[IDEM libro quinto de omnibus tribunalibus. ] §2.15.8.prCum hi, quibus alimenta relicta erant, facile transigerent contenti modico praesenti: diuus Marcus oratione in senatu recitata effecit, ne aliter alimentorum transactio rata esset, quam si auctore praetore facta.
[THE SAME in the fifth book on all tribunals.] those to whom alimony had been left were easily making compromises, being content with a small present sum, the Divine Marcus, by a speech read in the Senate, brought it about that a compromise of alimony should not be valid otherwise than if made with the authority of the praetor.
solet igitur praetor interuenire et inter consentientes arbitrari, an transactio uel quae admitti debeat. §2.15.8.1Eiusdem praetoris notio ob transactionem erit, siue habitatio siue uestiarium siue de praediis alimentum legabitur. §2.15.8.2Haec oratio pertinet ad alimenta, quae testamento uel codicillis fuerint relicta siue ad testamentum factis siue ab intestato.
Therefore, the praetor is accustomed to intervene and, among the consenting parties, to judge whether a compromise, and what kind, ought to be admitted. cognizance of the same praetor will apply to a compromise, whether a right of habitation, or clothing money, or alimony from estates is bequeathed. Speech pertains to alimony which has been left by a will or by codicils, whether made in addition to a will or in intestacy.
idem erit dicendum et si mortis causa donata fuerint relicta uel ab eo, cui mortis causa donata sunt, relicta.
The same must be said even if it has been left as a gift in contemplation of death, or left by one to whom it was given in contemplation of death.
sed et si condicionis implendae gratia relicta sunt, adhuc idem dicemus.
But even if it has been left for the sake of fulfilling a condition, we shall still say the same.
plane de alimentis, quae non mortis causa donata sunt, licebit et sine praetore auctore transigi. §2.15.8.3Siue igitur in menses singulos siue in dies siue in annos fuerint relicta, oratio locum habet.
Clearly, concerning alimony which has not been given in contemplation of death, it will be permitted to compromise even without the authority of the praetor., whether it has been left for each month, or for each day, or for each year, the Speech has application.
sed et si non fuerint perpetuo relicta, sed usque ad annos certos, idem est. §2.15.8.4Si integra quantitas alicui fuerit legata, ut ex usuris eius se alat et mortis tempore pecunias restituat: non cessabit oratio, licet non in annos singulos uideatur id relictum. §2.15.8.5Sed et si sit certa quantitas relicta Titio uel res ita, ut inde alimenta Seio praestentur: magis est ut transigere Titius possit, nec enim transactione Titii minuuntur alimenta Seii.
But even if it has not been left in perpetuity, but up to a certain number of years, the same is true. a lump sum has been bequeathed to someone, so that he may support himself from its interest and restore the money at the time of his death, the Speech will not cease to apply, although it does not appear to be left for each year. even if a certain sum or thing is left to Titius in such a way that alimony is to be provided from it to Seius, it is more acceptable that Titius can compromise; for the alimony of Seius is not diminished by the compromise of Titius.
Idemque est et si per fideicommissum alimenta ad hoc legatario fuerint relicta. §2.15.8.6Eam transactionem oratio improbat, quae idcirco fit, ut quis repraesentatam pecuniam consumat.
And the same is true even if the alimony has been left to a legatee for this purpose through a trust. Speech disapproves of that compromise which is made for the purpose of someone consuming ready money paid immediately.
quid ergo si quis citra praetoris auctoritatem transegerit, ut quod per singulos annos erat ei relictum, consequeretur per singulos menses? aut quid si, quod per singulos menses ei relictum erat, consequeretur per singulos dies? quid deinde si, quod consummato anno ut acciperet, initio anni consequatur? et puto eam transactionem ualere, quia meliorem condicionem suam alimentarius tali transactione facit: noluit enim oratio alimenta per transactionem intercipi. §2.15.8.7Nihil autem interest, utrum libertini sint quibus alimenta relicta sunt an ingenui, satis locupletes an minus. §2.15.8.8Uult igitur oratio apud praetorem de istis quaeri: in primis de causa transactionis, dein de modo, tertio de persona transigentium.
What then if someone compromises without the authority of the praetor so that, instead of what was left to him for each year, he should obtain it for each month? Or what if, instead of what was left to him for each month, he should obtain it for each day? What next if, instead of receiving it at the completion of the year, he should obtain it at the beginning of the year? And I think that such a compromise is valid, because the recipient of the alimony makes his condition better by such a compromise; for the Speech did not want alimony to be cut off by a compromise., it makes no difference whether those to whom alimony has been left are freedmen or freeborn, sufficiently wealthy or less so. Speech, therefore, wants inquiry to be made about these matters before the praetor: in the first place, concerning the cause of the compromise; secondly, concerning the amount; thirdly, concerning the person of those compromising. the matter of the cause, this must be investigated: what is the cause for compromising?
§2.15.8.9In causa hoc erit requirendum, quae causa sit transigendi: sine causa enim neminem transigentem audiet praetor.
For without a cause, the praetor will hear no one wishing to compromise.
causae fere huiusmodi solent allegari: si alibi domicilium heres, alibi alimentarius habeat: aut si destinet domicilium transferre alteruter eorum: aut si causa aliqua urgueat praesentis pecuniae: aut si a pluribus ei alimenta relicta sint et minutatim singulos conuenire difficile ei sit: aut si qua alia causa fuit, ut plures solent incidere, quae praetori suadeant transactionem admittere. §2.15.8.10Modus quoque pecuniae, quae in transactionem uenit, aestimandus est: ut puta quantitas transactionis.
Causes of almost this kind are usually alleged: if the heir has his domicile in one place and the recipient of the alimony in another; or if either of them intends to transfer his domicile; or if some cause of urgent need for ready money presses; or if alimony has been left to him by several persons and it is difficult for him to sue each one individually in detail; or if there was any other cause, as several are accustomed to happen, which would persuade the praetor to admit the compromise. amount of the money also, which comes into the compromise, must be estimated, for instance, the quantity of the compromise.
nam etiam ex modo fides transactionis aestimabitur.
For the good faith of the compromise will also be estimated from the amount.
modus autem pro aetate eius, qui transigit, arbitrandus est et ualetudine: nam alias cum puero, alias cum iuuene, alias cum sene transigi palam est: constat enim alimenta cum uita finiri. §2.15.8.11Sed et personarum contemplatio habenda est, hoc est, cuius uitae sint hi, quibus alimenta relicta sunt: utrum frugi uitae hi sint, qui alias sufficere sibi possint, an sequioris, qui de alimentis pendeant.
Moreover, the amount must be judged according to the age and health of the person compromising; for it is obvious that a compromise is made on one basis with a child, on another with a youth, and on another with an old man; for it is well known that alimony ends with life. consideration must also be had of the persons, that is, of what kind of life those are to whom the alimony has been left: whether they are of a frugal life, who could otherwise suffice for themselves, or of a worse sort, who depend on the alimony.
in persona eius, a quo alimenta relicta sunt, haec erunt specienda: in quibus sunt facultatibus, cuius propositi, cuius opinionis.
In the person of him by whom the alimony was left, these things must be looked into: what are his means, of what purpose he is, of what reputation.
tunc enim apparebit, numquid circumuenire uelit eum, cum quo transigit. §2.15.8.12Qui transigit de alimentis, non uidebitur neque de habitatione neque de uestiario transegisse, cum diuus Marcus specialiter etiam de istis transigi uoluerit.
For then it will appear whether he wishes to circumvent the one with whom he is compromising. who compromises concerning alimony will not be deemed to have compromised either concerning habitation or concerning clothing, since the Divine Marcus specifically wished compromises concerning those matters also to be made in a particular way.