[MARCIANUS libro quarto regularum. ] §22.1.32.prMora fieri intellegitur non ex re, sed ex persona, id est, si interpellatus oportuno loco non soluerit: quod apud iudicem examinabitur: nam, ut et Pomponius libro duodecimo epistularum scripsit, difficilis est huius rei definitio.
[MARCIANUS libro quarto regularum.] Default is understood to occur not from the thing itself, but from the person, that is, if one having been summoned in a suitable place has not paid; which matter shall be examined before the judge; for, as Pomponius also wrote in the twelfth book of his Epistles, the definition of this matter is difficult.
diuus quoque Pius Tullio Balbo rescripsit, an mora facta intellegatur, neque constitutione ulla neque iuris auctorum quaestione decidi posse, cum sit magis facti quam iuris.
The divine Pius also rescriped to Tullius Balbus that whether a default is understood to have occurred cannot be decided by any constitution nor by any inquiry of the authors of law, since it is a matter of fact rather than of law.
§22.1.32.1Et non sufficit ad probationem morae, si seruo debitoris absentis denuntiatum est a creditore procuratoreue eius, cum etiam si ipsi, inquit, domino denuntiatum est, ceterum postea cum is sui potestatem faceret, omissa esset repetendi debiti instantia, non protinus per debitorem mora facta intellegitur.
And it is not sufficient for the proof of default if notice has been given to the slave of an absent debtor by the creditor or his procurator; since even if, he says, notice was given to the master himself, but afterwards when he made himself available, the insistence on demanding the debt was omitted, default is not immediately understood to have occurred through the debtor.
§22.1.32.2In bonae fidei contractibus ex mora usurae debentur.
In contracts of good faith, interest is owed due to default.
§22.1.32.3Quid ergo: si et filius familias et pater ex persona eius teneatur (siue iussu eius contractum est siue in rem uersum est patris uel in peculium), cuius persona circa moram spectabitur? et si quidem pater dumtaxat conuenietur, ex mora sua non tenetur: in filium tamen dabitur actio in hoc, ut quod minus a patre actor consecutus est filius praestet: quod si filius moram fecerit, tunc actor uel cum ipso in solidum uel cum patre dumtaxat de peculio habebit.
What then: if both a son in power and his father are held liable on account of the son's person (whether the contract was made by the father's order, or turned to the profit of the father, or concerned the peculium), whose person shall be regarded in respect to default? And if indeed only the father is sued, he is not held liable on account of his own default; however, an action will be given against the son to the end that the son shall make good what the plaintiff has obtained less from the father. But if the son has committed default, then the plaintiff will have an action either against him for the whole, or against the father only to the extent of the peculium.
§22.1.32.4Sed si duo rei promittendi sint, alterius mora alteri non nocet.
But if there are two joint promisors, the default of one does not harm the other.
§22.1.32.5Item si fideiussor solus moram fecerit, non tenetur, sicuti si Stichum promissum occiderit: sed utilis actio in hunc dabitur.
Likewise, if the guarantor alone has committed default, he is not held liable, just as if he had killed the promised Stichus; but a useful action will be given against him.