Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §15.3.19.pr

Clothing Used for Son's Funeral and Father's Liability

Passage 2339 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Concerning a case where a father used a toga bought by his son in power for the son's funeral, this text discusses when the enrichment to the father's account occurs, and the scope of liability under the action concerning the peculium after the son's death.

[PAULUS libro quarto quaestionum. ] §15.3.19.prFilius familias togam emit: mortuo deinde eo pater ignorans et putans suam esse dedicauit eam in funus eius.
[PAULUS, Questions, book 4] A son in power bought a toga; then, upon his death, the father, being ignorant [of the debt] and thinking it was his own, dedicated it for his funeral.
Neratius libro responsorum ait in rem patris uersum uideri: in actione autem de peculio quod in rerum natura non esset uno modo aestimari debere, si dolo malo eius quocum agatur factum esset.
Neratius, in his book of Opinions, says that it is deemed to have been turned to the father's account. However, in the action concerning the peculium, a thing which is no longer in existence ought to be valued in one way only: if it was brought about by the malice of the person against whom the action is brought.
atquin si filio pater togam emere debuit, in rem patris res uersa est non nunc quo funerabitur, sed quo tempore emit (funus enim filii aes alienum patris est: et hoc Neratius quoque, qui de in rem uerso patrem teneri putauit, ostendit negotium hoc, id est sepulturam et funus filii patris esse aes alienum, non filii): factus est ergo debitor peculii, quamuis res non exstet, ut etiam de peculio possit conueniri, in quam actionem uenit et quod in rem uersum est: quae tamen adiectio tunc necessaria est, cum annus post mortem filii excessit.
But indeed, if the father was under an obligation to buy a toga for his son, the thing was turned to the father's account, not now when he is being buried, but at the time when he bought it (for the funeral of a son is a debt of the father; and Neratius also, who thought that the father is held liable for what was turned to his account, showed this: that this business, that is, the burial and funeral of the son, is a debt of the father, not of the son). Therefore, he has become a debtor of the peculium, although the thing does not exist, so that he can also be sued concerning the peculium, in which action there is also included what was turned to his account; which addition, however, is necessary only when a year has elapsed after the death of the son.

Notes

  1. §15.3.19.prquod in rerum natura non esset — This relative clause refers to an implied object (res) that should have been in the peculium. The phrase 'in rerum natura non esse' is a legal idiom meaning 'no longer in physical existence' or 'perished'.
  2. §15.3.19.pruno modo... si dolo malo eius quocum agatur factum esset — eius quocum agatur (literally 'the one with whom the action is conducted') is a legal formula designating the 'defendant'. uno modo (in one way only) indicates that the valuation of the non-existent thing is restricted only to the condition of the following si-clause (i.e., if it was destroyed through the defendant's malice).
  3. §15.3.19.prquae tamen adiectio tunc necessaria est — The noun adiectio (addition) refers to the clause concerning what was 'turned to account' (in rem uersum) added to the action concerning the peculium. While the standard action concerning the peculium is available for one year after the son's death, once that year has elapsed, this addition (the claim based on enrichment) becomes necessary to hold the father liable.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §15.3.19.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:15.3.19.pr

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.