[ULPIANUS libro trigesimo primo ad Sabinum. ] §23.4.4.prSi conuenerit, ut fructus in dotem conuerteretur, an ualeat conuentio? et Marcellus ait libro octauo digestorum conuentionem non ualere: prope enim indotatam mulierem hoc pacto fieri.
[ULPIANUS from the thirty-first book on Sabinus.] If it has been agreed that the fruits should be converted into dowry, is the agreement valid? And Marcellus says in the eighth book of his Digests that the agreement is not valid; for by this pact the woman becomes almost dowerless.
sed ita distinguit, ut, si quidem fundum in dotem dederit mulier ita, ut maritus fructus redderet, non esse ratum pactum: idemque esse et si usum fructum in dotem hoc pacto dedit.
But he distinguishes in this way: that, if indeed the woman gave a tract of land as dowry on the condition that the husband should return the fruits, the pact is not valid; and the same applies if she gave a usufruct as dowry under this pact.
quod si conuenisset de fructibus reddendis, hoc est ut in dote essent fructus quosquos percepisset, et fundus uel usus fructus in hoc traditus est, non ut fundus uel fructus fieret dotalis, sed ut fructus perciperet dotis futuros, cogendum de dote actione fructus reddere.
But if there had been an agreement about returning the fruits, that is, that whatever fruits he harvested should be in the dowry, and the land or the usufruct was delivered for this purpose—not that the land or the usufruct should become dotal, but that he should harvest the fruits that were to become dowry—he must be compelled by the action on dowry to return the fruits.
erunt igitur in dote fructus et fruetur iste usuris, quae ex fructibus collectis et in sortem redactis percipi possunt.
Therefore, the fruits will be in the dowry, and he will enjoy the interest which can be received from the fruits collected and reduced to principal.
ego utrubique arbitror interesse, qua contemplatione dos sit data, ut, si ob hoc ei maiorem dotem mulier dedit, quia fructus uolebat esse dotis contento marito ea pecunia quae ex usuris redituum colligitur, posse dici conuentionem ualere: nec enim uidetur sterilis esse dos.
I think that in both cases it is important to consider with what intention the dowry was given; so that, if the woman gave him a larger dowry for this reason, because she wished the fruits to be part of the dowry, the husband being content with that money which is collected from the interest of the revenues, it can be said that the agreement is valid; for the dowry does not seem to be sterile.
finge quadragena annua esse reditus apud eum, qui non acciperet in dotem, nisi hoc conuenisset, plus trecentum: uti boni consuleret tam uberem dotem consecutus.
Imagine that there is an annual revenue of forty thousand sesterces with him, who would not have accepted more than three hundred as dowry unless this had been agreed upon, so that, having obtained so abundant a dowry, he might be well pleased.
et quid dicimus, si pactum tale interuenit, ut maritus fructus in dotem conuerteret et mulier se suosque aleret tuereturue et uniuersa onera sua expediret? quare non dicas conuentionem ualere?
And what do we say if such a pact intervened, that the husband should convert the fruits into dowry, and the woman should support and protect herself and her household, and discharge all her own liabilities? Why should you not say that the agreement is valid?