[ULPIANUS libro trigensimo ad edictum. ] §16.3.1.14Idem Pomponius quaerit, si apud te uolentem me deponere iusseris apud libertum tuum deponere, an possim tecum depositi experiri.
The same Pomponius asks: if, when I wish to deposit a thing with you, you order me to deposit it with your freedman, whether I can sue you on deposit.
et ait, si tuo nomine, hoc est quasi te custodituro, deposuissem, mihi tecum depositi esse actionem: si uero suaseris mihi, ut magis apud eum deponam, tecum nullam esse actionem, cum illo depositi actio est: nec mandati teneris, quia rem meam gessi.
And he says that if I deposited it in your name, that is, as if you were to keep it, I have an action on deposit against you; but if you merely advised me to deposit it with him instead, there is no action against you, but the action on deposit lies against him; nor are you held on mandate, because I conducted my own affair.
sed si mandasti mihi, ut periculo tuo apud eum deponam, cur non sit mandati actio, non uideo.
But if you commissioned me to deposit it with him at your risk, I do not see why there should not be an action on mandate.
plane si fideiussisti pro eo, Labeo omnimodo fideiussorem teneri ait, non tantum si dolo fecit is qui depositum suscepit, sed et si non fecit, est tamen res apud eum.
Clearly, if you became surety for him, Labeo says that the surety is held in every case, not only if he who undertook the deposit acted with willful intent, but also if he did not, provided the thing is still with him.
quid enim si fureret is, apud quem depositum sit, uel pupillus sit, uel neque heres neque bonorum possessor neque successor eius exstaret? tenebitur ergo, ut id praestet, quod depositi actione praestari solet.
For what if he with whom the deposit was made became insane, or is a ward, or if there were no heir, nor possessor of goods, nor successor of his? He will therefore be held to perform that which is usually performed in an action on deposit.
§16.3.1.15An in pupillum, apud quem sine tutoris auctoritate depositum est, depositi actio detur, quaeritur.
It is questioned whether an action on deposit lies against a ward with whom a deposit was made without the authority of his tutor.
sed probari oportet, si apud doli mali iam capacem deposueris, agi posse, si dolum commisit: nam et in quantum locupletior factus est, datur actio in eum et si dolus non interuenit.
But it should be approved that if you made a deposit with one who is already capable of willful intent, a suit can be brought if he committed willful intent; for even in so far as he has been made richer, an action is granted against him, even if willful intent did not intervene.
§16.3.1.16Si res deposita deterior reddatur, quasi non reddita agi depositi potest: cum enim deterior redditur, potest dici dolo malo redditam non esse.
If a deposited thing is returned in a deteriorated state, an action on deposit can be brought as if it had not been returned; for when it is returned deteriorated, it can be said that through willful intent it was not returned.
§16.3.1.17Si seruus meus deposuerit, nihilo minus depositi habebo actionem.
If my slave made a deposit, I shall nonetheless have an action on deposit.
§16.3.1.18Si apud seruum deposuero et cum manumisso agam, Marcellus ait nec tenere actionem, quamuis solemus dicere doli etiam in seruitute commissi teneri quem debere, quia et delicta et noxae caput sequuntur: erit igitur ad alias actiones competentes decurrendum.
If I make a deposit with a slave and sue him after he has been manumitted, Marcellus says that the action does not hold, although we are accustomed to say that a person ought to be held for willful intent committed even during slavery, because both delicts and liabilities follow the person; therefore, recourse must be had to other competent actions.
§16.3.1.19Haec actio bonorum possessoribus ceterisque successoribus et ei, cui ex Trebelliano senatus consulto restituta est hereditas, competit.
This action is available to possessors of goods and other successors, and to him to whom the inheritance has been restored under the Senatus Consultum Trebellianum.
§16.3.1.20Non tantum praeteritus dolus in depositi actione ueniet, sed etiam futurus, id est post litem contestatam.
Not only past willful intent will come into the action on deposit, but also future willful intent, that is, after joinder of issue.
§16.3.1.21Inde scribit Neratius, si res deposita sine dolo malo amissa sit et post iudicium acceptum reciperaretur, nihilo minus recte ad restitutionem reum compelli nec debere absolui, nisi restituat.
Hence Neratius writes that if a deposited thing is lost without willful intent and is recovered after the joinder of issue, the defendant is nonetheless rightly compelled to make restitution and ought not to be acquitted unless he restores it.
idem Neratius ait, quamuis tunc tecum depositi actum sit, cum restituendi facultatem non habeas horreis forte clusis, tamen si ante condemnationem restituendi facultatem habeas, condemnandum te nisi restituas, quia res apud te est: tunc enim quaerendum, an dolo malo feceris, cum rem non habes.
The same Neratius says that although the action on deposit was brought against you at a time when you had no opportunity to restore it, perhaps because the storehouses were closed, yet if before condemnation you have the opportunity to restore it, you must be condemned unless you restore it, because the thing is with you; for the question of whether you acted with willful intent is only to be asked when you do not have the thing.
§16.3.1.22Est autem et apud Iulianum libro tertio decimo digestorum scriptum eum qui rem deposuit statim posse depositi actione agere: hoc enim ipso dolo facere eum qui suscepit, quod reposcenti rem non reddat.
Moreover, it is written in Julian, in the thirteenth book of the Digests, that he who deposited a thing can immediately sue on the action on deposit; for he who undertook the deposit acts with willful intent by the very fact of not returning the thing to the person demanding it back.
Marcellus autem ait non semper uideri posse dolo facere eum, qui reposcenti non reddat: quid enim si in prouincia res sit uel in horreis, quorum aperiendorum condemnationis tempore non sit facultas? uel condicio depositionis non exstitit?
Marcellus, however, says that he who does not return it to the person demanding it back cannot always be seen as acting with willful intent; for what if the thing is in a province, or in storehouses which there is no opportunity to open at the time of condemnation? Or if the condition of the deposit has not been fulfilled?
§16.3.1.23Hanc actionem bonae fidei esse dubitari non oportet.
It ought not to be doubted that this action is of good faith.
§16.3.1.24Et ideo et fructus in hanc actionem uenire et omnem causam et partum, dicendum est, ne nuda res ueniat.
And therefore, it must be said that both fruits and all accessories and offspring come into this action, so that the thing does not come bare.
§16.3.1.25Si rem depositam uendidisti eamque postea redemisti in causam depositi, etiamsi sine dolo malo postea perierit, teneri te depositi, quia semel dolo fecisti, cum uenderes.
If you sold a deposited thing and afterwards bought it back for the purpose of the deposit, even if it afterwards perished without willful intent, you are held on deposit, because you once acted with willful intent when you sold it.
§16.3.1.26In depositi quoque actione in litem iuratur.
In the action on deposit, also, an oath as to the value of the suit is taken.
§16.3.1.27Non solum si seruus meus, sed et si is qui bona fide mihi seruiat rem deposuerit, aequissimum erit dari mihi actionem, si rem ad me pertinentem deposuit.
Not only if my slave, but also if one who serves me in good faith as a slave has deposited a thing, it will be most equitable for an action to be granted to me, if he deposited a thing belonging to me.