[AFRICANUS libro octauo quaestionum. ] §15.1.38.prDeposui apud filium familias decem et ago depositi de peculio.
[AFRICANUS in the eighth book of Questions.]\n\nI deposited ten with a filius familias, and I bring an action on deposit regarding the peculium.
quamuis nihil patri filius debeat et haec decem teneat, nihilo magis tamen patrem damnandum existimauit, si nullum praeterea peculium sit: hanc enim pecuniam, cum mea maneat, non esse peculii.
Even if the son owes nothing to his father and holds this ten, he nevertheless thought that the father should be condemned no more on this account, if there is no other peculium besides: for this money, since it remains mine, does not belong to the peculium.
denique quolibet alio agente de peculio minime dubitandum ait computari non oportere.
In short, he says there is no doubt that, when anyone else brings an action on the peculium, this money ought not to be computed.
itaque ad exhibendum agere me et exhibitam uindicare debere. §15.1.38.1Si nuptura filio familias dotis nomine certam pecuniam promiserit et diuortio facto agat de dote cum patre, utrumne tota promissione an deducto eo, quod patri filius debeat, liberari eam oporteret? respondit tota promissione eam liberandam esse, cum certe et si ex promissione cum ea ageretur, exceptione doli mali tueri se posset.
Therefore, I ought to bring an action for production (ad exhibendum) and reclaim (vindicare) the property when produced.\n\nIf a woman about to marry a filius familias has promised a certain sum of money as dowry, and after a divorce is effected, she brings an action for the dowry against the father, should she be released from the entire promise, or after deducting what the son owes to the father? He answered that she should be released from the entire promise, since indeed, even if an action were brought against her on the promise, she would be able to defend herself by the exception of fraud (exceptio doli mali).\n\nStichus has in his peculium Pamphilus, who is worth ten, and the same Pamphilus owes five to the master.
§15.1.38.2Stichus habet in peculio Pamphilum qui est decem, idem Pamphilus debet domino quinque. si agatur de peculio Stichi nomine, placebat aestimari debere pretium Pamphili et quidem totum non deducto eo, quod domino Pamphilus debet: neminem enim posse intellegi ipsum in suo peculio esse: hoc ergo casu damnum dominum passurum, ut pateretur, si cuilibet alii seruorum suorum peculium non habenti credidisset.
If an action on the peculium is brought in the name of Stichus, it was held that the price of Pamphilus ought to be estimated, and indeed the whole of it, without deducting what Pamphilus owes to the master: for no one can be understood to be himself in his own peculium. Therefore, in this case, the master will suffer a loss, just as he would suffer if he had given credit to any other of his slaves who did not have a peculium.
idque ita se habere euidentius appariturum ait, si Sticho peculium legatum esse proponatur: qui certe si ex testamento agat, cogendus non est eius, quod uicarius suus debet, aliter quam ex peculio ipsius deductionem pati: alioquin futurum, ut, si tantundem uicarius domino debeat, ipse nihil in peculio habere intellegatur, quod certe est absurdum.
And he says that this would appear more clearly if it were proposed that the peculium was bequeathed to Stichus: who, if he should indeed bring an action under the will, must not be compelled to suffer a deduction of what his vicarius owes, otherwise than out of the vicarius's own peculium; otherwise it would happen that, if the vicarius owed the master just as much, Stichus himself would be understood to have nothing in his peculium, which is indeed absurd.\n\nI lent money to a slave whom I had sold to you.
§15.1.38.3Seruo quem tibi uendideram pecuniam credidi: quaesitum est, an ita mihi in te actio de peculio dari debeat, ut deducatur id, quod apud me ex eo remanserit.
The question arose whether an action on the peculium against you should be granted to me in such a way that what remained in my hands from that slave should be deducted.
quod quidem minime uerum est, nec intererit, intra annum quam uendiderim an postea experiar: nam nec ceteris quidem, qui tunc cum eo contraxerint, in me actio datur.
This is by no means true, nor does it matter whether I bring the action within a year after I sold him or later; for indeed, no action is granted against me to the others who contracted with him at that time.
in contrarium quoque agentibus mecum his, qui antea cum eo seruo contraxissent, non deducam id, quod postea mihi debere coeperit.
Conversely, when those who had previously contracted with that slave bring an action against me, I shall not deduct what he began to owe me afterwards.
ex quo apparet onus eius peculii, quod apud me remanserit, ad posterioris temporis contractus pertinere non debere.
From this it appears that the burden of that peculium which remained in my hands ought not to pertain to contracts of a later time.