Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §20.4.3.pr-20.4.3.2

Priority of Pledges upon Novation and Mandate

Passage 2966 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Papinian discusses the modification of pledge priority following a novation, the priority of multiple pledges created before and after the transfer of possession under a mandate, and the validity and priority of collateral security agreed upon during a property division between brothers.

[IDEM libro undecimo responsorum. ] §20.4.3.prCreditor acceptis pignoribus (quae secunda conuentio secundus creditor accepit) nouatione postea facta pignora prioribus addidit.
[THE SAME, in his eleventh book of Opinions.] A creditor, having accepted pledges (which a second creditor had accepted under a second agreement), subsequently added these pledges to his prior ones after a novation had been made.
superioris temporis ordinem manere primo creditori placuit tamquam in suum locum succedenti.
It was held that the order of the prior time remained for the first creditor, as if he were succeeding to his own place.
§20.4.3.1Cum ex causa mandati praedium Titio, cui negotium fuerat gestum, deberetur, priusquam ei possessio traderetur, id pignori dedit: post traditam possessionem idem praedium alii denuo pignori dedit.
When, on the grounds of a mandate, a tract of land was owed to Titius, for whom the business had been transacted, he gave it as a pledge before possession was delivered to him. After possession had been delivered, he gave the same tract of land as a pledge to another person again.
prioris causam esse potiorem apparuit, si non creditor secundus pretium ei qui negotium gesserat soluisset: uerum in ea quantitate, quam soluisset eiusque usuris potiorem fore constaret, nisi forte prior ei pecuniam offerat: quod si debitor aliunde pecuniam soluisset, priorem praeferendum.
It appeared that the position of the first creditor was stronger, if the second creditor had not paid the price to the person who had transacted the business. However, it was established that the second creditor would be preferred to the extent of the amount he had paid and its interest, unless perchance the first creditor should offer him the money; but if the debtor had paid the money from another source, the first creditor must be preferred.
§20.4.3.2Post diuisionem regionibus factam inter fratres conuenit, ut, si frater agri portionem pro indiuiso pignori datam a creditore suo non liberasset, ex diuisione quaesitae partis partem dimidiam alter distraheret.
After a division by regions had been made, it was agreed between brothers that if one brother did not free from his creditor the share of the land which had been given as an undivided pledge, the other could sell half of the share acquired from the division.
pignus intellegi contractum existimaui, sed priorem secundo non esse potiorem, quoniam secundum pignus ad eam partem directum uidebatur, quam ultra partem suam frater non consentiente socio non potuit obligare.
I was of the opinion that a pledge should be understood to have been contracted, but that the first creditor is not preferred to the second, since the second pledge seemed to be directed toward that part which, beyond his own share, the brother could not encumber without the consent of his partner.

Notes

  1. 20.4.3.prsuperioris temporis ordinem manere primo creditori placuit tamquam in suum locum succedenti — The dative participle phrase `tamquam in suum locum succedenti` modifies `primo creditori`, which functions as the dative complement of the impersonal verb `placuit` ("it was decided/agreed"). The accusative with infinitive clause `superioris temporis ordinem manere` serves as the logical subject of `placuit`.
  2. 20.4.3.1cui negotium fuerat gestum — The dative relative pronoun `cui` refers to the antecedent `Titio` and functions as a dative of interest ("for whom"). `negotium fuerat gestum` ("the business had been transacted") is a legal passive expression referring to mandate or management of affairs without mandate.
  3. 20.4.3.1uerum in ea quantitate, quam soluisset eiusque usuris potiorem fore constaret — The verb `constaret` ("it was established") governs an accusative with infinitive clause in which the second creditor (`secundum creditorem`) is the understood subject of `potiorem fore`. The prepositional phrase `in ea quantitate... eiusque usuris` limits the scope of this priority.
  4. 20.4.3.2quam ultra partem suam frater non consentiente socio non potuit obligare — The feminine accusative relative pronoun `quam` refers to the antecedent `eam partem`. `non consentiente socio` is an ablative absolute using a present participle, functioning here as a conditional clause ("if his partner did not consent").

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §20.4.3.pr-20.4.3.2. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:20.4.3.pr-20.4.3.2

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.