[ULPIANUS libro uicensimo nono ad edictum. ] §15.3.3.prQuod si seruus domino quantitatem dederit, ut manumittatur, quam a me mutuam accepit, in peculium quidem hanc quantitatem non computari, in rem autem uideri uersum, si quid plus sit in eo quod seruus dedit quam est in serui pretio.
But if a slave, in order to be manumitted, has given to his master a sum of money which he had borrowed from me, this sum is indeed not computed in his peculium, but is deemed to have been turned to the master's account, if there is anything more in what the slave gave than his own value as a slave.
§15.3.3.1In rem autem uersum uidetur, siue id ipsum quod seruus accepit in rem domini conuertit (ueluti si triticum acceperit et id ipsum in familiam domini cibariorum nomine consumpserit) aut si pecuniam a creditore acceptam dominico creditori soluerit (sed et si errauit in soluendo et putauit creditorem eum qui non erat, aeque in rem uersum esse Pomponius libro sexagensimo primo ait, quatenus indebiti repetitionem dominus haberet) siue cum seruus domini negotii gerendi administrandiue causa quid gessit (ueluti si mutuatus sit pecuniam, ut frumentum compararet ad familiam alendam uel si ad uestiendam) siue peculiariter mutuatus postea in rem domini uertit: hoc enim iure utimur, ut, etiamsi prius in peculium uertit pecuniam, mox in rem domini, esse de in rem uerso actio possit.
Moreover, it is deemed to have been turned to the master's account, whether the slave converted the very thing he received to the master's use (as for instance, if he received wheat and consumed it for the master's slave-household as provisions), or if he paid money received from a creditor to a creditor of the master (but even if he made a mistake in paying and believed someone to be a creditor who was not, Pomponius says in his sixty-first book that it is equally turned to account, to the extent that the master has a claim for the recovery of what was not due), or when the slave did something for the purpose of managing or administering the master's business (as for instance, if he borrowed money in order to purchase grain to feed the household, or to clothe them), or if having borrowed on account of his peculium, he afterwards turned it to the master's account: for we observe this rule of law, that even if he first turned the money into his peculium, and soon after to the master's account, the action on what has been turned to account can lie.
§15.3.3.2Et regulariter dicimus totiens de in rem uerso esse actionem, quibus casibus procurator mandati uel qui negotia gessit negotiorum gestorum haberet actionem quotiensque aliquid consumpsit seruus, ut aut meliorem rem dominus habuerit aut non deteriorem.
And as a rule we say that the action on what has been turned to account lies in all those cases in which an agent would have an action of mandate, or one who has managed affairs would have an action for business management, and as often as the slave has consumed anything so that the master either has his estate improved or at least not made worse.
§15.3.3.3Proinde si seruus sumpsit pecuniam, ut se aleret et uestiret secundum consuetudinem domini, id est usque ad eum modum, quem dominus ei praestare consueuerat, in rem uideri domini uertisse Labeo scribit.
Accordingly, if a slave has borrowed money to feed and clothe himself according to the custom of his master, that is, up to the limit which the master was accustomed to provide for him, Labeo writes that this is deemed to have been turned to the master's account.
ergo idem erit et in filio.
Therefore, the same will apply to a son.
§15.3.3.4Sed si mutua pecunia accepta domum dominicam exornauit tectoriis et quibusdam aliis, quae magis ad uoluptatem pertinent quam ad utilitatem, non uidetur uersum, quia nec procurator haec imputaret, nisi forte mandatum domini aut uoluntatem habuit: nec debere ex eo onerari dominum, quod ipse facturus non esset.
But if, having received borrowed money, he has decorated his master's house with plaster-work and certain other things which pertain more to pleasure than to utility, this is not deemed to have been turned to account, because not even an agent would charge for these things unless by chance he had the mandate or consent of his master; nor ought the master to be burdened by that which he would not have done himself.
quid ergo est? pati debet dominus creditorem haec auferre, sine domus uidelicet iniuria, ne cogendus sit dominus uendere domum, ut quanti pretiosior facta est, id praestet.
What then is the case? The master must allow the creditor to remove these things, obviously without injury to the house, so that the master is not compelled to sell the house to pay the amount by which it has been made more valuable.
§15.3.3.5Idem Labeo ait, si seruus mutuatus nummos a me alii eos crediderit, de in rem uerso dominum teneri, quod nomen ei adquisitum est: quam sententiam Pomponius ita probat, si non peculiare nomen fecit, sed quasi dominicae rationis.
The same Labeo says that if a slave, having borrowed coins from me, has lent them to another, the master is liable under the action on what has been turned to account, because the claim has been acquired for him. Pomponius approves this opinion with this qualification, if he did not make it a claim belonging to the peculium, but as if on the master's account.
ex qua causa hactenus erit dominus obligatus, ut, si non putat sibi expedire nomen debitoris habere, cedat creditori actionibus procuratoremque eum faciat.
On which ground the master will be liable only to this extent, that if he does not think it expedient for him to hold the claim against the debtor, he must cede his actions to the creditor and make him his representative.
§15.3.3.6Nec non illud quoque in rem domini uersum Labeo ait, quod mutuatus seruus domino emit uolenti ad luxuriae materiam, unguenta forte, uel si quid ad delicias uel si quid ad turpes sumptus sumministrauit: neque enim spectamus, an bono domini cesserit quod consumptum est, sed an in negotium domini.
Labeo also says that this too is turned to the master's account: namely, what a borrowing slave has purchased for his master who wished for materials of luxury, such as perfumes, or if he supplied anything for pleasure or even for disgraceful expenditures; for we do not look to whether what was consumed turned out to the benefit of the master, but whether it was spent on the business of the master.
§15.3.3.7Unde recte dicitur et si frumentum comparauit seruus ad alendam domini familiam et in horreo dominico reposuit et hoc periit uel corruptum est uel arsit, uideri uersum.
Hence it is rightly said that even if a slave purchased grain to feed the master's household, stored it in the master's granary, and this was destroyed, spoiled, or burned, it is deemed to have been turned to account.
§15.3.3.8Sed et si seruum domino necessarium emisset isque decessisset uel insulam fulsisset eaque ruisset, dicerem esse actionem de in rem uerso.
But even if he had bought a slave necessary for the master and that slave had died, or if he had propped up a tenement house and it had collapsed, I would say that the action on what has been turned to account lies.
§15.3.3.9Sed si sic accepit quasi in rem domini uerteret nec uertit et decepit creditorem, non uidetur uersum nec tenetur dominus, ne credulitas creditoris domino obesset uel calliditas serui noceret.
But if he borrowed on the pretext of turning it to the master's account, and did not do so, thereby deceiving the creditor, it is not deemed to have been turned to account, nor is the master liable, lest the credulity of the creditor should prejudice the master, or the craftiness of the slave injure him.
quid tamen, si is fuit seruus, qui solitus erat accipiens uertere? adhuc non puto nocere domino, si alia mente seruus accepit aut si, cum hac mente accepisset, postea alio uertit: curiosus igitur debet esse creditor, quo uertatur.
What, however, if he was a slave who was accustomed to turn what he received to account? Still, I do not think the master should be prejudiced if the slave received it with a different intention, or if, having received it with that intention, he afterwards turned it to something else. The creditor, therefore, must be careful as to what it is turned to.
§15.3.3.10Si mutuatus sit pecuniam seruus ad uestem comparandam et nummi perierint, quis de in rem uerso agere possit, utrum creditor an uenditor? puto autem, si quidem pretium numeratum sit, creditorem de in rem uerso acturum et si uestis perierit: si autem non fuit pretium solutum, ad hoc tamen data pecunia, ut uestis emeretur et pecunia perierit, uestis tamen familiae diuisa est, utique creditorem de in rem uerso habere actionem.
If a slave has borrowed money to purchase clothing, and the coins have been lost, who can bring the action on what has been turned to account—the creditor or the seller? I think, however, that if indeed the price was paid, the creditor will bring the action on what has been turned to account, even if the clothing was lost. But if the price was not paid, though the money was given for the purpose of buying clothing and the money was lost, but the clothing was nevertheless distributed to the slave-household, the creditor certainly has the action on what has been turned to account.
an et uenditor habeat, quia res eius peruenerunt in rem domini? ratio hoc facit, ut teneatur: unde incipit dominus teneri ex una causa duobus.
Does the seller also have it, because his property has come to the master's account? Reason dictates that the master should be liable; hence the master begins to be liable to two persons from a single cause.
proinde et si tam pecunia quam uestis periit, dicendum erit utrique dominum teneri, quoniam ambo in rem domini uertere uoluerunt.
Consequently, even if both the money and the clothing have been lost, it must be said that the master is liable to both, since both wished to turn their property to the master's account.