Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §21.1.52.pr

Theft Against a Master and Declarations in Sale

Passage 3068 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Even if a slave has committed a theft against his master, there is no obligation to declare this during the sale, and it does not ground a rescission; however, the seller is liable if he explicitly asserted that the slave is not a thief.

[MARCIANUS libro quarto regularum. ] §21.1.52.prSi furtum domino seruus fecerit, non est necesse hoc in uenditione serui praedicere nec ex hac causa redhibitio est: sed si dixerit hunc furem non esse, ex illa parte tenebitur, quod dixit promisitue.
[MARCIANUS in the fourth book of his Rules.] If a slave has committed a theft against his master, it is not necessary to declare this in the sale of the slave, nor does a rescission arise from this cause; but if the seller has said that this slave is not a thief, he will be held liable on the ground of what he has said or promised.

Notes

  1. §21.1.52.prdomino — Dative of disadvantage (or reference), indicating that the slave committed the theft against "his own" master.
  2. §21.1.52.prquod dixit promisitue — A relative clause with the relative pronoun quod acting substantively (with the antecedent id omitted), functioning in apposition to explain ex illa parte ("on that ground, namely what he said or promised"). It refers to the liability based on the seller's express declarations or promises (dictum promissumque).

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §21.1.52.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:21.1.52.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.