[ULPIANUS libro trigensimo ad edictum. ] §16.3.1.38Si quis tabulas testamenti apud se depositas pluribus praesentibus legit, ait Labeo depositi actione recte de tabulis agi posse.
If anyone reads a will deposited with him while several persons are present, Labeo says that an action on deposit can rightly be brought concerning the will.
ego arbitror et iniuriarum agi posse, si hoc animo recitatum testamentum est quibusdam praesentibus, ut iudicia secreta eius qui testatus est diuulgarentur.
I think that an action for damages can also be brought, if the will was read in the presence of certain persons with the intention that the secret decisions of the testator should be made public.
§16.3.1.39Si praedo uel fur deposuerint, et hos Marcellus libro sexto digestorum putat recte depositi acturos: nam interest eorum eo, quod teneantur.
If a robber or a thief has made a deposit, Marcellus also thinks in the sixth book of the Digests that they will rightly sue on deposit; for it is in their interest because of the fact that they are held liable.
§16.3.1.40Si quis argentum uel aurum depositum petat, utrum speciem an et pondus complecti debeat? et magis est, ut utrumque complectatur, scyphum forte uel lancem uel pateram dicendo et materiam et pondus addendo.
If anyone claims deposited silver or gold, whether he ought to specify the individual items or also the weight? And it is more supportable that he should specify both, by saying, for instance, a cup, a dish, or a bowl, and adding both the material and the weight.
sed et si purpura sit infecta uel lana, pondus similiter adiciendum saluo eo, ut, si de quantitate ponderis incertum est, iuranti succurratur.
But even if it is dyed purple cloth or wool, the weight must similarly be added, with the reservation that if there is uncertainty about the quantity of the weight, relief should be given to the one who takes an oath.
§16.3.1.41Si cista signata deposita sit, utrum cista tantum petatur an et species comprehendendae sint? et ait Trebatius cistam repetendam, non singularum rerum depositi agendum: quod et si res ostensae sunt et sic depositae, adiciendae sunt et species uestis.
If a sealed chest was deposited, whether only the chest is to be claimed, or the individual items are also to be specified? And Trebatius says that the chest is to be demanded back, and one should not sue on deposit for the individual items; although if the items were shown and deposited in this way, the individual kinds of clothing must also be added.
Labeo autem ait eum qui cistam deponit singulas quoque res uideri deponere: ergo et de rebus agere eum oportet.
Labeo, however, says that he who deposits a chest is also deemed to deposit the individual items; therefore, he must also sue for the items.
quid ergo si ignorauerit is, qui depositum suscipiebat, res ibi esse? non multum facere, cum suscepit depositum.
What then if the person who undertook the deposit did not know that the items were there? It does not make much difference, since he undertook the deposit.
ergo et rerum depositi agi posse existimo, quamuis signata cista deposita sit.
Therefore, I think that an action on deposit can also be brought for the items, even though a sealed chest was deposited.
§16.3.1.42Filium familias teneri depositi constat, quia et ceteris actionibus tenetur: sed et cum patre eius agi potest dumtaxat de peculio.
It is clear that a son-in-power is held liable on deposit, because he is also held by other actions; but his father can also be sued, at least to the extent of the peculium.
idem et in seruo: nam cum domino agetur.
The same is also true for a slave; for the master will be sued.
plane et Iulianus scripsit et nobis uidetur, si eorum nomine qui sunt in potestate agatur, ueniat in iudicium et si quid per eum in cuius iure sunt captus fraudatusue est, ut et dolus eorum ueniat, non tantum ipsorum cum quibus contractum est.
Clearly, Julian also wrote and it seems to us, if an action is brought in the name of those who are under power, whether any fraud or deception was committed against the contracting party through the person in whose power they are should also come into judgment, so that the willful intent of the superiors may also be brought to trial, and not only that of those with whom the contract was made.
§16.3.1.43Si apud duos sit deposita res, aduersus unumquemque eorum agi poterit nec liberabitur alter, si cum altero agatur: non enim electione, sed solutione liberantur.
If a thing was deposited with two persons, it will be possible to sue each of them, and one will not be released if the action is brought against the other; for they are not released by election, but by performance.
proinde si ambo dolo fecerunt et alter quod interest praestiterit, alter non conuenietur exemplo duorum tutorum: quod si alter uel nihil uel minus facere possit, ad alium peruenietur: idemque et si alter dolo non fecerit et idcirco sit absolutus, nam ad alium peruenietur.
Accordingly, if both acted with willful intent and one performed the interest, the other will not be sued, following the example of two tutors; but if one can perform either nothing or less, the other will be reached; and the same applies if one did not act with willful intent and was therefore acquitted, for the other will be reached.
§16.3.1.44Sed si duo deposuerint et ambo agant, si quidem sic deposuerunt, ut uel unus tollat totum, poterit in solidum agere: sin uero pro parte, pro qua eorum interest, tunc dicendum est in partem condemnationem faciendam.
But if two persons made a deposit and both sue, if indeed they deposited it on the condition that even one of them might take the whole, he will be able to sue for the whole; but if for a share in which they have an interest, then it must be said that condemnation is to be made for the share.
§16.3.1.45Si deposuero apud te, ut post mortem tuam reddas, et tecum et cum herede tuo possum depositi agere: possum enim mutare uoluntatem et ante mortem tuam depositum repetere.
If I deposit with you on the condition that you return it after your death, I can sue both you and your heir on deposit; for I can change my mind and demand the deposit back before your death.
§16.3.1.46Proinde et si sic deposuero, ut post mortem meam reddatur, potero et ego et heres meus agere depositi, ego mutata uoluntate.
Accordingly, even if I deposit on the condition that it be returned after my death, both I and my heir will be able to sue on deposit, I by changing my mind.
§16.3.1.47Quia autem dolus dumtaxat in hanc actionem uenit, quaesitum est, si heres rem apud testatorem depositam uel commodatam distraxit ignarus depositam uel commodatam, an teneatur.
Since, however, only willful intent comes into this action, it was asked whether, if an heir sold a thing deposited or lent for use with the testator, being ignorant that it was deposited or lent for use, he is held liable.
et quia dolo non fecit, non tenebitur de re: an tamen uel de pretio teneatur, quod ad eum peruenit? et uerius est teneri eum: hoc enim ipso dolo facit, quod id quod ad se peruenit non reddit.
And since he did not act with willful intent, he will not be held liable for the thing; but is he nevertheless held liable at least for the price that came to him? And it is more true that he is held liable; for he acts with willful intent by this very fact, that he does not return that which came to him.