[PAULUS libro trigensimo secundo ad edictum. ] §17.1.22.prSi mandauero tibi, ut pro me in diem fideiubeas tuque pure fideiusseris et solueris, utilius respondebitur interim non esse tibi mandati actionem, sed cum dies uenerit.
[PAULUS in his thirty-second book on the edict.] If I mandate you to become surety for me on a future day, and you become surety unconditionally and pay, it will be answered more usefully that in the meantime you do not have an action of mandate, but only when the day comes.
§17.1.22.1Item tractatum est, si, cum in diem deberem, mandatu meo in diem fideiusseris et ante diem solueris, an statim habeas mandati actionem.
Likewise, it has been discussed, if, when I owed with a term, you became surety with a term by my mandate and paid before the day, whether you immediately have an action of mandate.
et quidam putant praesentem quidem esse mandati actionem, sed tanti minorem, quanti mea intersit superueniente die solutum fuisse.
And some think that the action of mandate is indeed available immediately, but less by so much as it is to my interest that payment should have been made upon the arrival of the day.
sed melius est dici interim nec huius summae mandati agi posse, quando nonnullum adhuc commodum meum sit, ut nec hoc ante diem soluam.
But it is better to say that in the meantime an action cannot be brought even for this sum of mandate, since I still have some advantage in not paying this before the day.
§17.1.22.2Interdum euenit, ut meum negotium geram et tamen utilem habeam mandati actionem: ueluti cum debitor meus periculo suo debitorem suum mihi delegat aut cum rogatu fideiussoris cum reo experior: nam quamuis debitum meum persequar, nihilo minus et illius negotium gero: igitur quod minus seruauero, consequar mandati actione.
Sometimes it happens that I manage my own business and yet have a useful action of mandate: as when my debtor delegates his own debtor to me at his own risk, or when at the request of a surety I sue the principal debtor: for although I pursue my own debt, I nevertheless also manage his business: therefore, what I recover less, I shall obtain by an action of mandate.
§17.1.22.3Si hi, quorum res ueneunt quas pignori dederunt, supposuerunt emptores et eis emendas res mandent, mandatum intellegitur, licet quantum ad meram rationem mandatum non constitit: nam cum rem tuam emas, nulla emptio est in tua persona rei tuae.
If those whose goods which they gave in pledge are being sold, set up buyers and mandate them to buy those goods, a mandate is understood to exist, although according to pure logic a mandate does not stand: for when you buy your own thing, there is no purchase of your own thing in your person.
§17.1.22.4Iulianus scripsit mandati obligationem consistere etiam in rem eius qui mandatum suscipit ex eo maxime probari, quod, si pluribus heredibus uendentibus uni mandauero, ut rem hereditariam emeret, etiam pro ea parte, qua heres sit, obligatur mandati actione et obligat: et sane si ille propter hoc extraneo rem non addixerit, quod mandatum susceperat, ex bona fide esse praestare ei pretium, quanti uendere poterat: et contra si emptor ad emptionem rei sibi necessariae idcirco non accesserat, quod heredi praecepisset se ei empturum, aequissimum esse mandati iudicio praestari, quanti eius interfuit emptam rem habere.
Iulianus wrote that a mandate can exist even for the benefit of the person who undertakes the mandate, which is proved especially by this: if, when several heirs are selling, I mandate one of them to buy the hereditary property, he is obligated and obligates by an action of mandate even for that part in which he is heir. And indeed, if he did not knock down the property to an outsider for this reason, because he had undertaken the mandate, it is in accordance with good faith to make good to him the price at which he could have sold it. And on the other hand, if the buyer had not approached the purchase of a thing necessary for him for the reason that he had instructed the heir that he would buy it for him, it is most equitable that there be made good in the action of mandate how much it was to his interest to have the purchased thing.
§17.1.22.5Is cuius bona publicata sunt mandare alicui potest, ut ea emat, et, si emerit, utilis erit mandati actio, si non praestet fidem: quod ideo receptum est, quia publicatis bonis quidquid postea adquiritur, non sequitur fiscum.
He whose goods have been confiscated can mandate someone to buy them, and if he buys them, a useful action of mandate will lie if he does not keep faith. This is accepted for the reason that whatever is acquired after the confiscation of goods does not go to the treasury.
§17.1.22.6Qui aedem sacram spoliandam, hominem uulnerandum, occidendum mandatum suscipiat, nihil mandati iudicio consequi potest propter turpitudinem mandati.
Anyone who undertakes a mandate to plunder a sacred temple, to wound or kill a man, can recover nothing by an action of mandate because of the baseness of the mandate.
§17.1.22.7Si tibi centum dedero, ut ea Titio dares, tuque non dederis, sed consumpseris, et mandati et furti teneri te Proculus ait: aut, si ita dederim, ut quae uelles dares, mandati tantummodo.
If I give you a hundred so that you may give them to Titius, and you do not give them but spend them, Proculus says you are liable both to an action of mandate and of theft; but if I gave them in such a way that you should give what you wished, only to an action of mandate.
§17.1.22.8Si mandauerim seruo tuo, ut quod tibi debeam solueret meo nomine, Neratius scribit, quamuis mutuatus seruus pecuniam rationibus tuis quasi a me receptam intulerit, tamen, si nummos a creditore non ita acceperit, ut meo nomine daret, nec liberari me nec te mandati mecum acturum: quod si sic mutuatus sit, ut pecuniam meo nomine daret, utrumque contra esse: nec referre, alius quis an idem ipse seruus nomine tuo quod pro me soluebatur acceperit.
If I mandate your slave to pay what I owe you in my name, Neratius writes that, although the slave, having borrowed the money, enters it into your accounts as if received from me, nevertheless, if he did not receive the coins from the creditor on the understanding that he would give them in my name, neither am I released nor will you bring an action of mandate against me. But if he borrowed it on the understanding that he would give the money in my name, both are the opposite. And it does not matter whether someone else or the slave himself received in your name what was being paid on my behalf.
et hoc uerius est, quoniam quotiens suos nummos accipit creditor, non contingit liberatio debitori.
And this is more correct, since whenever a creditor receives his own coins, release does not occur for the debtor.
§17.1.22.9Fugitiuus meus cum apud furem esset, pecuniam adquisiit et ex ea seruos parauit eosque Titius per traditionem a uenditore accepit.
When my runaway slave was with a thief, he acquired money and with it purchased slaves, and Titius received them by delivery from the seller.
Mela ait mandati actione me consecuturum, ut restituat mihi Titius, quia seruus meus mandasse Titio uidebatur, ut per traditionem acciperet, si modo rogatu serui hoc fecerit: quod si sine uoluntate eius uenditor Titio tradiderit, tunc posse me ex empto agere, ut mihi eos uenditor traderet, uenditoremque per condictionem a Titio repetiturum, si seruos tradiderit Titio quos non debuerit, cum debere se existimaret.
Mela says that I shall obtain by an action of mandate that Titius restore them to me, because my slave seemed to have mandated Titius to receive them by delivery, provided only that he did this at the request of the slave. But if the seller delivered them to Titius without the slave's consent, then I can sue on the purchase to have the seller deliver them to me, and the seller will recover them from Titius by a condictio, if he delivered to Titius slaves whom he did not owe, when he thought he owed them.
§17.1.22.10Si curator bonorum uenditionem quidem fecerit, pecuniam autem creditoribus non soluerit, Trebatius Ofilius Labeo responderunt his qui praesentes fuerunt competere aduersus eum mandati actionem, his autem qui absentes fuerunt negotiorum gestorum actionem esse.
If a curator of goods has indeed made a sale, but has not paid the money to the creditors, Trebatius, Ofilius, and Labeo answered that for those who were present, an action of mandate lies against him, but for those who were absent, there is an action for management of affairs.
atquin si praesentium mandatum exsecutus id egit, negotiorum gestorum actio absentibus non est nisi forte aduersus eos qui mandauerunt curatori, tamquam si negotia absentium gesserint: quod si, cum soli creditores se esse existimarent, id mandauerint, in factum actio absentibus danda est in eos qui mandauerint.
But indeed, if he did this having executed the mandate of those present, the action for management of affairs is not available to those absent, unless perhaps against those who mandated the curator, as if they had managed the affairs of those absent. But if, when they believed that they were the only creditors, they mandated this, an action in factum must be given to those absent against those who mandated.
§17.1.22.11Sicut autem liberum est mandatum non suscipere, ita susceptum consummari oportet, nisi renuntiatum sit (renuntiari autem ita potest, ut integrum ius mandatori reseruetur uel per se uel per alium eandem rem commode explicandi) aut si redundet in eum captio qui suscepit mandatum.
Moreover, just as it is free not to undertake a mandate, so what has been undertaken must be completed, unless it has been renounced (and it can be renounced in such a way that the mandator's full right to settle the same matter conveniently either by himself or through another is preserved), or unless loss would redound upon him who undertook the mandate.
et quidem si is cui mandatum est ut aliquid mercaretur mercatus non sit neque renuntiauerit se non empturum idque sua, non alterius culpa fecerit, mandati actione teneri eum conuenit: hoc amplius tenebitur, sicuti Mela quoque scripsit, si eo tempore per fraudem renuntiauerit, cum iam recte emere non posset.
And indeed, if he who was mandated to purchase something has not purchased it and has not renounced that he would not buy, and has done this by his own fault, not another's, it is agreed that he is liable to an action of mandate. Furthermore, he will be liable, as Mela also wrote, if he renounced in bad faith at a time when he could no longer buy properly.