Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §19.1.38.pr-19.1.38.2

Warranty for Peculium, Maintenance Costs, and Fixtures

Passage 2804 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

This passage discusses the scope of warranty for a slave's peculium, the recovery of maintenance costs in case of delivery delay by the buyer, and the criteria for determining whether pipes and equipment in a building are part of the property.

[CELSUS libro octauo digestorum. ] §19.1.38.prSi uenditor hominis dixit peculium eum habere decem nec quemquam adempturum, et si plus habet, totum praestet, nisi hoc actum est, ut dumtaxat decem praestaret, si minus est, praestet esse decem et talem seruum esse, ut tantum peculii habeat.
[CELSUS, Digest, Book VIII.] If the seller of a slave stated that the slave has a peculium of ten and that no one would take it away, and if he has more, the seller must make good the whole, unless it was agreed that he should make good at most ten; if it is less, he must make good that there are ten and that the slave is such that he has that much peculium.
§19.1.38.1Si per emptorem steterit, quo minus ei mancipium traderetur, pro cibariis per arbitrium indemnitatem posse seruari Sextus Aelius, Drusus dixerunt, quorum et mihi iustissima uidetur esse sententia.
If it is due to the buyer that the slave was not delivered to him, Sextus Aelius and Drusus said that indemnity for food can be preserved through an arbitration, and their opinion seems to me also to be most just.
§19.1.38.2Firmus a Proculo quaesiit, si de plumbeo castello fistulae sub terram missae aquam ducerent in aenum lateribus circumstructum, an hae aedium essent, an ut ruta caesa uincta fixaque, quae aedium non essent.
Firmus asked Proculus whether, if pipes laid underground from a lead reservoir conducted water into a bronze kettle enclosed with brickwork, these belonged to the house, or whether they were like things dug up and cut down, bound and fixed, which did not belong to the house.
ille rescripsit referre, quid acti esset.
He wrote back that it mattered what had been agreed.
quid ergo si nihil de ea re neque emptor neque uenditor cogitauerunt, ut plerumque in eiusmodi rebus euenisse solet, nonne propius est, ut inserta et inclusa aedificio partem eius esse existimemus?
What then, if neither buyer nor seller thought anything about the matter, as is very often wont to happen in such affairs? Is it not more reasonable for us to consider that things inserted and enclosed in a building are part of it?

Notes

  1. 19.1.38.1Si per emptorem steterit, quo minus — An idiomatic expression consisting of `stare per aliquem` followed by `quo minus` (with the subjunctive), meaning 'it is due to someone that... not...' or 'someone is the cause of... not happening.' Here, it refers to the situation where the buyer is responsible for the delay in the delivery of the slave.
  2. 19.1.38.2ruta caesa uincta fixaque — A traditional legal formula in Roman law. 'Things dug up and cut down' (ruta et caesa) in a sale of land or building remain with the seller unless otherwise agreed. Here, it is used analogously alongside 'bound and fixed things' (uincta fixaque) to describe loose or removable accessories that do not form an essential part of the building.
  3. 19.1.38.2referre, quid acti esset — The verb `referre` functions as an impersonal verb (rēferre, meaning 'to matter' or 'to be of importance'), with the indirect question clause `quid acti esset` ('what had been agreed') acting as its subject. It means 'it mattered what had been agreed.'

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §19.1.38.pr-19.1.38.2. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:19.1.38.pr-19.1.38.2

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.