[ULPIANUS libro trigesimo primo ad Sabinum. ] §23.3.9.prSi ego Seiae res dedero, ut ipsa suo nomine in dotem det, efficientur eius, licet non in dotem sint datae: sed condictione tenebitur.
[ULPIANUS in the thirty-first book on Sabinus.] If I give properties to Seia so that she herself may give them as a dowry in her own name, they will become hers, even though they were not given as a dowry; but she will be liable to a condictio.
quod si pro ea res ego dem, si quidem ante nuptias, interest qua condicione dedi, utrum ut statim fiant accipientis an secutis nuptiis: si statim, nuntio misso condicam: sin uero non statim, potero uindicare, quia meae res sunt.
But if I give properties on her behalf, and indeed before the marriage, it is of importance on what condition I gave them, whether so that they immediately become the recipient's or upon the marriage having followed: if immediately, after sending notice of divorce, I shall bring a condictio; but if not immediately, I shall be able to vindicate them, because they are my properties.
quare et si sequi nuptiae non possunt propter matrimonii interdictionem, ex posteriore casu res meae remanebunt.
Therefore, even if the marriage cannot follow because of a prohibition of marriage, from the latter case my properties will remain mine.
§23.3.9.1Si res alicui tradidero, ut nuptiis secutis dotis efficiantur, et ante nuptias decessero, an secutis nuptiis dotis esse incipiant? et uereor, ne non possint in dominio eius effici cui datae sunt, quia post mortem incipiat dominium discedere ab eo qui dedit, quia pendet donatio in diem nuptiarum et cum sequitur condicio nuptiarum, iam heredis dominium est, a quo discedere rerum non posse dominium inuito eo fatendum est.
If I deliver properties to someone so that, upon the marriage having followed, they may become a dowry, and I die before the marriage, do they begin to be a dowry upon the marriage having followed? And I fear that they cannot become in the ownership of him to whom they were given, because after death the ownership begins to depart from him who gave them, because the donation is suspended until the day of the marriage, and when the condition of the marriage follows, the ownership is already the heir's, from whom it must be admitted that the ownership of the properties cannot depart against his will.
sed benignius est fauore dotium necessitatem imponi heredi consentire ei quod defunctus fecit aut, si distulerit uel absit, etiam nolente uel absente eo dominium ad maritum ipso iure transferri, ne mulier maneat indotata.
But it is more benign, in favor of dowries, that a necessity be imposed on the heir to consent to what the deceased did, or, if he postpones or is absent, even against his will or in his absence, the ownership is transferred to the husband by operation of law, lest the woman remain undowed.
§23.3.9.2Dotis autem causa data accipere debemus ea, quae in dotem dantur.
But we must understand things given by reason of dowry as those which are given as a dowry.
§23.3.9.3Ceterum si res dentur in ea, quae Graeci παράφερνα dicunt quaeque Galli peculium appellant, uideamus, an statim efficiuntur mariti.
But if properties are given as what the Greeks call parapherna and what the Gauls call peculium, let us see whether they immediately become the husband's.
et putem, si sic dentur ut fiant, effici mariti, et cum distractum fuerit matrimonium, non uindicari oportet, sed condici, nec dotis actione peti, ut diuus Marcus et imperator noster cum patre rescripserunt.
And I should think that, if they are so given that they become his, they do become the husband's, and when the marriage has been dissolved, they ought not to be vindicated, but sued for by a condictio, and not sought by a dowry action, as the deified Marcus and our Emperor with his father replied by rescript.
plane si rerum libellus marito detur, ut Romae uolgo fieri uidemus (nam mulier res, quas solet in usu habere in domo mariti neque in dotem dat, in libellum solet conferre eumque libellum marito offere, ut is subscribat, quasi res acceperit, et uelut chirographum eius uxor retinet res quae libello continentur in domum eius se intulisse): hae igitur res an mariti fiant, uideamus.
Clearly, if a list of properties is given to the husband, as we commonly see done in Rome (for the woman is accustomed to enter on a list the properties which she is accustomed to have for use in the husband's house and does not give as a dowry, and to offer that list to the husband so that he may sign it as if he had received the properties, and the wife retains the list like his written acknowledgment that she has brought into his house the properties contained in the list): let us see, then, whether these properties become the husband's.
et non puto, non quod non ei traduntur (quid enim interest inferantur uolente eo in domum eius an ei tradantur?), sed quia non puto hoc agi inter uirum et uxorem, ut dominium ad eum transferatur, sed magis ut certum sit in domum eius illata, ne, si quandoque separatio fiat, negetur: et plerumque custodiam earum maritus repromittit, nisi mulieri commissae sint.
And I do not think so, not because they are not delivered to him (for what difference does it make whether they are brought into his house with his consent or delivered to him?), but because I do not think it is agreed between husband and wife that ownership is transferred to him, but rather that it is certain that they were brought into his house, lest, if ever a separation occurs, it be denied; and generally the husband promises safe-keeping of them, unless they are entrusted to the woman.
uidebimus harum rerum nomine, si non reddantur, utrum rerum amotarum an depositi an mandati mulier agere possit.
We shall see under the name of these properties, if they are not returned, whether the woman can sue by the action for properties removed, or of deposit, or of mandate.
et si custodia marito committitur, depositi uel mandati agi poterit: si minus, agetur rerum amotarum, si animo amouentis maritus eas retineat, aut ad exhibendum, si non amouere eas connisus est.
And if safe-keeping is entrusted to the husband, it will be possible to sue by deposit or mandate; if not, the action for properties removed will be brought if the husband retains them with the intention of removing them, or the action to produce if he has not endeavored to remove them.