[ULPIANUS libro quarto ad edictum. ] §2.13.4.prPraetor ait: 'Argentariae mensae exercitores rationem, quae ad se pertinet, edent adiecto die et consule'. §2.13.4.1Huius edicti ratio aequissima est: nam cum singulorum rationes argentarii conficiant, aequum fuit id quod mei causa confecit meum quodammodo instrumentum mihi edi.
[ULPIANUS, on the Edict, book 4] The praetor says: 'Operators of a banking establishment shall produce the account which concerns the customer, with the addition of the day and the consul.' The rationale of this edict is most equitable; for since bankers compile the accounts of individuals, it was equitable that what he compiled for my sake should, in a certain sense as my own document, be disclosed to me.
§2.13.4.2Sed et filius familias continetur his uerbis, ut uel ipse cogatur edere: an et pater, quaeritur.
But a son-in-power is also included in these words, so that he himself may be compelled to disclose; it is asked whether the father is also.
Labeo scribit patrem non cogendum, nisi sciente eo argentaria exercetur: sed recte Sabinus respondit tunc id admittendum, cum patri quaestum refert.
Labeo writes that the father is not to be compelled, unless the banking business is conducted with his knowledge; but Sabinus rightly answered that this is to be admitted only when it brings profit to the father.
§2.13.4.3Sed si seruus argentariam faciat (potest enim), si quidem uoluntate domini fecerit, compellendum dominum edere ac perinde in eum dandum est iudicium, ac si ipse fecisset.
But if a slave conducts a banking business (for he can do so), if indeed he did so with the consent of his master, the master must be compelled to disclose and a judgment must be given against him just as if he himself had conducted it.
sed si inscio domino fecit, satis esse dominum iurare eas se rationes non habere: si seruus peculiarem faciat argentariam, dominus de peculio uel de in rem uerso tenetur: sed si dominus habet rationes nec edit, in solidum tenetur.
But if the slave did it without the master's knowledge, it is sufficient for the master to swear that he does not have those accounts. If the slave conducts a banking business with his peculium, the master is liable to the extent of the peculium or of what was turned to his own use; but if the master has the accounts and does not disclose them, he is liable in full.
§2.13.4.4Etiam is qui desit argentariam facere, ad editionem compellitur.
Also, one who has ceased to conduct a banking business is compelled to make disclosure.
§2.13.4.5Sed ibi quis compellitur edere, ubi argentariam exercuit, et hoc est constitutum.
But a person is compelled to make disclosure where he conducted the banking business, and this is established.
quod si instrumentum argentariae in alia prouincia habeat, in alia administrauerit, ibi puto cogendum edere, ubi argentariam exercuit: hoc enim primum deliquit, quod alio instrumentum transtulit.
But if he has the records of the banking business in one province, and administered it in another, I think he must be compelled to disclose where he conducted the banking business; for he first did wrong in that he transferred the records to another place.
quod si in alio loco argentariam exercet, alibi autem ad editionem compelletur, minime hoc facere cogitur: nisi descriptum uelis ubi de ea re agitur eum tibi dare, tuis uidelicet sumptibus:
But if he conducts banking business in one place, and is compelled to make disclosure elsewhere, he is by no means compelled to do this; unless you wish him to give you a copy where the matter is being litigated, obviously at your own expense.