[IDEM libro quinto quaestionum. ] §19.1.43.prTitius cum decederet, Seiae Stichum Pamphilum Arescusam per fideicommissum reliquit eiusque fidei commisit, ut omnes ad libertatem post annum perduceret.
[THE SAME AUTHOR in the fifth book of Questions] When Titius was dying, he left Stichus, Pamphilus, and Arescusa to Seia by way of fideicommissum, and committed to her good faith that she should lead them all to freedom after a year.
cum legataria fideicommissum ad se pertinere noluisset nec tamen heredem a sua petitione liberasset, heres eadem mancipia Sempronio uendidit nulla commemoratione fideicommissae libertatis facta: emptor cum pluribus annis mancipia supra scripta sibi seruissent, Arescusam manumisit, et cum ceteri quoque serui cognita uoluntate defuncti fideicommissam libertatem petissent et heredem ad praetorem perduxissent, iussu praetoris ab herede sunt manumissi.
Since the legatee did not wish the fideicommissum to belong to her, but had not yet released the heir from her claim, the heir sold the same slaves to Sempronius without making any mention of the fideicommitted freedom. After the above-mentioned slaves had served him for several years, the buyer manumitted Arescusa. And when the other slaves, having learned the will of the deceased, also sought their fideicommitted freedom and brought the heir before the praetor, they were manumitted by the heir by order of the praetor.
Arescusam quoque nolle se emptorem patronum habere responderat.
Arescusa also had answered that she did not wish to have the buyer as her patron.
cum emptor pretium a uenditore empti iudicio Arescusae quoque nomine repeteret, lectum est responsum Domitii Ulpiani, quo continebatur Arescusam pertinere ad rescriptum sacrarum constitutionum, si nollet emptorem patronum habere: emptorem tamen nihil posse post manumissionem a uenditore consequi.
When the buyer sought the price back from the seller by the action on purchase also on account of Arescusa, a response of Domitius Ulpianus was read, which contained that Arescusa fell under the rescript of the sacred constitutions if she did not wish to have the buyer as her patron; but that the buyer could recover nothing from the seller after the manumission.
ego cum meminissem et Iulianum in ea sententia esse, ut existimaret post manumissionem quoque empti actionem durare, quaero, quae sententia uera est.
Since I remembered that Julian also was of the opinion that the action on purchase continues even after manumission, I ask which opinion is true.
illud etiam in eadem cognitione nomine emptoris desiderabatur, ut sumptus, quos in unum ex his quem erudierat fecerat, ei restituerentur.
In the same hearing, it was also requested on behalf of the buyer that the expenses which he had incurred on one of them whom he had educated should be restored to him.
idem quaero, Arescesa, quae recusauit emptorem patronum habere, cuius sit liberta constituta? an possit uel legatariam quae non liberauit uel heredem patronum habere? nam ceteri duo ab herede manumissi sunt.
I ask the same question: whose freedwoman was Arescusa constituted, who refused to have the buyer as her patron? Can she have either the legatee who did not set her free or the heir as her patron? For the other two were manumitted by the heir.
respondi: semper probaui Iuliani sententiam putantis manumissione non amittitur eo modo.
I answered: I have always approved the opinion of Julian, who thought that the action is not lost in that way by manumission.
de sumptibus uero, quos in erudiendum hominem emptor fecit, uidendum est: nam empti iudicium ad eam quoque speciem sufficere existimo: non enim pretium continet tantum, sed omne quod interest emptoris seruum non euinci.
But concerning the expenses which the buyer incurred in educating the man, it must be considered; for I think that the action on purchase is sufficient also for this kind of case. For it does not contain only the price, but everything that is of interest to the buyer that the slave is not evicted.
plane si in tantum pretium excedisse proponas, ut non sit cogitatum a uenditore de tanta summa (ueluti si ponas agitatorem postea factum uel pantomimum euictum esse eum, qui minimo ueniit pretio), iniquum uidetur in magnam quantitatem obligari uenditorem,
Clearly, if you suppose that the expense has exceeded the price to such an extent that such a large sum was not contemplated by the seller (as if you suppose that one who was sold for a very small price later became a charioteer or a pantomimist and was evicted), it seems unjust that the seller should be bound for so great an amount,