[ULPIANUS libro uicesimo nono ad edictum. ] §15.3.10.prSi pro patre filius fideiusserit et creditori soluerit, in rem patris uidetur uersum, quia patrem liberauit.
[ULPIANUS, On the Edict, book 29] If a son became surety for his father and paid the creditor, it is considered to have been turned to the father's benefit, because he released the father.
§15.3.10.1Cui simile est, quod Papinianus libro nono quaestionum scribit, si filius quasi defensor patris iudicium susceperit et sit condemnatus, de in rem uerso teneri patrem: namque filius eum iudicio suscepto liberauit.
Similar to this is what Papinianus writes in the ninth book of Questions: if a son, as if a defender of his father, undertook a trial and was condemned, the father is held liable for what was turned to his benefit; for the son, by undertaking the trial, released him.
§15.3.10.2Idem tractat Papinianus et si, quod patrem dare oporteret, a filio sim stipulatus et ita conuenerim filium, nam et hic de in rem uerso fore actionem: nisi si donare patri filius uoluit, dum se obligat.
Papinianus also discusses the case where I stipulated from a son for what the father ought to give, and thus sued the son; for here too, an action on the ground of turning to profit will lie, unless the son wished to make a gift to his father when he bound himself.
§15.3.10.3Quare potest dici et si de peculio actionem quasi defensor patris susceperit, teneri patrem de in rem uerso usque ad peculii quantitatem: cuius sententiae id erit emolumentum, ut, si finita sit actio de peculio, de in rem uerso conueniatur.
Therefore, it can also be said that if he undertook an action concerning the peculium as if a defender of his father, the father is held liable on the ground of turning to profit up to the amount of the peculium; the advantage of this opinion will be that, if the action concerning the peculium has ended, he can be sued on the ground of turning to profit.
ego et ante condemnationem post iudicium patris nomine acceptum de in rem uerso patrem teneri puto.
I think that even before condemnation, after the trial has been accepted in the father's name, the father is held liable on the ground of turning to profit.
§15.3.10.4In rem autem uersum uidetur, prout aliquid uersum est: proinde si pars uersa est, de parte erit actio.
However, it is considered to have been turned to profit only to the extent that something was turned; accordingly, if a part was turned, the action will be for that part.
§15.3.10.5Sed utrum in sortem dumtaxat tenebitur dominus an et in usuras? et si quidem promisit usuras, Marcellus libro quinto digestorum scribit dominum praestaturum: sed si non sint promissae, utique non debebuntur, quia in stipulatum deductae non sunt.
But will the master be held liable only for the principal, or also for the interest? And indeed, if the slave promised interest, Marcellus writes in the fifth book of the Digests that the master shall pay it; but if they were not promised, they will certainly not be owed, because they were not brought into the stipulation.
plane si contemplatione domini pecuniam dedi non gerenti seruo negotia domini, sed ipse gerens, negotiorum gestorum actione potero etiam de usuris experiri.
Clearly, if out of consideration for the master I gave money to a slave who was not managing the master's business, but I myself was managing it, I shall be able to sue also for the interest by the action on business managed.
§15.3.10.6Uersum autem sic accipimus, ut duret uersum: et ita demum de in rem uerso competit actio, si non sit a domino seruo solutum uel filio.
Now, we understand 'turned' in such a way that it remains turned; and thus the action on the ground of turning to profit lies only if payment has not been made by the master to the slave or son.
si tamen in necem creditoris, id est perdituro seruo uel filio solutum sit, quamuis solutum sit, desinit quidem uersum, aequissimum autem est de dolo malo aduersus patrem uel dominum competere actionem: nam et peculiaris debitor, si fraudulenter seruo soluerit quod ei debebat, non liberatur.
If, however, payment was made to the ruin of the creditor, that is, to a slave or son who was going to squander it, although payment was made, it indeed ceases to be turned, but it is most equitable that an action on fraud should lie against the father or master; for even a debtor to the peculium, if he fraudulently pays the slave what he owed him, is not released.
§15.3.10.7Si domini debitor sit seruus et ab alio mutuatus ei soluerit, hactenus non uertit, quatenus domino debet: quod excedit, uertit.
If a slave is a debtor to his master and, having borrowed from another, pays him, it is not turned to profit to the extent that he owes the master; what exceeds this is turned.
proinde si, cum domino deberet triginta, mutuatus quadraginta creditori eius soluerit uel familiam exhibuerit, dicendum erit de in rem uerso in decem competere actionem: aut si tantundem debeat, nihil uidetur uersum.
Accordingly, if, when he owed thirty to his master, he borrowed forty and paid his master's creditor or supported the household, it must be said that the action on the ground of turning to profit lies for ten; or if he owed just as much, nothing is considered to have been turned.
nam, ut Pomponius scribit, aduersus lucrum domini uidetur subuentum: et ideo, siue debitor fuit domino, cum in rem uerteret, nihil uideri uersum, siue postea debitor esse domino coeperit, desinere uersum: idemque et si soluerit ei.
For, as Pomponius writes, relief is considered to be given against the master's gain; and therefore, if he was a debtor to the master when he turned it to his benefit, nothing is considered to have been turned, or if he afterwards began to be a debtor to the master, it ceases to be turned; and the same applies if the master paid him.
plus dicit et si tantundem ei donauit dominus, quantum creditori soluit pro se, si quidem remunerandi animo, non uideri uersum, si uero alias donauit, durare uersum.
He says more: even if the master gave him as much as he paid to the creditor on his behalf, if indeed with the intention of rewarding him, it is not considered to have been turned, but if he gave it otherwise, it remains turned.
§15.3.10.8Idem quaerit, si decem in rem domini uertit et postea tantandem summam a domino mutuatus sit, habeat praeterea et peculium decem, uidendum ait, utrum desiit esse uersum? an uero, quoniam est peculium, unde trahatur debitum, de in rem uerso non tollimus actionem? an potius ex utroque pro rata detrahimus? ego autem puto sublatam de in rem uerso actionem, cum debitor domini sit constitutus.
He also asks: if he turned ten to the master's benefit and afterwards borrowed the same sum from the master, and furthermore has a peculium of ten, it must be seen whether it has ceased to be turned? Or indeed, since there is a peculium from which the debt can be drawn, do we not take away the action on the ground of turning to profit? Or rather do we deduct from both proportionally? I, however, think that the action on the ground of turning to profit is taken away, since he was established as a debtor to the master.
§15.3.10.9Idem quaerit, si in rem tuam uerterit et debitor tuus factus sit, mox creditor eiusdem summae quam tibi debuit, an renascatur de in rem uerso actio an uero ex postfacto non conualescat? quod uerum est.
He also asks: if he turned it to your benefit and became your debtor, and soon became a creditor for the same sum which he owed you, does the action on the ground of turning to profit revive, or does it not recover strength from a subsequent event? The latter is true.
§15.3.10.10Idem tractat, an ex euentu possit in rem patris filius uertere, ueluti si duo rei pater et filius fuerint et filius mutuatus suo nomine soluat, uel si filio iussu patris credidisti et filius creditum tibi soluisset.
He also discusses whether from the outcome a son can turn it to his father's benefit, as for example if the father and son were two co-promisors and the son borrowed and paid in his own name, or if you lent to the son by order of the father and the son paid you what was lent.
mihi uidetur, si quidem pecunia ad patrem peruenerat, uideri in rem uersum: quod si non fuit et suum negotium gerens filius soluit, non esse de in rem uerso actionem.
It seems to me that if indeed the money had reached the father, it is considered to have been turned to his benefit; but if it did not, and the son paid while managing his own business, there is no action on the ground of turning to profit.