Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §2.1.19.pr-2.1.19.1

Jurisdiction Transfer by Marriage and Claim Amount Criteria

Passage 258 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Ulpian discusses how a woman's change of jurisdiction through marriage affects the execution or rendering of a judgment, and states that the jurisdictional amount is determined by the sum claimed, not what is actually owed.

[ULPIANUS libro sexto fideicommissorum. ] §2.1.19.prCum quaedam puella apud competentem iudicem litem susceperat, deinde condemnata erat, posteaque ad uiri matrimonium alii iurisdictioni subiecti peruenerat, quaerebatur, an prioris iudicis sententia exsequi possit.
[ULPIAN, on Trusts, Book VI.] When a certain girl had undertaken a lawsuit before a competent judge, and had then been condemned, and afterwards had married a husband subject to another jurisdiction, it was asked whether the judgment of the prior judge could be executed.
dixi posse, quia ante fuerat sententia dicta: sed et si post susceptam cognitionem ante sententiam hoc eueniet, idem putarem, sententiaque a priore iudice recte fertur.
I said that it could, because the judgment had been pronounced before. But even if this should happen after the trial is undertaken but before the judgment, I would think the same, and the judgment is rightly rendered by the prior judge.
quod generaliter et in omnibus huiuscemodi casibus obseruandum est.
This is to be observed generally and in all cases of this kind.
§2.1.19.1Quotiens de quantitate ad iurisdictionem pertinente quaeritur, semper quantum petatur quaerendum est, non quantum debeatur.
Whenever there is a question concerning the amount pertaining to jurisdiction, it must always be asked how much is claimed, not how much is owed.

Notes

  1. §2.1.19.pridem putarem — The subjunctive imperfect 'putarem', accompanied by the conditional clause, expresses a potential or counterfactual result ('I would think the same') regarding a hypothetical situation (marriage occurring before the final judgment).
  2. §2.1.19.1quantum petatur — These are subjunctives in indirect questions ('petatur' and 'debeatur') introduced by 'quaerendum est'. They indicate that the jurisdictional limit depends on the amount claimed by the plaintiff, not the actual amount owed.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §2.1.19.pr-2.1.19.1. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:2.1.19.pr-2.1.19.1

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.