[IDEM libro quarto ad Plautium. ] §15.1.47.prQuotiens in taberna ita scriptum fuisset 'cum Ianuario seruo meo geri negotium ueto', hoc solum consecutum esse dominum constat, ne institoria teneatur, non etiam de peculio.
[THE SAME in the fourth book on Plautius.] Whenever it has been written in a shop, "I forbid business to be transacted with my slave Ianuarius," it is well established that the master has achieved this only, that he is not held liable under the institorian action, but not also that he is free from liability concerning the peculium.
§15.1.47.1Sabinus respondit non alias dandam de peculio actionem in dominum, cum seruus fideiussisset, nisi in rem domini aut ob rem peculiarem fideiussisset.
Sabinus answered that an action concerning the peculium is not otherwise to be granted against the master, when a slave has acted as a surety, unless he has acted as a surety for the benefit of the master or on account of a matter concerning the peculium.
§15.1.47.2Si semel actum sit de peculio, quamuis minus inueniatur rei iudicandae tempore in peculio quam debet, tamen cautionibus locum esse non placuit de futuro incremento peculii: hoc enim in pro socio actione locum habet, quia socius uniuersum debet.
If an action concerning the peculium has once been brought, although less is found in the peculium at the time of the judgment than is owed, nevertheless it has been decided that there is no room for security regarding the future increase of the peculium; for this has a place in the action on partnership (pro socio), because a partner owes the whole.
§15.1.47.3Si creditor serui ab emptore esset partem consecutus, competere in reliquum in uenditorem utile iudicium Proculus ait, sed re integra non esse permittendum actori diuidere actionem, ut simul cum emptore et cum uenditore experiatur: satis enim esse hoc solum ei tribui, ut rescisso superiore iudicio in alterum detur ei actio, cum electo reo minus esset consecutus: et hoc iure utimur.
If a creditor of a slave had obtained a part of his claim from the buyer, Proculus says that an equitable action (utilis actio) lies against the seller for the remainder; but that before any action is taken (re integra), the plaintiff must not be permitted to divide the action so as to sue the buyer and the seller at the same time. For it is sufficient that this alone be granted to him, namely, that if he has obtained less from the chosen defendant, the prior judgment being rescinded, an action against the other be given to him; and we follow this rule of law.
§15.1.47.4Non tantum autem quiuis creditor cum uenditore ex ante gesto agere potest, sed et ipse emptor, idque et Iuliano uidetur, quamuis et deducere ipse potest aduersus alium agentem, dum tamen id, quod apud se habet, computet.
Moreover, not only can any creditor sue the seller on account of a prior transaction, but also the buyer himself, and this is also the opinion of Julian; although the buyer himself can also make a deduction against another person suing him, provided however that he counts what he has in his own hands.
§15.1.47.5Si seruus deducto peculio uenditus sit, procedit, ut uenditor et deductione uti possit, et, si post uenditionem coeperit aliquid uenditori seruus debere, non minuit peculia, quia non domino debet.
If a slave has been sold with a deduction of his peculium, it follows that the seller can make use of the deduction; and if, after the sale, the slave begins to owe something to the seller, this does not diminish the peculium, because he does not owe it to his master.
§15.1.47.6Quae diximus in emptore et uenditore, eadem sunt et si alio quouis genere dominium mutatum sit, ut legato, dotis datione, quia quasi patrimonium liberi hominis peculium serui intellegitur, ubicumque esset.
What we have said in the case of the buyer and seller also applies if ownership has been transferred by any other kind of transaction, such as by legacy or by the giving of a dowry; because the peculium of a slave is understood to be, as it were, the patrimony of a free person, wherever it may be.