Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §20.4.7.pr-20.4.7.1

Competition of Pledges on Purchased and Future Goods

Passage 2970 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

This chunk discusses the competition of pledge rights over property purchased with a ward's money, and Marcellus's opinion on the conflict between a general pledge of future goods and a specific pledge of a tract of land once acquired.

[IDEM libro tertio disputationum. ] §20.4.7.prIdemque est, si ex nummis pupilli fuerit res comparata.
[THE SAME, in his third book of disputations.] The same is true if a thing has been purchased with the money of a ward.
quare si duorum pupillorum nummis fuerit res comparata, ambo in pignus concurrent pro his portionibus, quae in pretium rei fuerint expensae.
Therefore, if a thing has been purchased with the money of two wards, both will compete for the pledge in proportion to those shares which were expended on the price of the thing.
quod si res non in totum ex nummis cuiusdam comparata est, erit concursus utriusque creditoris, id est et antiquioris et eius cuius nummis comparata est.
But if the thing was not purchased entirely with the money of one of them, there will be a competition between both creditors, that is, both the prior creditor and the one with whose money it was purchased.
§20.4.7.1Si tibi quae habiturus sum obligauerim et Titio specialiter fundum, si in dominium meum peruenerit, mox dominium eius adquisiero, putat Marcellus concurrere utrumque creditorem et in pignore: non enim multum facit, quod de suo nummos debitor dederit, quippe cum res ex nummis pigneratis empta non sit pignerata ob hoc solum, quod pecunia pignerata erat.
If I pledge to you the things which I shall acquire, and to Titius specifically a tract of land in case it should come into my ownership, and I subsequently acquire its ownership, Marcellus thinks that both creditors compete also for the pledge; for it makes little difference that the debtor paid the money out of his own funds, since indeed a thing bought with pledged money does not become pledged for the sole reason that the money was pledged.

Notes

  1. §20.4.7.1multum facit, quod de suo nummos debitor dederit — multum facit is used impersonally to mean "makes a great difference" or "matters much," with the noun clause introduced by quod (quod... debitor dederit) acting as its subject clause.
  2. §20.4.7.1quippe cum res ex nummis pigneratis empta non sit pignerata — quippe cum takes the subjunctive (here, sit) to introduce a strong causal explanation ("since indeed..."). The prepositional phrase ex nummis pigneratis ("with pledged money") modifies the participle empta ("bought"). This clause explains the general absence of automatic real subrogation in Roman law (i.e., a pledge does not automatically attach to things bought with pledged funds).

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §20.4.7.pr-20.4.7.1. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:20.4.7.pr-20.4.7.1

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.