[ULPIANUS libro trigesimo secundo ad Sabinum. ] §24.1.21.prSi quis pro uxore sua uectigal, quod in itinere praestari solet, soluisset, an quasi locupletiore ea facta exactio fiat, an uero nulla sit donatio? et magis puto non interdictum hoc, maxime si ipsius causa profecta est.
[ULPIANUS libro trigesimo secundo ad Sabinum.] If anyone has paid for his wife a toll, which is customarily paid on a journey, whether recovery is to be made on the ground of her having been made richer, or indeed is there no donation? and I rather think that this is not prohibited, especially if she set out for his sake.
nam et Papinianus libro quarto responsorum scripsit uecturas uxoris et ministeriorum eius uirum itineris sui causa datas repetere non posse: iter autem fuisse uidetur uiri causa et cum uxor ad uirum peruenit.
For Papinian also wrote in the fourth book of his Opinions that a husband cannot recover the travel expenses of his wife and her servants paid for the sake of his own journey: and the journey is also deemed to have been for the husband's sake when the wife comes to the husband.
nec interesse, an aliquid de uecturis in contrahendo matrimonio conuenerit: non enim donat, qui necessariis oneribus succurrit, ergo et si consensu mariti profecta est mulier propter suas necessarias causas et aliquid maritus expensarum nomine ei praestiterit, hoc reuocandum non est.
And it makes no difference whether any agreement was made regarding travel expenses upon contracting the marriage: for he who relieves necessary burdens does not make a donation; therefore, even if the wife set out with the consent of her husband for her own necessary reasons, and the husband paid her something under the name of expenses, this is not to be revoked.
§24.1.21.1Si uxor uiro dotem promiserit et dotis usuras, sine dubio dicendum est peti usuras posse, quia non est ista donatio, cum pro oneribus matrimonii petantur.
If a wife has promised her husband a dowry and interest on the dowry, it must be said without doubt that the interest can be claimed, because that is not a donation, since they are claimed for the burdens of marriage.
quid tamen, si maritus uxori petitionem earum remiserit? eadem erit quaestio, an donatio sit illicita: et Iulianus hoc diceret: quod uerum est.
What, however, if the husband has released to his wife the claim for them? There will be the same question, whether it is an illicit donation; and Julian would say this, which is true.
plane si conuenerat, uti se mulier pasceret suosque homines idcirco passus est eam dote sua frui, ut se suosque aleret, expeditum erit: puto enim non posse ab ea peti quasi donatum, quod compensatum est.
Clearly, if it had been agreed that the wife should maintain herself and her people, and for that reason he allowed her to enjoy her dowry so that she might support herself and her people, the matter will be straightforward: for I think that what has been set off cannot be claimed from her as if it were a donation.