concerning the peculium is brought against him, had removed, consumed, or damaged from the hereditary estate before the inheritance was accepted.
§15.1.27.2Si seruus alienatus sit, quamuis in eum, qui alienauerit, intra annum praetor de peculio actionem polliceatur, tamen nihilo minus et in nouum dominum actio datur, et nihil interest, aliud apud eum adquisierit peculium an quod pariter cum eo emerit uel ex donatione acceperit eidem concesserit.
If a slave is alienated, although the praetor promises an action concerning the peculium against the alienator within a year, nevertheless, the action is also given against the new master, and it makes no difference whether the slave has acquired another peculium with him, or whether the master has allowed him to keep what he bought together with him or received from a donation.
§15.1.27.3Illud quoque placuit, quod et Iulianus probat, omnimodo permittendum creditoribus uel in partes cum singulis agere uel cum uno in solidum.
This also has been approved, which Julian also endorses, that it should be in every way permitted to creditors either to sue individual masters for their shares or to sue one for the whole.
§15.1.27.4Sed ipsi, qui uendiderit seruum, non putat Iulianus de eo, quod ante uenditionem crediderit, cum emptore de peculio agere permittendum.
But Julian does not think that the seller himself who sold the slave should be permitted to sue the buyer concerning the peculium for what he had lent before the sale.
§15.1.27.5Sed et si alieno credidero eumque redemero, deinde alienauero, aeque non putat mihi in emptorem dari debere iudicium.
But also if I have lent to someone else's slave and then bought him back, and then alienated him, he thinks likewise that an action ought not to be given to me against the buyer.
§15.1.27.6In uenditorem autem dumtaxat intra annum post redemptionem numerandum de eo, quod adhuc alieno crediderim, dandam esse mihi actionem existimat deducto eo, quod apud me peculii seruus habebit.
But he thinks that an action ought to be given to me against the seller, only within a year to be reckoned after the redemption, for what I lent while he was still another's slave, after deducting what peculium the slave will have in my possession.
§15.1.27.7Sicut autem de eo, quod ipse crediderim seruo meo, non putat Iulianus in emptorem alienato eo actionem mihi dari debere, ita et de eo, quod seruus meus seruo meo crediderit, si is, cui creditum fuerit, alienatus sit, negat permitti mihi debere cum emptore experiri.
And just as Julian does not think that an action ought to be given to me against the buyer for what I myself lent to my slave when he has been alienated, so too for what my slave lent to my slave, if the one to whom it was lent has been alienated, he denies that I ought to be permitted to sue the buyer.
§15.1.27.8Si quis cum seruo duorum pluriumue contraxerit, permittendum est ei cum quo uelit dominorum in solidum experiri: est enim iniquum in plures aduersarios distringi eum, qui cum uno contraxerit: nec huius dumtaxat peculii ratio haberi debet, quod apud eum cum quo agitur is seruus haberet, sed et eius quod apud alterum.
If anyone has contracted with a slave belonging to two or more masters, he must be permitted to sue whichever of the masters he wishes for the whole amount: for it is unjust that he who contracted with one person should be distracted among several adversaries: and regard must be had not only to the peculium which the slave had in the possession of the one who is sued, but also to that which he had in the possession of the other.
nec tamen res damnosa futura est ei qui condemnatur, cum possit rursus ipse iudicio societatis uel communi diuidundo quod amplius sua portione soluerit a socio sociisue suis consequi.
Yet this will not be a loss to the one who is condemned, since he himself can in turn recover, by an action of partnership or for dividing common property, what he has paid in excess of his own share from his partner or partners.
quod Iulianus ita locum habere ait, si apud alterum quoque fuit peculium, quia eo casu soluendo quisque etiam socium aere alieno liberare uidetur: at si nullum sit apud alterum peculium, contra esse, quia nec liberare ullo modo aere alieno eum intellegitur.
Which Julian says takes place only if there was also a peculium in the possession of the other, because in that case, by paying, each is seen to free his partner also from debt: but if there is no peculium in the possession of the other, the contrary is true, because he is not understood to free him from debt in any way.