[IDEM libro septimo disputationum. ] §17.1.29.prSi fideiussor conuentus, cum ignoraret non fuisse debitori numeratam pecuniam, soluerit ex causa fideiussionis, an mandati iudicio persequi possit id quod soluerit, quaeritur.
[THE SAME in the seventh book of his Discussions.] If a surety who has been sued pays under the contract of suretyship, while being ignorant of the fact that the money had not been advanced to the debtor, it is asked whether he can recover what he paid by an action of mandate.
et si quidem sciens praetermiserit exceptionem uel doli uel non numeratae pecuniae, uidetur dolo uersari (dissoluta enim neglegentia prope dolum est): ubi uero ignorauit, nihil est quod ei imputetur.
And if indeed he knowingly omitted the defense either of fraud or of money not advanced, he is considered to act with fraud (for gross negligence is close to fraud); but where he was ignorant, there is nothing for which he can be blamed.
pari ratione et si aliqua exceptio debitori competebat, pacti forte conuenti uel cuius alterius rei, et ignarus hanc exceptionem non exercebit, dici oportet mandati ei actionem competere: potuit enim atque debuit reus promittendi certiorare fideiussorem suum, ne forte ignarus soluat indebitum.
By a similar reasoning, even if some defense was available to the debtor, such as of an agreement entered into or of any other matter, and the surety in ignorance did not employ this defense, it must be said that the action of mandate is available to him; for the promising debtor could and ought to have informed his surety, lest by chance he should in ignorance pay what was not due.
§17.1.29.1Non male tractabitur, si, cum ignoraret fideiussor inutiliter se obligatum, soluerit, an mandati actionem habeat.
It will not be amiss to discuss, if a surety pays while being ignorant that he was invalidly bound, whether he has an action of mandate.
et si quidem factum ignorauit, recipi ignorantia eius potest, si uero ius, aliud dici debet.
And if indeed he was ignorant of the fact, his ignorance can be admitted; but if he was ignorant of the law, the contrary must be said.
§17.1.29.2Si, cum debitor soluisset, ignarus fideiussor soluerit, puto eum mandati habere actionem: ignoscendum est enim ei, si non diuinauit debitorem soluisse: debitor enim debuit notum facere fideiussori iam se soluisse, ne forte creditor obrepat et ignorantiam eius circumueniat et excutiat ei summam, in quam fideiussit.
If, when the debtor had paid, the surety in ignorance paid, I think that he has an action of mandate; for he is to be pardoned if he did not divine that the debtor had paid; for the debtor ought to have made it known to the surety that he had already paid, lest by chance the creditor should creep in, circumvent his ignorance, and extort from him the sum for which he became surety.
§17.1.29.3Hoc idem tractari et in fideiussore potest, si, cum soluisset, non certiorauit reum, sic deinde reus soluit quod soluere eum non oportebat.
This same point can also be discussed in the case of a surety, if, when he had paid, he did not inform the debtor, and then the debtor paid what he ought not to have paid.
et credo, si, cum posset eum certiorare, non fecit, oportere mandati agentem fideiussorem repelli: dolo enim proximum est, si post solutionem non nuntiauerit debitori: cedere autem reus indebiti actione fideiussori debet, ne duplum creditor consequatur.
And I believe that if, when he could have informed him, he did not do so, the surety bringing the action of mandate ought to be repelled; for it is very close to fraud if he did not notify the debtor after payment; however, the debtor ought to cede the action for recovery of what was not due to the surety, lest the creditor should obtain a double payment.
§17.1.29.4Quaedam tamen etsi sciens omittat fideiussor, caret fraude, ut puta si exceptionem procuratoriam omisit siue sciens siue ignarus: de bona fide enim agitur, cui non congruit de apicibus iuris disputare, sed de hoc tantum, debitor fuerit nec ne.
Yet even if the surety knowingly omits certain things, he is free from fraud, as for example if he omitted the defense concerning a procurator, whether knowingly or in ignorance; for the matter is conducted on the basis of good faith, with which it does not agree to dispute about the subtleties of the law, but only about this, whether he was a debtor or not.
§17.1.29.5In omnibus autem uisionibus, quae praepositae sunt, ubi creditor uel non numeratam pecuniam accipit uel numeratam iterum accepit, repetitio contra eum competit, nisi ex condemnatione fuerit ei pecunia soluta: tunc enim propter auctoritatem rei iudicatae repetitio quidem cessat, ipse autem stellionatus crimine propter suam calliditatem plectetur.
But in all the cases which have been proposed, where the creditor either receives money not advanced or has received money twice, an action for recovery lies against him, unless the money was paid to him under a judgment; for then, because of the authority of the res judicata, the recovery indeed ceases, but he himself will be punished for the crime of stellionatus because of his craftiness.
§17.1.29.6Fideiussor, si solus tempore liberatus tamen soluerit creditori, recte mandati habebit actionem aduersus reum: quamquam enim iam liberatus soluit, tamen fidem impleuit et debitorem liberauit: si igitur paratus sit defendere reum aduersus creditorem, aequissimum est mandati iudicio eum quod soluit reciperare.
A surety, if he, though released by time alone, nevertheless pays the creditor, will rightly have an action of mandate against the debtor; for although he paid when already released, he nevertheless fulfilled his undertaking and released the debtor; if therefore he is prepared to defend the debtor against the creditor, it is most equitable that he recover what he paid by an action of mandate.
et ita Iuliano uidetur.
And so it seems to Julian.