[LABEO libro sexto pithanon a Paulo epitomatorum. ] §23.3.84.prSi de dote promissa agitur, non oportet in quantum facere potest condemnari eum qui promisit.
[LABEO in the sixth book of Pithana, epitomized by Paulus.] If an action is brought concerning a promised dowry, it is not proper for the person who made the promise to be condemned only to the extent of his ability to perform.
PAULUS: immo quod ad extraneum attinet, semper hoc uerum est.
PAULUS: On the contrary, so far as an outsider is concerned, this is always true.
ceterum si manente adfinitate dotem promissam gener a socero petit, utique in quantum facere potest socer condemnabitur.
But if, while the relationship by marriage continues, the son-in-law demands the promised dowry from the father-in-law, the father-in-law will certainly be condemned only to the extent of his ability to perform.
si dirempto matrimonio petitur, ex causa et persona id tribuendum puto: quid enim si socer specie futurae dotis induxerit generum et cum sciret se praestare dotem non posse, id egerit, ut genero insidiaretur?
If it is demanded after the marriage has been dissolved, I think this should be granted according to the circumstances of the case and the person: for what if the father-in-law enticed the son-in-law under the pretext of a future dowry, and, although he knew he could not provide the dowry, acted with the intention of laying a trap for his son-in-law?