Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §20.5.1.pr

Remedies Against Unauthorized Sale by Prior Pledgee

Passage 2985 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

This section discusses the applicability of legal remedies—such as a personal action, a charge of theft, an action for production, and claims against current possessors—when a first creditor sold the remaining property before the second creditor was paid.

[PAPINIANUS libro uicesimo sexto quaestionum. ] §20.5.1.prCreditor qui praedia pignori accepit et post alium creditorem, qui pignorum conuentionem ad bona debitoris contulit, ipse quoque simile pactum bonorum ob alium aut eundem contractum interposuit, ante secundum creditorem dimissum nullo iure cetera bona titulo pignoris uendidit.
[PAPINIANUS from the twenty-sixth book of Questions.] A creditor who accepted land as a pledge, and who afterwards, subsequent to another creditor who had extended a pledge agreement over the debtor's property, himself also inserted a similar agreement over the property for another or the same contract, sold the rest of the property under the title of pledge without any right before the second creditor was paid.
sed ob eam rem in personam actio contra eum creditori, qui pignora sua requirit, non competit nec utilis danda est: nec furti rerum mobilium gratia recte conuenietur, quia propriam causam ordinis errore ductus persecutus uidetur, praesertim cum alter creditor furto possessionem, quae non fuit apud eum, non amisserit.
But on account of this matter, a personal action against him does not lie in favor of the creditor who seeks his own pledges, nor should an analogous action be granted. Nor will he be rightly sued on account of the theft of movable things, because he seems to have pursued his own claim, being led by a mistake of order, especially since the other creditor did not lose by theft a possession which was not with him.
ad exhibendum quoque frustra litem excipiet, quia neque possidet neque dolo fecit, ut desineret possidere.
Also, a suit for production will be defended by him in vain, because he neither possesses nor has acted with malice so that he should cease to possess.
sequitur, ut secundus creditor possessores interpellare debeat.
It follows that the second creditor must sue the possessors.

Notes

  1. 20.5.1.prante secundum creditorem dimissum — The noun (secundum creditor) combined with the perfect participle (dimissum) expresses an action-like meaning: "before the second creditor is discharged (satisfied)." This is a construction analogous to "ab urbe condita."
  2. 20.5.1.prutilis danda est — The noun `actio` (action) is omitted, which serves as the subject of the feminine adjective `utilis` and the gerundive `danda`. It refers to an `utilis actio` (analogous or equitable action).
  3. 20.5.1.prordinis errore ductus — `ordinis` is a genitive depending on `errore` ("mistake of order"), referring to a mistake regarding the priority of creditors (ordo creditorum). `ductus` (led) is a perfect participle agreeing with the subject (the first creditor).
  4. 20.5.1.prad exhibendum quoque frustra litem excipiet — `ad exhibendum` refers to the action for production (actio ad exhibendum). `litem excipere` is a legal idiom meaning "to sustain a lawsuit" or "defend a suit as a defendant." The phrase means that any action for production brought against him will be in vain (and thus dismissed).

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §20.5.1.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:20.5.1.pr

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.