[ULPIANUS libro trigensimo primo ad edictum. ] §17.1.10.prIdemque et in fundo, si fundum emit procurator: nihil enim amplius quam bonam fidem praestare eum oportet qui procurat.
[ULPIANUS libro trigensimo primo ad edictum.] The same is also true in the case of a tract of land, if a procurator has bought land; for he who acts as procurator is not required to guarantee anything more than good faith.
§17.1.10.1Sed et si de sanitate serui procuratori cautum est aut caueri potest aut de ceteris uitiis, idem erit dicendum.
But also, if security has been given to the procurator regarding the health of a slave, or could have been given, or regarding other defects, the same must be said.
aut si culpa caueri non curauerit, condemnabitur.
Or, if through negligence he failed to see that security was given, he shall be condemned.
§17.1.10.2Si ex fundo quem mihi emit procurator fructus consecutus est, hos quoque officio iudicis praestare eum oportet.
If he has obtained fruits from the tract of land which the procurator bought for me, he must also render these through the office of the judge.
§17.1.10.3Si procurator meus pecuniam meam habeat, ex mora utique usuras mihi pendet.
If my procurator has my money in his hands, he must certainly pay me interest because of default.
sed et si pecuniam meam faenori dedit usurasque consecutus est, consequenter dicemus debere eum praestare quantumcumque emolumentum sensit, siue ei mandaui siue non, quia bonae fidei hoc congruit, ne de alieno lucrum sentiat: quod si non exercuit pecuniam, sed ad usus suos conuertit, in usuras conuenietur, quae legitimo modo in regionibus frequentantur.
But even if he has lent my money at interest and has obtained interest, we shall consequently say that he must hand over whatever gain he has realized, whether I mandated him or not, because it is consistent with good faith that he should not make a profit from another's property. But if he did not employ the money, but converted it to his own use, he will be sued for interest which is customary in that region according to the legal rate.
denique Papinianus ait etiam si usuras exegerit procurator et in usus suos conuertit, usuras eum praestare debere.
Finally, Papinianus says that even if the procurator has collected interest and converted it to his own use, he must render the interest.
§17.1.10.4Si quis Titio mandauerit, ut ab actoribus suis mutuam pecuniam acciperet, mandati eum non acturum Papinianus libro tertio responsorum scribit, quia de mutua pecunia eum habet obligatum: et ideo usuras eum petere non posse quasi ex causa mandati, si in stipulationem deductae non sunt.
If anyone has mandated Titius to receive a loan of money from his business managers, Papinianus writes in the third book of his Opinions that he will not bring an action on mandate, because he holds him obligated on the loan; and therefore he cannot seek interest as if from the cause of mandate, if it was not brought into a stipulation.
§17.1.10.5Idem Papinianus libro eodem refert fideiussori condemnato, qui ideo fideiussit, quia dominus procuratori mandauerat ut pecuniam mutuam acciperet, utilem actionem dandam quasi institoriam, quia et hic quasi praeposuisse eum mutuae pecuniae accipiendae uideatur.
The same Papinianus reports in the same book that to a condemned guarantor, who stood security because the principal had mandated his procurator to receive a loan of money, a beneficial action should be given as if it were an institorian action, because here too he seems, as it were, to have appointed him to receive the loan of money.
§17.1.10.6Si cui mandauero, ut a Titio stipuletur, potero cum eo cui mandaui agere mandati, ut eum accepto liberet, si hoc uelim: uel, si malim, in hoc agam, ut eum deleget mihi uel si cui alii uoluero.
If I have mandated someone to stipulate from Titius, I shall be able to bring an action on mandate against the mandatary so that he may release him by acceptilation, if I wish this; or, if I prefer, I shall sue for this, that he delegate him to me or to anyone else I wish.
et Papinianus libro eodem scribit, si mater pro filia dotem dederit eamque mandante filia uel ilico stipulata sit uel etiam postea, mandati eam teneri, quamuis ipsa sit, quae dotem dederit.
And Papinianus writes in the same book that if a mother has given a dowry for her daughter, and at the daughter's mandate she stipulated for it either immediately or later, she is bound on mandate, although she herself is the one who gave the dowry.
§17.1.10.7Si quis ea, quae procurator suus et serui gerebant, ita demum rata esse mandauit, si interuentu Sempronii gesta essent, et male pecunia credita sit, Sempronium, qui nihil dolo fecit, non teneri.
If anyone has mandated that what his procurator and slaves did should only be ratified if they were done with the intervention of Sempronius, and money has been badly lent, Sempronius, who did nothing with malice, is not held liable.
et est uerum eum, qui non animo procuratoris interuenit, sed affectionem amicalem promisit in monendis procuratoribus et actoribus et in regendis consilio, mandati non teneri, sed si quid dolo fecerit, non mandati, sed magis de dolo teneri.
And it is true that he who did not intervene with the intention of being a procurator, but promised friendly affection in advising the procurators and managers and in guiding them with counsel, is not bound on mandate; but if he did anything with malice, he is not held liable on mandate, but rather for malice.
§17.1.10.8Si mandauero procuratori meo, ut Titio pecuniam meam credat sine usuris, isque non sine usuris crediderit, an etiam usuras mihi restituere debeat, uideamus.
If I have mandated my procurator to lend my money to Titius without interest, and he has lent it not without interest, let us see whether he must also restore the interest to me.
et Labeo scribit restituere eum oportere, etiamsi hoc mandauerim, ut gratuitam pecuniam daret, quamuis, si periculo suo credidisset, cessaret, inquit Labeo, in usuris actio mandati.
And Labeo writes that he ought to restore it, even if I had mandated this, that he should give the money for free; although Labeo says that if he had lent it at his own risk, the action on mandate with respect to the interest would cease.
§17.1.10.9Idem Labeo ait et uerum est reputationes quoque hoc iudicium admittere et, sicuti fructus cogitur restituere is qui procurat, ita sumptum, quem in fructus percipiendos fecit, deducere eum oportet: sed et si ad uecturas suas, dum excurrit in praedia, sumptum fecit, puto hos quoque sumptus reputare eum oportere, nisi si salariarius fuit et hoc conuenit, ut sumptus de suo faceret ad haec itinera, hoc est de salario.
The same Labeo says, and it is true, that this judgment also admits set-offs, and just as he who acts as procurator is compelled to restore the fruits, so he ought to deduct the expense which he incurred in gathering the fruits; but I think he ought also to offset these expenses if he incurred them for his travel while journeying to the estates, unless he was a salaried employee and it was agreed that he should pay the expenses for these journeys out of his own pocket, that is, from his salary.
§17.1.10.10Idem ait, si quid procurator citra mandatum in uoluptatem fecit, permittendum ei auferre, quod sine damno domini fiat, nisi rationem sumptus istius dominus admittit.
The same writer says that if a procurator, outside of his mandate, has incurred any expense for pleasure, he should be permitted to remove it, provided this can be done without damage to the owner, unless the owner accepts the account of that expense.
§17.1.10.11Fideiussores et mandatores et si sine iudicio soluerint, habent actionem mandati.
Guarantors and mandators, even if they have paid without a judgment, have an action on mandate.
§17.1.10.12Generaliter Iulianus ait, si fideiussor ex sua persona omiserit exceptionem, qua reus uti non potuit, si quidem minus honestam, habere eum mandati actionem: quod si eam, qua reus uti potuit, si sciens id fecit, non habiturum mandati actionem, si modo habuit facultatem rei conueniendi desiderandique, ut ipse susciperet potius iudicium uel suo uel procuratorio nomine.
Generally Julianus says that if a guarantor has personally omitted a defense which the principal debtor could not use, if indeed it was a less honorable one, he has an action on mandate; but if he omitted one which the debtor could have used, and did so knowingly, he will not have an action on mandate, provided he had the opportunity to approach the debtor and request him rather to undertake the defense of the suit himself, either in his own name or through a procurator.
§17.1.10.13Si fideiussori donationis causa acceptum factum sit a creditore, puto, si fideiussorem remunerari uoluit creditor, habere eum mandati actionem: multo magis, si mortis causa accepto tulisset creditor uel si eam liberationem legauit.
If a release by acceptilation has been made by the creditor to the guarantor for the sake of a gift, I think that if the creditor wished to reward the guarantor, the latter has an action on mandate; much more so, if the creditor had given a release on account of death, or if he bequeathed that discharge.