[ULPIANUS libro sexto ad Sabinum. ] §23.3.33.prSi extraneus sit qui dotem promisit isque defectus sit facultatibus, imputabitur marito, cur eum non conuenerit, maxime si ex necessitate, non ex uoluntate dotem promiserat: nam si donauit, utcumque parcendum marito, qui eum non praecipitauit ad solutionem qui donauerat quemque in id quod facere posset, si conuenisset, condemnauerat.
[ULPIANUS in the sixth book on Sabinus.] If it is a stranger who promised the dowry and he has run out of means, it will be imputed to the husband why he did not sue him, especially if he had promised the dowry out of obligation and not of his free will. For if he made a gift, the husband should be excused in any case, since he did not press the donor for payment, whom the judge, even if he had been sued, would have condemned only to the extent of his ability to pay.
hoc enim diuus Pius rescripsit eos, qui ex liberalitate conueniuntur, in id quod facere possunt condemnandos.
For the Divine Pius wrote in a rescript that those who are sued on account of their liberality are to be condemned only to the extent of their ability to pay.
sed si uel pater uel ipsa promiserunt, Iulianus quidem libro sexto decimo digestorum scribit etiam si pater promisit, periculum respicere ad maritum: quod ferendum non est.
But if either the father or the woman herself promised, Julian indeed writes in the sixteenth book of the Digests that even if the father promised, the risk belongs to the husband; which is not to be tolerated.
debebit igitur mulieris esse periculum: nec enim quicquam iudex propriis auribus audiet mulierem dicentem, cur patrem, qui de suo dotem promisit, non urserit ad exsolutionem, multo minus, cur ipsam non conuenerit.
Therefore, the risk ought to belong to the wife; for the judge will by no means listen to the wife saying why the husband did not press her father, who promised the dowry from his own property, for payment, much less why he did not sue her herself.
recte itaque Sabinus disposuit, ut diceret quod pater uel ipsa mulier promisit uiri periculo non esse, quod debitor, id uiri esse, quod alius, scilicet donaturus, eius periculo ait, cui adquiritur: adquiri autem mulieri accipiemus, ad quam rei commodum respicit.
Rightly, therefore, did Sabinus lay down that what the father or the woman herself promised is not at the risk of the husband, but what a debtor of hers promised is at the risk of the husband; whereas what another person promised—namely, one who intends to make a gift—is at the risk of the person for whom it is acquired; and we shall understand that it is acquired for the wife, to whom the advantage of the property belongs.