[ULPIANUS libro trigensimo ad edictum. ] §16.3.1.28Simili modo et si usum fructum in seruo habeam, si id quod deposuit ex eo peculio fuit quod ad me pertinebat uel res mea fuit, eadem actione agere potero.
In a similar way, also, if I have a usufruct in a slave, if that which he deposited was from that peculium which belonged to me, or was my property, I shall be able to sue by the same action.
§16.3.1.29Item si seruus hereditarius deposuerit, heredi postea adeunti competit actio.
Likewise, if a slave belonging to an inheritance has made a deposit, the action is available to the heir who subsequently enters upon the inheritance.
§16.3.1.30Si seruus deposuit, siue uiuat siue decesserit, utiliter dominus hac actione experietur.
If a slave made a deposit, whether he is alive or has died, the master will sue advantageously by this action.
ipse autem seruus manumissus non poterit agere: sed et si fuerit alienatus, adhuc ei competit actio cuius fuit seruus cum deponeret: initium enim contractus spectandum est.
But the manumitted slave himself will not be able to sue; and even if he has been alienated, the action still belongs to the person whose slave he was when he made the deposit; for the beginning of the contract must be looked at.
§16.3.1.31Si duorum seruus sit qui deposuit, unicuique dominorum in partem competit depositi.
If the slave who made the deposit belongs to two masters, the action on deposit is available to each of the masters for his share.
§16.3.1.32Si rem a seruo depositam Titio, quem dominum eius putasti cum non esset, restituisses, depositi actione te non teneri Celsus ait, quia nullus dolus intercessit: cum Titio autem, cui res restituta est, dominus serui aget: sed si exhibuerit, uindicabitur, si uero, cum sciret esse alienum, consumpserit, condemnabitur, quia dolo fecit quo minus possideret.
If you returned a thing deposited by a slave to Titius, whom you thought to be his master when he was not, Celsus says that you are not held on the action on deposit, because no willful intent intervened; but the master of the slave will sue Titius, to whom the thing was returned. Thus, if he produces it, it will be vindicated; but if, knowing it belonged to another, he consumed it, he will be condemned, because he acted with willful intent to avoid possessing it.
§16.3.1.33Eleganter apud Iulianum quaeritur, si pecuniam seruus apud me deposuit ita, ut domino pro libertate eius dem, egoque dedero, an tenear depositi.
Elegantly, a question is raised in Julian: if a slave deposited money with me on the condition that I should give it to his master for his freedom, and I gave it, whether I am held on deposit.
et libro tertio decimo digestorum scribit, si quidem sic dedero quasi ad hoc penes me depositam teque certiorauero, non competere tibi depositi actionem, quia sciens recepisti, careo igitur dolo: si uero quasi meam pro libertate eius numerauero, tenebor.
And in the thirteenth book of the Digests he writes that if indeed I gave it as if deposited with me for this purpose and informed you, the action on deposit is not available to you, because you received it knowingly, and therefore I lack willful intent; but if I paid it as if it were my own for his freedom, I shall be held.
quae sententia uera mihi uidetur: hic enim non tantum sine dolo malo non reddidit, sed nec reddidit: aliud est enim reddere, aliud quasi de suo dare.
This opinion seems to me to be true; for in this case he not only failed to return it without willful intent, but he did not even return it; for it is one thing to return, and another to give as if from one's own.
§16.3.1.34Si pecunia apud te ab initio hac lege deposita sit, ut si uoluisses utereris, prius quam utaris depositi teneberis.
If money was deposited with you from the beginning on the condition that if you wished, you might use it, before you use it, you will be held on deposit.
§16.3.1.35Saepe euenit, ut res deposita uel nummi periculo sint eius, apud quem deponuntur: ut puta si hoc nominatim conuenit.
It often happens that a deposited thing or money is at the risk of the person with whom they are deposited; for example, if this was expressly agreed.
sed et si se quis deposito obtulit, idem Iulianus scribit periculo se depositi illigasse, ita tamen, ut non solum dolum, sed etiam culpam et custodiam praestet, non tamen casus fortuitos.
But even if someone offered himself for a deposit, the same Julian writes that he has bound himself to the risk of the deposit, provided, however, that he performs not only for willful intent, but also for negligence and custody, but not for fortuitous events.
§16.3.1.36Si pecunia in sacculo signato deposita sit et unus ex heredibus eius qui deposuit ueniat repetens, quemadmodum ei satisfiat, uidendum est.
If money was deposited in a sealed bag, and one of the heirs of the depositor comes demanding it back, we must see how satisfaction should be made to him.
promenda pecunia est uel coram praetore uel interuenientibus honestis personis et exsoluenda pro parte hereditaria: sed et si resignetur, non contra legem depositi fiet, cum uel praetore auctore uel honestis personis interuenientibus hoc eueniet: residuo uel apud eum remanente, si hoc uoluerit (sigillis uidelicet prius ei impressis uel a praetore uel ab his, quibus coram signacula remota sunt) uel, si hoc recusauerit, in aede deponendo.
The money must be produced either before the praetor or in the presence of honorable persons and paid out according to the hereditary share; but even if it is unsealed, it will not be done contrary to the law of deposit, since this will happen either by the authority of the praetor or in the presence of honorable persons. The remainder will either remain with him, if he wishes this (with seals, of course, being first impressed upon it either by the praetor or by those in whose presence the seals were removed), or, if he refuses this, by being deposited in a temple.
sed si res sunt, quae diuidi non possunt, omnes debebit tradere satisdatione idonea a petitore ei praestanda in hoc, quod supra eius partem est: satisdatione autem non interueniente rem in aedem deponi et omni actione depositarium liberari.
But if they are things that cannot be divided, he will have to deliver them all, provided that a suitable security is furnished to him by the claimant for that which is above his share; but if no security is furnished, the thing is to be deposited in a temple, and the depositary is freed from all action.
§16.3.1.37Apud Iulianum libro tertio decimo digestorum talis species relata est: ait enim, si depositor decesserit et duo existant, qui inter se contendant unusquisque solum se heredem dicens, ei tradendam rem, qui paratus est aduersus alterum reum defendere, hoc est eum qui depositum suscepit: quod si neuter hoc onus suscipiat, commodissime dici ait non esse cogendum a praetore iudicium suscipere: oportere igitur rem deponi in aede aliqua, donec de hereditate iudicetur.
In Julian, in the thirteenth book of the Digests, such a case is reported: for he says that if the depositor has died, and two persons exist who contend with each other, each saying that he is the sole heir, the thing must be delivered to him who is prepared to defend the defendant—that is, him who undertook the deposit—against the other. But if neither of them undertakes this burden, he says it is most conveniently stated that he ought not to be compelled by the praetor to undergo a trial; therefore, the thing ought to be deposited in some temple until judgment is given concerning the inheritance.