Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §16.3.13.pr-16.3.13.1

Malicious Intent in Refusing Return and Deposit Actions

Passage 2418 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Paulus states that if a depositary refuses return because they do not believe the claimant is the true agent or heir, they do not act with malicious intent, though they do if they persist after learning the truth. He also notes that a personal action for recovery (condictio) concerning a deposit arises not from the mere acceptance of the deposit, but only when fraud is committed.

[Paulus libro trigensimo primo ad edictum. ] §16.3.13.prSi quis infitiatus sit non aduersus dominum, sed quod eum qui rem depositam petebat uerum procuratorem non putaret aut eius qui deposuisset heredem, nihil dolo malo fecit: postea autem si cognouerit, cum eo agi poterit, quoniam nunc incipit dolo malo facere, si reddere eam non uult.
[PAULUS libro trigensimo primo ad edictum.] If anyone has denied (the deposit), not to oppose the owner, but because he did not think that the person who was demanding the deposited thing was the true agent or the heir of the person who had deposited it, he has done nothing with malicious intent; but if he later finds out, an action can be brought against him, since he now begins to act with malicious intent if he does not want to return it.
§16.3.13.1Competit etiam condictio depositae rei nomine, sed non antequam id dolo admissum sit: non enim quemquam hoc ipso, quod depositum accipiat, condictione obligari, uerum quod dolum malum admiserit.
A personal action for recovery (condictio) also lies under the name of a deposited thing, but not before some fraud has been committed; for no one is bound by the personal action for recovery by the very fact of accepting a deposit, but because he has committed malicious fraud.

Notes

  1. §16.3.13.prnon aduersus dominum, sed quod — The conjunction quod (or a phrase like quod aduersus dominum faceret) is omitted after non, which stands in contrast with the subsequent sed quod ("but because..."). It means "not because he did so against the owner, but because he thought...".
  2. §16.3.13.1non enim quemquam hoc ipso, quod depositum accipiat, condictione obligari, uerum quod dolum malum admiserit — The accusative with infinitive quemquam ... obligari is introduced by enim (for), indicating indirect speech representing a legal maxim or explanation ("for it is held that..."). In the contrastive structure non ... uerum [quod], an ablative of cause or a corresponding quod is implied after uerum, making quod dolum malum admiserit ("because he committed fraud") the real ground for the obligation.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §16.3.13.pr-16.3.13.1. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:16.3.13.pr-16.3.13.1

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.