[PAULUS libro trigensimo secundo ad edictum. ] §17.2.65.prActione distrahitur, cum aut stipulatione aut iudicio mutata sit causa societatis.
A partnership is dissolved by action, when its cause is changed either by stipulation or by a judicial joinder of issue (iudicium).
Proculus enim ait hoc ipso quod iudicium ideo dictatum est, ut societas distrahatur, renuntiatam societatem, siue totorum bonorum siue unius rei societas coita sit.
For Proculus says that by the very fact that a trial (iudicium) was directed for this purpose, namely that the partnership be dissolved, the partnership is declared terminated, whether a partnership of all goods or of a single matter has been contracted.
§17.2.65.1Item bonis a creditoribus uenditis unius socii distrahi societatem Labeo ait.
Likewise, Labeo says that a partnership is dissolved when the goods of one partner are sold by his creditors.
§17.2.65.2Si in rem certam emendam conducendamue coita sit societas, tunc etiam post alicuius mortem quidquid lucri detrimentiue factum sit, commune esse Labeo ait.
Labeo says that if a partnership has been contracted for buying or leasing a specific thing, then even after the death of anyone, whatever gain or loss has occurred is common.
§17.2.65.3Diximus dissensu solui societatem: hoc ita est, si omnes dissentiunt.
We have said that a partnership is dissolved by disagreement; this is so if all disagree.
quid ergo, si unus renuntiet? Cassius scripsit eum qui renuntiauerit societati a se quidem liberare socios suos, se autem ab illis non liberare.
What then if only one withdraws? Cassius wrote that he who has renounced the partnership does indeed free his partners from himself, but does not free himself from them.
quod utique obseruandum est, si dolo malo renuntiatio facta sit, ueluti si, cum omnium bonorum societatem inissemus, deinde obuenisset uni hereditas, propter hoc renuntiauit: ideoque si quidem damnum attulerit hereditas, hoc ad eum qui renuntiauit pertinebit, commodum autem communicare cogetur actione pro socio.
This must by all means be observed if the renunciation was made with malicious intent (dolus malus); as for example, if we had entered into a partnership of all goods, and then an inheritance fell to one of us, and he renounced the partnership for this reason. Therefore, if the inheritance brings loss, this will belong to him who renounced; but if it brings benefit, he will be compelled to share it by the action on partnership (actio pro socio).
quod si quid post renuntiationem adquisierit, non erit communicandum, quia nec dolus admissus est in eo.
But if he has acquired anything after the renunciation, it will not have to be shared, because no malice was admitted in that.
§17.2.65.4Item si societatem ineamus ad aliquam rem emendam, deinde solus uolueris eam emere ideoque renuntiaueris societati, ut solus emeres, teneberis quanti interest mea: sed si ideo renuntiaueris, quia emptio tibi displicebat, non teneberis, quamuis ego emero, quia hic nulla fraus est: eaque et Iuliano placent.
Likewise, if we enter into a partnership to buy some thing, and then you alone wish to buy it and therefore you renounce the partnership so that you may buy it alone, you will be held liable to the extent of my interest; but if you renounced because the purchase displeased you, you will not be held liable, even though I shall have bought it, because here there is no fraud; and these views are also pleasing to Julian.
§17.2.65.5Labeo autem posteriorum libris scripsit, si renuntiauerit societati unus ex sociis eo tempore, quo interfuit socii non dirimi societatem, committere eum in pro socio actione: nam si emimus mancipia inita societate, deinde renunties mihi eo tempore, quo uendere mancipia non expedit, hoc casu, quia deteriorem causam meam facis, teneri te pro socio iudicio.
Labeo, however, wrote in his posthumous books that if one of the partners renounces the partnership at a time when it was of interest to the other partner that the partnership not be dissolved, he becomes liable to the action on partnership; for if we bought slaves after entering into a partnership, and then you renounce to me at a time when it is not expedient to sell the slaves, in this case, because you make my position worse, you are held liable under the judgment on partnership.
Proculus hoc ita uerum esse ait, si societatis non intersit dirimi socie tatem: semper enim non id, quod priuatim interest unius ex sociis, seruari solet, sed quod societati expedit.
Proculus says that this is true if it was of interest to the partnership (societatis) that the partnership not be dissolved; for it is always customary to preserve not what is of private interest to one of the partners, but what is expedient for the partnership.
haec ita accipienda sunt, si nihil de hoc in coeunda societate conuenit.
These things are to be so understood if nothing was agreed on this point when contracting the partnership.
§17.2.65.6Item qui societatem in tempus coit, eam ante tempus renuntiando socium a se, non se a socio liberat: itaque si quid compendii postea factum erit, eius partem non fert, at si dispendium, aeque praestabit portionem: nisi renuntiatio ex necessitate quadam facta sit.
Likewise, he who contracts a partnership for a time, by renouncing it before the time, frees his partner from himself, but does not free himself from his partner; therefore, if any profit is made afterwards, he does not take a share of it, but if a loss occurs, he shall equally pay his share; unless the renunciation was made from some necessity.
quod si tempus finitum est, liberum est recedere, quia sine dolo malo id fiat.
But if the time has expired, it is free to withdraw, because that is done without malicious intent.
§17.2.65.7Renuntiare societati etiam per alios possumus: et ideo dictum est procuratorem quoque posse renuntiare societati.
We can also renounce a partnership through others; and therefore it has been said that a representative (procurator) also can renounce a partnership.
sed utrum de eo dictum sit, cui omnium bonorum administratio concessa est, an de eo, cui hoc ipsum nominatim mandatum est, uideamus, an uero per utrumque recte renuntietur? quod est uerius, nisi si prohibuerit eum dominus specialiter renuntiare.
But let us see whether this was said of him to whom the administration of all goods has been granted, or of him to whom this very thing has been specifically mandated, or indeed whether it is rightly renounced through either; which is more true, unless the principal has specifically prohibited him from renouncing.