[ULPIANUS libro uicesimo octauo ad edictum. ] §19.5.17.prSi gratuitam tibi habitationem dedero, an commodati agere possim? et Viuianus ait posse: sed est tutius praescriptis uerbis agere.
[ULPIANUS in the twenty-eighth book on the Edict.] If I have given you a rent-free dwelling, can I bring an action on loan? And Vivianus says that I can; but it is safer to bring an action on prescribed words.
§19.5.17.1Si margarita tibi aestimata dedero, ut aut eadem mihi adferres aut pretium eorum, deinde haec perierint ante uenditionem, cuius periculum sit? et ait Labeo, quod et Pomponius scripsit, si quidem ego te uenditor rogaui, meum esse periculum: si tu me, tuum: si neuter nostrum, sed dumtaxat consensimus, teneri te hactenus, ut dolum et culpam mihi praestes.
If I have given you pearls at an appraised value, on the condition that you should either bring them back to me or pay their price, and then they perish before sale, whose is the risk? And Labeo says, as Pomponius also wrote, that if indeed I, the seller, requested you, the risk is mine; if you requested me, it is yours; if neither of us, but we merely agreed, you are liable to the extent of making good to me fraud and fault.
actio autem ex hac causa utique erit praescriptis uerbis.
Moreover, the action arising from this cause will certainly be on prescribed words.
§19.5.17.2Papinianus libro octauo quaestionum scripsit, si rem tibi inspiciendam dedi et dicas te perdidisse, ita demum mihi praescriptis uerbis actio competit, si ignorem ubi sit: nam si mihi liqueat apud te esse, furti agere possum uel condicere uel ad exhibendum agere.
Papinianus wrote in the eighth book of Questions that if I have given you a thing to inspect and you say that you have lost it, an action on prescribed words is available to me only if I do not know where it is; for if it is clear to me that it is in your possession, I can bring an action for theft, or sue for return, or bring an action for production.
secundum haec, si cui inspiciendum dedi siue ipsius causa siue utriusque, et dolum et culpam mihi praestandam esse dico propter utilitatem, periculum non: si uero mei dumtaxat causa datum est, dolum solum, quia prope depositum hoc accedit.
According to this, if I have given a thing to someone to inspect, either for his own sake or for the sake of both, I say that because of the utility, both fraud and fault must be made good to me, but not the risk; but if it was given solely for my sake, then fraud alone, because this comes very close to a deposit.
§19.5.17.3Si, cum unum bouem haberem et uicinus unum, placuerit inter nos, ut per denos dies ego ei et ille mihi bouem commodaremus, ut opus faceret, et apud alterum bos periit, commodati non competit actio, quia non fuit gratuitum commodatum, uerum praescriptis uerbis agendum est.
If, when I had one ox and my neighbor had one, it was agreed between us that we should lend our oxen to each other for ten days at a time to do work, and the ox perished while with one of us, an action on loan is not available, because it was not a gratuitous loan, but one must sue on prescribed words.
§19.5.17.4Si, cum mihi uestimenta uenderes, rogauero, ut ea apud me relinquas, ut peritioribus ostenderem, mox haec perierint ui ignis aut alia maiore, periculum me minime praestaturum: ex quo apparet utique custodiam ad me pertinere.
If, when you were selling me garments, I requested that you leave them with me so that I might show them to more experienced persons, and soon afterwards they perished by the force of fire or some other force majeure, I would not make good the risk at all; from which it appears that at all events custody pertains to me.
§19.5.17.5Si quis sponsionis causa anulos acceperit nec reddit uictori, praescriptis uerbis actio in eum competit: nec enim recipienda est Sabini opinio, qui condici et furti agi ex hac causa putat: quemadmodum enim rei nomine, cuius neque possessionem neque dominium uictor habuit, aget furti? plane si inhonesta causa sponsionis fuit, sui anuli dumtaxat repetitio erit.
If anyone has received rings on account of a wager and does not return them to the winner, an action on prescribed words is available against him; for the opinion of Sabinus, who thinks that a condictio and an action for theft can be brought on this cause, is not to be accepted; for how can he bring an action for theft in respect of a thing of which the winner had neither possession nor ownership? Clearly, if the cause of the wager was illegal, there will only be a recovery of one's own ring.