[ULPIANUS libro primo ad edictum aedilium curulium. ] §21.1.23.prCum autem redhibitio fit, si deterius mancipium siue animo siue corpore ab emptore factum est, praestabit emptor uenditori, ut puta si stupratum sit aut saeuitia emptoris fugitiuum esse coeperit: et ideo, inquit Pomponius, ut ex quacumque causa deterius factum sit, id arbitrio iudicis aestimetur et uenditori praestetur.
[ULPIANUS libro primo ad edictum aedilium curulium.] However, when a rescission of sale takes place, if the slave has been made worse by the buyer either in mind or in body, the buyer shall make it good to the seller, as, for example, if the slave has been violated, or has begun to be a runaway because of the cruelty of the buyer; and therefore, Pomponius says, so that from whatever cause the slave has been made worse, it should be estimated by the judgment of the judge and made good to the seller.
quod si sine iudice homo redhibitus sit, reliqua autem quae diximus nolit emptor reddere, sufficiat uenditori ex uendito actio.
But if the slave has been returned without a judge, and the buyer is unwilling to restore the remaining things which we have mentioned, the action on the sale should be sufficient for the seller.
§21.1.23.1Iubent aediles restitui et quod uenditioni accessit et si quas accessiones ipse praestiterit, ut uterque resoluta emptione nihil amplius consequatur, quam non haberet, si uenditio facta non esset.
The aediles order to be restored both what accrued to the sale, and also if he himself has provided any accessions, so that, the sale being dissolved, neither party should obtain anything more than what they would not have had, if the sale had not taken place.
§21.1.23.2Excipitur etiam ille, qui capitalem fraudem admisit.
Also, he is excepted who has committed a capital crime.
capitalem fraudem admittere est tale aliquid delinquere, propter quod capite puniendus sit: ueteres enim fraudem pro poena ponere solebant.
To commit a capital crime is to offend in some such way for which he ought to be punished with death; for the ancients used to place "crime" (fraus) for punishment.
capitalem fraudem admisisse accipiemus dolo malo et per nequitiam: ceterum si quis errore, si quis casu fecerit, cessabit edictum.
We shall understand that one has committed a capital crime by malicious intent and through wickedness; but if anyone did so by error or by accident, the edict will not apply.
unde Pomponius ait neque impuberem neque furiosum capitalem fraudem uideri admisisse.
Hence, Pomponius says that neither an impuber nor an insane person is deemed to have committed a capital crime.
§21.1.23.3Excipitur et ille, qui mortis consciscendae causa quid fecerit.
Also, he is excepted who has done something for the purpose of committing suicide.
malus seruus creditus est, qui aliquid facit, quo magis se rebus humanis extrahat, ut puta laqueum torsit siue medicamentum pro ueneno bibit praecipitemue se ex alto miserit aliudue quid fecerit, quo facto sperauit mortem peruenturam, tamquam non nihil in alium ausurus, qui hoc aduersus se ausus est.
He is believed to be a bad slave who does something to withdraw himself from human affairs, as, for example, if he twisted a rope, or drank a drug as poison, or threw himself headlong from a height, or did some other thing by which deed he hoped death would arrive, as if he would dare something against another, who has dared this against himself.
§21.1.23.4Si seruus sit qui uendidit uel filius familias, in dominum uel patrem de peculio aedilicia actio competit: quamuis enim poenales uideantur actiones, tamen quoniam ex contractu ueniunt, dicendum est eorum quoque nomine qui in aliena potestate sunt competere.
If it is a slave who sold, or a son-in-power, an aedilician action lies against the master or father concerning the peculium; for although these actions seem to be penal, yet since they arise from a contract, it must be said that they lie also on account of those who are in another's power.
proinde et si filia familias uel ancilla distraxit, aeque dicendum est actiones aedilicias locum habere.
Accordingly, if a daughter-in-power or a female slave made the sale, it must equally be said that the aedilician actions have place.
§21.1.23.5Hae actiones quae ex hoc edicto oriuntur etiam aduersus heredes omnes competunt.
These actions which arise from this edict lie also against all heirs.
§21.1.23.6Et si bona fide nobis seruient liberi forte homines uel serui alieni qui uendiderunt, potest dici etiam hos hoc edicto contineri.
And if free persons serving us in good faith, or perhaps another's slaves, have sold, it can be said that these also are contained in this edict.
§21.1.23.7Iulianus ait iudicium redhibitoriae actionis utrumque, id est uenditorem et emptorem quodammodo in integrum restituere debere.
Julian says that the judgment of the action for rescission ought to restore both, that is, the seller and the buyer, in some measure to their original position.
§21.1.23.8Quare siue emptori seruus furtum fecerit siue alii cuilibet, ob quod furtum emptor aliquid praestiterit, non aliter hominem uenditori restituere iubetur, quam si indemnem eum praestiterit.
Therefore, whether the slave has committed theft against the buyer or against any other person, on account of which theft the buyer has paid something, he is not ordered to restore the slave to the seller otherwise than if he has made him harmless.
quid ergo, inquit Iulianus, si noluerit uenditor hominem recipere? non esse cogendum ait quicquam praestare, nec amplius quam pretio condemnabitur: et hoc detrimentum sua culpa emptorem passurum, qui cum posset hominem noxae dedere, maluerit litis aestimatio||nem sufferre: ue uidetur mihi Iuliani sententia humanior esse.
What then, says Julian, if the seller is unwilling to receive the slave? He says that he is not to be compelled to pay anything, nor will he be condemned in more than the price; and the buyer will suffer this detriment by his own fault, since, although he could have surrendered the slave for noxal liability, he preferred to bear the estimation of the suit; and Julian's opinion seems to me to be more humane.
§21.1.23.9Cum redhibetur mancipium, si quid ad emptorem peruenit uel culpa eius non peruenit, restitui oportet, non solum si ipse fructus percepit mercedesue a seruo uel conductore serui accepit, sed etiam si a uenditore fuerit idcirco consecutus, quod tardius ei hominem restituit: sed et si a quouis alio possessore fructus accepit emptor, restituere eos debebit: sed et si quid fructuum nomine consecutus est, id praestet: item si legatum uel hereditas seruo obuenerit.
When the slave is returned, if anything has come to the buyer or has failed to come through his fault, it ought to be restored, not only if he himself has gathered the fruits or received wages from the slave or from a hirer of the slave, but also if he has obtained it from the seller on that account, because he restored the slave to him later; but also if the buyer received fruits from any other possessor, he ought to restore them; and also if he obtained anything under the name of fruits, let him pay it; likewise if a legacy or an inheritance has fallen to the slave.
neque refert, potuerit haec consequi uenditor an non potuerit, si seruum non uendidisset: ponamus enim talem esse, qui capere aliquid ex testamento non potuerat: nihil haec res nocebit.
Nor does it matter whether the seller could have obtained these or not, if he had not sold the slave; for let us suppose that he is such a person who could not take anything under a will; this fact will not do any harm.
Pedius quidem etiam illud non putat esse spectandum, cuius contemplatione testator seruum heredem scripserit uel ei legauerit, quia et si uenditio remansisset, nihil haec res emptori proderat: et per contrarium, inquit, si contemplatione uenditoris institutus proponeretur, tamen diceremus restituere emptorem non debere uenditori, si nollet eum redhibere.
Pedius indeed does not think that this either should be regarded, out of consideration for whom the testator wrote the slave as heir or bequeathed to him, because even if the sale had remained, this fact would not have profited the buyer; and on the contrary, he says, if it were proposed that he was instituted out of consideration for the seller, we should nevertheless say that the buyer ought not to restore him to the seller, if he did not wish to return him.