[IDEM libro trigesimo secundo ad edictum. ] §19.1.11.14Cassius ait eum, qui ex duplae stipulatione litis aestimationem consecutus est, aliarum rerum nomine, de quibus in uenditionibus caueri solet, nihil consequi posse.
[THE SAME AUTHOR, on the Edict, Book 32]\n\nCassius says that he who has obtained the assessment of the suit under a stipulation for double value cannot recover anything under the name of other things about which security is usually given in sales.
Iulianus deficiente dupla ex empto agendum putauit. §19.1.11.15Denique libro decimo apud Minicium ait, si quis seruum ea condicione uendiderit, ut intra triginta dies duplam promitteret, postea ne quid praestaretur, et emptor hoc fieri intra diem non desiderauerit, ita demum non teneri uenditorem, si ignorans alienum uendidit: tunc enim in hoc fieri, ut per ipsum et per heredem eius emptorem habere liceret: qui autem alienum sciens uendidit, dolo, inquit, non caret et ideo empti iudicio tenebitur. §19.1.11.16Sententiam Iuliani uerissimam esse arbitror in pignoribus quoque: nam si iure creditoris uendiderit, deinde haec fuerint euicta, non tenetur nec ad pretium restituendum ex empto actione creditor: hoc enim multis constitutionibus effectum est.
Julian thought that if the double security is lacking, one must proceed by the action on purchase.\n\nFinally, in the tenth book on Minicius he says that if anyone has sold a slave on the condition that he should promise the double value within thirty days, and that thereafter nothing should be guaranteed, and the buyer has not demanded that this be done within the day, the seller is not held liable only if he sold another's property in ignorance; for then it comes to this, that the buyer is allowed to hold through him and his heir; but he who sold another's property knowingly is not free from fraud, and therefore will be held by the action on purchase, he says.\n\nI judge Julian's opinion to be very true in the case of pledges also; for if a creditor has sold by his right as creditor, and these are afterwards evicted, the creditor is not held liable even to restore the price by the action on purchase; for this has been established by many constitutions.
dolum plane uenditor praestabit, denique etiam repromittit de dolo: sed et si non repromiserit, sciens tamen sibi non obligatam uel non esse eius qui sibi obligauit uendiderit, tenebitur ex empto, quia dolum eum praestare debere ostendimus. §19.1.11.17Si quis rem uendiderit et ei accessurum quid dixerit, omnia quidem, quae diximus in re distracta, in hoc quoque sequenda sint, ut tamen euictionis nomine non in duplum teneatur, sed in hoc tantum obligetur, ut emptori habere liceat, et non solum per se, sed per omnes.
Plainly, the seller will guarantee against fraud, and finally he even promises against fraud; but even if he has not promised, yet if he sold knowing that it was not pledged to him or that it did not belong to the person who pledged it to him, he will be held by the action on purchase, because we have shown that he must guarantee against fraud.\n\nIf anyone has sold a thing and said that something would be accessory to it, all the things indeed which we have said regarding the sold thing must be followed in this case also, provided however that he is not held for double under the name of eviction, but is bound only to this extent, that the buyer is allowed to hold it, and not only through himself, but through all.\n\nBut let us see what one who has sold with a guarantee of undisturbed holding ought to perform.
§19.1.11.18Qui autem habere licere uendidit, uideamus quid debeat praestare. et multum interesse arbitror, utrum hoc polliceatur per se uenientesque a se personas non fieri, quo minus habere liceat, an uero per omnes.
And I judge that it makes a great difference whether he promises that it shall not be brought about by himself and persons deriving title from him that the buyer is not allowed to hold, or indeed by all.
nam si per se, non uidetur id praestare, ne alius euincat: proinde si euicta res erit, siue stipulatio interposita est, ex stipulatu non tenebitur, siue non est interposita, ex empto non tenebitur.
For if through himself, he is not deemed to guarantee that another will not evict; therefore, if the thing is evicted, whether a stipulation has been interposed, he will not be held on the stipulation, or if it has not been interposed, he will not be held on the action on purchase.
sed Iulianus libro quinto decimo digestorum scribit, etiamsi aperte uenditor pronuntiet per se heredemque suum non fieri, quo minus habere liceat, posse defendi ex empto eum in hoc quidem non teneri, quod emptoris interest, ucrum tamen ut pretium reddat teneri.
But Julian writes in the fifteenth book of the digests that even if the seller openly declares that it shall not be brought about by himself and his heir that the buyer is not allowed to hold, it can be defended that he is not held on the action on purchase for what is the buyer's interest, but nevertheless is held to restore the price.
ibidem ait idem esse dicendum et si aperte in uenditione comprehendatur nihil euictionis nomine praestatum iri: pretium quidem deberi re euicta, utilitatem non deberi: neque enim bonae fidei contractus hac patitur conuentione, ut emptor rem amitteret et pretium uenditor retineret.
In the same place he says that the same must be said even if it is openly comprised in the sale that nothing will be performed under the name of eviction; namely, that the price indeed is owed when the thing is evicted, but the utility is not owed; for a contract of good faith does not allow of this agreement, that the buyer should lose the thing and the seller retain the price.
nisi forte, inquit, sic quis omnes istas supra scriptas conuentiones recipiet, quemadmodum recipitur, ut uenditor nummos accipiat, quamuis merx ad emptorem non pertineat, ueluti cum futurum iactum retis a piscatore emimus aut indaginem plagis positis a uenatore uel pantheram ab aucupe: nam etiamsi nihil capit, nihilo minus emptor pretium praestare necesse habebit: sed in supra scriptis conuentionibus contra erit dicendum. nisi forte sciens alienum uendit: tunc enim secundum supra a nobis relatam Iuliani sententiam dicendum est ex empto eum teneri, quia dolo facit.
"Unless perhaps," he says, "someone accepts all those above-written agreements in the same way as it is accepted that the seller receives the coins, although the merchandise does not belong to the buyer, as when we buy a future cast of a net from a fisherman, or the chase after nets are set from a hunter, or a panther from a bird-catcher; for even if he catches nothing, the buyer will nevertheless have to pay the price; but in the above-written agreements the contrary must be said." Unless perhaps he sells knowing it to be another's; for then, according to Julian's opinion reported by us above, it must be said that he is held on the action on purchase, because he acts with fraud.