[ULPIANUS libro trigesimo secundo ad Sabinum. ] §24.1.3.prHaec ratio et oratione imperatoris nostri Antonini Augusti electa est: nam ita ait: 'Maiores nostri inter uirum et uxorem donationes prohibuerunt, amorem honestum solis animis aestimantes, famae etiam coniunctorum consulentes, ne concordia pretio conciliari uiderentur neue melior in paupertatem incideret, deterior ditior fieret'. §24.1.3.1Uideamus, inter quos sunt prohibitae donationes.
[ULPIANUS libro trigesimo secundo ad Sabinum.] This reason was also chosen in the speech of our Emperor Antoninus Augustus; for he speaks thus: "Our ancestors prohibited donations between husband and wife, valuing honorable love by souls alone, and also consulting the reputation of those joined in marriage, lest their harmony should seem to be procured for a price, or the better spouse should fall into poverty, and the worse should become richer." Let us see between whom donations are prohibited.
et quidem si matrimonium moribus legibusque nostris constat, donatio non ualebit.
And indeed, if a marriage exists according to our customs and laws, the donation will not be valid.
sed si aliquod impedimentum interueniat, ne sit omnino matrimonium, donatio ualebit: ergo si senatoris filia libertino contra senatus consultum nupserit, uel prouincialis mulier ei, qui prouinciam regit uel qui ibi meret, contra mandata, ualebit donatio, quia nuptiae non sunt.
But if some impediment intervenes so that there is no marriage at all, the donation will be valid: therefore, if the daughter of a senator marries a freedman contrary to a decree of the senate, or if a provincial woman marries one who governs the province or who serves there as a soldier, contrary to the mandates, the donation will be valid, because there is no marriage.
sed fas non est eas donationes ratas esse, ne melior sit condicio eorum, qui deliquerunt.
But it is not right that these donations should be confirmed, lest the condition of those who have transgressed be better.
diuus tamen Seuerus in liberta Pontii Paulini senatoris contra statuit, quia non erat affectione uxoris habita, sed magis concubinae.
However, the deified Severus decided otherwise in the case of the freedwoman of Pontius Paulinus, a senator, because she was not held with the affection of a wife, but rather of a concubine.
§24.1.3.2Qui in eiusdem potestate sunt, prohibentur sibi donare, ut puta frater mariti, qui est in soceri potestate.
Those who are under the power of the same person are prohibited from making donations to one another, as, for example, the husband's brother, who is in the power of the father-in-law.
§24.1.3.3Uerbum potestatis non solum ad liberos trahimus, uerum etiam ad seruos: nam magis est, ut hi quoque, qui aliquo iure subiecti sunt marito, donare non possint.
We apply the word "power" not only to children, but also to slaves; for it is more correct that those also who are subjected by some right to the husband cannot make a donation.
§24.1.3.4Secundum haec si mater filio, qui in patris potestate esset, donet, nullius momenti erit donatio, quia patri quaeritur: sed si in castra eunti filio dedit, uidetur ualere, quia filio quaeritur et est castrensis peculii.
According to these principles, if a mother makes a donation to her son who is in the power of his father, the donation will be of no effect, because it is acquired for the father; but if she gave it to her son when he was going to the camp, it is considered to be valid, because it is acquired for the son and is part of his military peculium.
quare et si filius uel priuignus uel quiuis alius potestati mariti subiectus de castrensi suo peculio donauit, non erit irrita donatio.
Therefore, even if a son, or a stepson, or anyone else subject to the power of the husband, has made a donation out of his military peculium, the donation will not be void.
§24.1.3.5Prohibetur igitur et uxori et nurui donare etiam is, qui est in soceri potestate, si modo maritus sit in patris potestate.
Therefore, even he who is in the power of the father-in-law is prohibited from making a donation to either his wife or his daughter-in-law, provided only that the husband is in the power of his father.
§24.1.3.6Ab uxoris nurusue parte prohibitum est donari uiro uel genero.
On the part of the wife or daughter-in-law, it is prohibited to make a donation to the husband or son-in-law.
sed et his, qui sunt in eorum potestate si fuerit donatum, uel in quorum sunt potestate, non ualebit donatio, si modo uir et socer in eiusdem sunt potestate uel uir in soceri: ceterum si in alia familia est maritus, neque socero neque ei qui est in eius potestate neque ei in cuius est donatione interdictum est.
But also if a donation is made to those who are in their power, or to those in whose power they are, the donation will not be valid, provided only that the husband and the father-in-law are under the power of the same person, or the husband is under the power of the father-in-law; otherwise, if the husband is in another family, donation is prohibited neither to the father-in-law, nor to him who is in his power, nor to him in whose power he is.
§24.1.3.7Socrui a nuru uel contra donari non est prohibitum, quia hic ius potestatis non uertitur.
It is not prohibited for a donation to be made by a daughter-in-law to her mother-in-law, or vice versa, because here the right of power is not involved.
§24.1.3.8Si seruus meus, cuius usus fructus alienus est, donet uxori meae ex eo peculio, quod ad me non pertinebat, uel homo liber bona fide mihi seruiens, an ualeat donatio, quaeritur.
If my slave, of whom another person has the usufruct, should make a donation to my wife out of that peculium which did not belong to me, or if a free person serving me in good faith should do so, it is asked whether the donation is valid.
et in libera quidem persona utcumque admitti potest donatio: ceterae enim personae alienationem peculii ut donent non habent.
And indeed, in the case of a free person, the donation can be admitted in one way or another; for other persons do not have the power of alienating their peculium for the purpose of making a donation.
§24.1.3.9Non tantum autem per se maritus et uxor ceteraeque personae dare non possunt sed nec per interpositam personam.
Furthermore, not only can the husband and wife and other persons not give by themselves, but neither can they do so through an intermediary person.
§24.1.3.10Sciendum autem est ita interdictam inter uirum et uxorem donationem, ut ipso iure nihil ualeat quod actum est: proinde si corpus sit quod donatur, nec traditio quicquam ualet, et si stipulanti promissum sit uel accepto latum, nihil ualet: ipso enim iure quae inter uirum et uxorem donationis causa geruntur, nullius momenti sunt.
It must be known, moreover, that a donation between husband and wife is so prohibited that what has been done is of no validity by operation of law. Therefore, if it is a physical object that is donated, even its delivery has no validity; and if a promise has been made to one stipulating, or if a release has been given, it is of no validity. For by operation of law, those things which are done between husband and wife for the sake of a donation are of no importance.
§24.1.3.11Si quis igitur nummos uxori dederit, non fieri eius apparet, quia nihil corporis eius fieri palam est.
Therefore, if anyone has given coins to his wife, it is clear that they do not become hers, because it is obvious that no physical part of them becomes her property.
§24.1.3.12Sed si debitorem suum ei soluere iusserit, hic quaeritur, an nummi fiant eius debitorque liberetur.
But if he should order his debtor to pay her, here it is asked whether the coins become hers and the debtor is released.
et Celsus libro quinto decimo digestorum scribit uidendum esse, ne dici possit et debitorem liberatum et nummos factos mariti, non uxoris: nam et si donatio iure ciuili non impediretur, eum rei gestae ordinem futurum, ut pecunia ad te a debitore tuo, deinde a te ad mulierem perueniret: nam celeritate coniungendarum inter se actionum unam actionem occultari, ceterum debitorem creditori dare, creditorem uxori.
And Celsus writes in the fifteenth book of his Digests that it must be considered whether it can be said both that the debtor is released and that the coins have become the husband's, not the wife's; for even if the donation were not hindered by civil law, the order of the transaction would be such that the money would come to you from your debtor, and then from you to the woman. For by the speed of actions being joined together, one action is hidden, but otherwise the debtor gives to the creditor, and the creditor to the wife.
nec nouum aut mirum esse, quod per alium accipias, te accipere: nam et si is, qui creditoris tui se procuratorem esse simulauerit, a debitore tuo iubente te pecuniam acceperit, et furti actionem te habere constat et ipsam pecuniam tuam esse.
Nor is it new or surprising that you receive what you receive through another; for even if he who pretended to be the agent of your creditor received money from your debtor by your order, it is established both that you have an action for theft and that the money itself is yours.
§24.1.3.13Huic sententiae consequens est, quod Iulianus libro septimo decimo digestorum scribsit, si donaturum mihi iussero uxori meae dare: ait enim Iulianus nullius esse momenti, perinde enim habendum, atque si ego acceptam et rem meam factam uxori meae dedissem: quae sententia uera est.
Consequent upon this opinion is what Julian wrote in the seventeenth book of his Digests, if I should order someone who is about to make a donation to me to give it to my wife; for Julian says that this is of no effect, for it must be regarded just as if I, having received it and made it my own property, had given it to my wife; which opinion is true.