[PAULUS libro septimo ad Sabinum. ] §24.1.28.prSi id quod donatum sit perierit uel consumptum sit, eius qui dedit est detrimentum, merito, quia manet res eius qui dedit suamque rem perdit.
[PAULUS, in the seventh book on Sabinus.] If that which has been donated perishes or is consumed, the loss is on the part of the one who gave it, and rightly so, because the property remains that of the one who gave it and he loses his own property.
§24.1.28.1Si quid in pueros ex ancillis dotalibus natos maritus inpenderit aut in doctrinam aut alimenta, non seruatur marito, quia ipse ministeriis eorum utitur: sed illud seruatur quod nutrici datum est ad educendum, quia pro capite quid dedisset, quemadmodum si a praedonibus redemisset seruos dotales.
If the husband expends anything on the children born of dowry slave-women, either for instruction or maintenance, it is not reserved for the husband, because he himself uses their services; but that which has been given to a nurse for upbringing is reserved, because he had given something for their lives, just as if he had ransomed the dowry slaves from pirates.
§24.1.28.2Si quas serui operas uiri uxori praestiterint uel contra, magis placuit, nullam habendam earum rationem: et sane non amare nec tamquam inter infestos ius prohibitae donationis tractandum est, sed ut inter coniunctos maximo affectu et solam inopiam timentes.
If any services are rendered by the husband's slaves to the wife, or vice versa, it has been preferred that no account of them should be taken; and indeed, the law of prohibited donation must not be treated harshly, nor as if between hostile parties, but as between those joined by the greatest affection and fearing only poverty.
§24.1.28.3Si ex decem donatis sibi mulier seruum emerit et is quinque sit, quinque petenda esse apud Plautium placuit, quemadmodum, si mortuus est, nihil peteretur: si uero quindecim dignus sit, non plus quam decem potest peti, quoniam eatenus donator pauperior factus esset.
If, out of ten that were donated to her, a woman buys a slave and he is worth five, it was accepted in Plautius that five should be claimed, just as, if he had died, nothing would be claimed; but if he is worth fifteen, no more than ten can be claimed, since the donor had become poorer only to that extent.
§24.1.28.4Quod si ex decem duos seruos emerit et eorum alter mortuus sit, alter decem dignus sit, solet quaeri.
But if, out of ten, she buys two slaves and one of them dies, while the other is worth ten, it is usually asked what the rule is.
et plerique et Pomponius interesse putant, utrum uno pretio uenierint an diuersis: si uno, tota decem petenda, quemadmodum si una res empta deterior facta est, uel grex uel carrucha et aliqua pars inde perisset: si diuersis, hoc solum petendum, quanti sit emptus qui superest.
And most authorities and Pomponius think that it makes a difference whether they were bought for a single price or for different prices: if for a single price, the entire ten must be claimed, just as if a single purchased thing has deteriorated, whether a herd or a carriage, and some part of it has perished therefrom; if for different prices, only this must be claimed, namely, for how much the surviving one was bought.
§24.1.28.5Iulianum putasse Pomponius refert, si quid per eum seruum, quem ex nummis a marito donatis mulier adquisisset (forte legatum, hereditatem) aut partus editus esset, eo quoque nomine petitionem faciendam esse.
Pomponius reports that Julian thought that if anything should come through that slave, whom the woman had acquired from money donated by her husband (such as a legacy or an inheritance), or if offspring had been born, a claim must also be made on that account.
§24.1.28.6Illud constat, si, antequam a uiro annuum acciperet, mulier ipsa de suo aut etiam mutuata impenderit, uideri tantum iam ex annuo consumptum.
This is established: if, before she received her annual allowance from her husband, the woman herself made expenditures from her own property or even by borrowing, that amount is considered to have already been consumed from the annual allowance.
§24.1.28.7Illud recte dictum Celsus ait: si dotis usuras annuas uxor stipulata sit, licet ei non debeantur, quia tamen quasi de annuo conuenerit, peti quidem dotis iudicio non possunt, compensari autem possunt: idem ergo dicemus in qualibet pactione annui nomine facta.
Celsus says that this was rightly stated: if the wife has stipulated for annual interest on her dowry, even though it is not owed to her, yet because it was agreed upon as if for an annual allowance, it cannot indeed be claimed in an action concerning dowry, but it can be set off; we shall therefore say the same in any agreement made under the name of an annual allowance.