Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §15.3.7.pr-15.3.7.5

Turning to Account in Gifts, Funerals, and Transactions

Passage 2327 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

This text examines concrete cases of whether transactions by a slave or a son in power—such as gifts, funeral expenses, purchases of inheritance, or dowry payments—constitute a benefit turned to the master's or father's account, critically evaluating the opinions of Mela and Labeo.

[ULPIANUS libro uicensimo nono ad edictum. ] §15.3.7.prEt ideo et si donauerit seruus domino rem peculiarem, actio de in rem uerso cessabit, et sunt ista uera.
[ULPIANUS, on the edict, book 29] And therefore, even if a slave has donated a thing belonging to his peculium to his master, the action on what has been turned to account will not lie, and these things are true.
§15.3.7.1Plane si mutuum seruus accepit et donandi animo soluit, dum non uult eum debitorem facere peculiarem, de in rem uerso actio est.
Clearly, if a slave has accepted a loan and paid it over with the intention of making a gift, provided that he does not wish to make him a debtor to the peculium, the action on what has been turned to account lies.
§15.3.7.2Illud uerum non est, quod Mela scribit, si seruo meo argentum dederis, ut pocula tibi faceret ex quolibet argento, mox factis poculis seruus decesserit, esse tibi aduersus me de in rem uerso actionem, quoniam possum pocula uindicare.
What Mela writes is not true, namely, that if you have given silver to my slave so that he might make cups for you from any silver, and soon after the cups were made the slave died, you have an action against me on what has been turned to account because I can vindicate the cups.
§15.3.7.3Illud plane uerum est, quod Labeo scribit, si odores et unguenta seruus emerit et ad funus erogauerit quod ad dominum suum pertinebat, uideri in rem domini uersum.
What Labeo writes is clearly true, namely, that if a slave has bought scents and ointments and expended them on a funeral which pertained to his master, it is considered to have been turned to the master's account.
§15.3.7.4Idem ait et si hereditatem a seruo tuo emero quae ad te pertinebat et creditoribus pecuniam soluero, deinde hanc hereditatem abstuleris mihi, ex empto actione me id ipsum consecuturum: uideri enim in rem tuam uersum: nam et si hereditatem a seruo emero, ut quod mihi ab ipso seruo debebatur compensarem, licet nihil solui, tamen consequi me ex empto quod ad dominum peruenit.
He also says that if I buy from your slave an inheritance which pertained to you and pay money to the creditors, and then you take this inheritance away from me, I will obtain that very thing by the action on purchase: for it is considered to have been turned to your account. For even if I buy an inheritance from a slave in order to set off what was owed to me by the slave himself, although I have paid nothing, I nevertheless obtain by the action on purchase what reached the master.
ego autem non puto de in rem uerso esse actionem emptori, nisi hoc animo gesserit seruus, ut in rem domini uerteret.
I, however, do not think that the buyer has an action on what has been turned to account, unless the slave acted with this intention, namely, to turn it to the master's account.
§15.3.7.5Si filius familias pecuniam mutuatus pro filia sua dotem dederit, in rem uersum patris uidetur, quatenus auus pro nepte daturus fuit.
If a son under paternal power has borrowed money and given it as a dowry for his daughter, it is considered to have been turned to his father's account, to the extent that the grandfather was going to give it for his granddaughter.
quae sententia ita demum mihi uera uidetur, si hoc animo dedit ut patris negotium gerens.
This opinion seems true to me only if he gave it with the intention of managing his father's business.

Notes

  1. 15.3.7.1dum non uult — The conjunction `dum` is used here in a restrictive or conditional sense ("provided that", "so long as") with the indicative present `uult`. In this context, `eum` refers to the master (`dominus`), and `debitorem facere peculiarem` means to make the master a debtor to the peculium.
  2. 15.3.7.2Illud uerum non est, quod Mela scribit — Structurally, `Illud` is the subject of the main clause, and the relative clause `quod Mela scribit` stands in apposition to it. The accusative and infinitive construction `esse tibi... actionem` is governed by `scribit`, with the conditional clauses `si seruo... decesserit` nested within. The clause `quoniam possum` explains the ground asserted by Mela for the existence of the action.
  3. 15.3.7.4de in rem uerso esse actionem emptori — The dative `emptori` is a dative of possession with `actionem esse` ("that the buyer has an action"). Here Ulpian qualifies Labeo's view (which allows a claim under the contractual action on purchase `ex empto` based on the enrichment) by asserting that the action on what has been turned to account requires the subjective intention of the slave (`hoc animo... ut in rem domini uerteret`).

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §15.3.7.pr-15.3.7.5. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:15.3.7.pr-15.3.7.5

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.