[IDEM libro tertio digestorum a Paulo epitomatorum. ] §19.2.30.prQui insulam triginta conduxerat, singula caenacula ita conduxit, ut quadraginta ex omnibus colligerentur: dominus insulae, quia aedificia uitium facere diceret, demolierat eam: quaesitum est, quanti lis aestimari deberet, si is qui totam conduxerat ex conducto ageret.
[BY THE SAME AUTHOR, from the third book of the Digests epitomized by Paulus.] A person who had leased a block of apartments for thirty, leased the individual apartments in such a way that forty was collected from all of them. The owner of the block, claiming that the buildings were defective, demolished it. The question was asked for how much the litigation should be valued, if the person who had leased the whole block brought an action on the lease.
respondit, si uitiatum aedificium necessario demolitus esset, pro portione, quanti dominus praediorum locasset quod eius temporis habitatores habitare non potuissent, rationem duci et tanti litem aestimari: sin autem non fuisset necesse demoliri, sed quia melius aedificare uellet, id fecisset, quanti conductoris interesset, habitatores ne migrarent, tanti condemnari oportere.
He replied that, if he had demolished the defective building of necessity, a calculation should be made in proportion to the amount for which the owner of the properties had leased it, for the time during which the inhabitants could not live there, and the litigation should be valued at that amount. If, however, there had been no necessity to demolish it, but he had done so because he wanted to build a better one, he ought to be condemned for the amount of the lessee's interest in the inhabitants not moving out.
§19.2.30.1Aedilis in municipio balneas conduxerat, ut eo anno municipes gratis lauarentur: post tres menses incendio facto respondit posse agi cum balneatore ex conducto, ut pro portione temporis, quo lauationem non praestitisset, pecuniae contributio fieret.
An aedile in a municipality had leased public baths so that the citizens might bathe for free in that year. After three months, a fire having occurred, he replied that an action on the lease could be brought against the bath-keeper, so that a contribution of money should be made in proportion to the time during which he had not provided the bathing.
§19.2.30.2Qui mulas ad certum pondus oneris locaret, cum maiore onere conductor eas rupisset, consulebat de actione.
A person who had leased out mules up to a certain weight of burden, when the lessee had broken them with a greater burden, consulted about the action.
respondit uel lege Aquilia uel ex locato recte eum agere, sed lege Aquilia tantum cum eo agi posse, qui tum mulas agitasset, ex locato etiam si alius eas rupisset, cum conductore recte agi.
He replied that he could rightly sue either under the Lex Aquilia or on the lease, but under the Lex Aquilia an action could be brought only against the person who was driving the mules at the time, whereas on the lease, even if someone else had broken them, the action could rightly be brought against the lessee.
§19.2.30.3Qui aedem faciendam locauerat, in lege dixerat: 'quoad in opus lapidis opus erit, pro lapide et manupretio dominus redemptori in pedes singulos septem dabit': quaesitum est, utrum factum opus an etiam inperfectum metiri oporteret.
A person who had leased out the building of a temple had specified in the contract: 'as far as stone work is needed for the work, the owner shall give the contractor seven per single foot for the stone and labor'. The question was asked whether the completed work or also the uncompleted work should be measured.
respondit etiam inperfectum.
He replied, also the uncompleted.
§19.2.30.4Colonus uillam hac lege acceperat, ut incorruptam redderet praeter uim et uetustatem: coloni seruus uillam incendit non fortuito casu.
A tenant farmer had accepted a villa under the condition that he should return it undamaged except for force and old age. The tenant's slave set fire to the villa, not by accidental occurrence.
non uideri eam uim exceptam respondit nec id pactum esse, ut, si aliquis domesticus eam incendisset, ne praestaret, sed extrariam uim utrosque excipere uoluisse.
He replied that such force did not seem to be exempted, nor had it been agreed that if someone of the household set fire to it he should not be liable, but that both had intended to exempt external force.