[POMPONIUS libro quarto decimo ad Sabinum. ] §24.1.31.prSed si uir lana sua uestimentum mulieri confecerit, quamuis id uxori confectum fuerit et uxoris cura, tamen uiri esse neque impedire, quod in ea re uxor tamquam lanipendia fuerit et uiri negotium procurarit. §24.1.31.1Si uxor lana sua, operis ancillarum uiri, uestimenta sui nomine confecit muliebria, et uestimenta mulieris esse et pro operis ancillarum uiro praestare nihil debere: sed uiri nomine uestimenta confecta uirilia uiri esse, ut is lanae uxori praestet pretium: sed si non uirilia uestimenta suo nomine mulier confecit, sed ea uiro donauit, non ualere donationem, cum illa ualeat, cum uiri nomine confecit: nec umquam operas uiri ancillarum aestimari conuenit. §24.1.31.2Si uir uxori aream donauerit et uxor in ea insulam aedificauerit, ea insula sine dubio mariti est, sed eam impensam mulierem seruaturam placet: nam si maritus uindicet insulam, retentionem impensae mulierem facturam. §24.1.31.3Si duo mancipia fuerint singula quinis digna, sed utrumque unis quinque donationis causa a uiro mulieri uel contra uenierint, melius dicetur communia ea esse pro portione pretii nec tandem spectandum esse, quanti mancipia sint, sed quantum ex pretio donationis causa sit remissum: sine dubio licet a uiro uel uxore minoris emere, si non sit animus donandi. §24.1.31.4Si uir uxori uel contra quid uendiderit uero pretio et donationis causa paciscantur, ne quid uenditor ob eam rem praestet, uidendum est, quid de ea uenditione agatur, utrum res uenierit et totum negotium ualeat, an uero ut ea sola pactio irrita sit, quemadmodum irrita esset, si post contractam emptionem nouo consilio inito id pacti fuisset actum.
[POMPONIUS, in the fourteenth book on Sabinus.]\n\nBut if a husband should make a garment for his wife from his own wool, although it was made for the wife and by the care of the wife, it nevertheless belongs to the husband, and the fact that in this matter the wife acted as it were as a wool-weigher and managed the husband's business does not stand in the way.\n\nIf a wife, using her own wool and by the labor of her husband's female slaves, has made women's garments in her own name, the garments belong to the woman, and she owes nothing to the husband for the labor of the female slaves; but male garments made in the husband's name belong to the husband, provided that he pays the price of the wool to his wife; but if the woman made garments that are not male in her own name, but donated them to her husband, the donation is invalid, whereas it is valid when she made them in the husband's name; nor is it ever fitting for the labor of the husband's female slaves to be valued.\n\nIf a husband has donated a vacant plot of land to his wife, and the wife has built an apartment building on it, that building undoubtedly belongs to the husband, but it is held that the woman will recover that expense; for if the husband should claim the building, the woman will make a retention for the expense.\n\nIf there are two slaves, each worth five, but both of them are sold together for five for the purpose of a donation by a husband to his wife or vice versa, it will be better said that they are held in common in proportion to the price, and after all, we must look not at how much the slaves are worth, but at how much of the price was remitted for the purpose of a donation; without doubt, it is permissible to buy from a husband or wife for less, if there is no intention of donating.\n\nIf a husband has sold something to his wife, or vice versa, for a real price, and they agree for the purpose of a donation that the seller shall not be liable for anything on that account, we must consider what is done regarding that sale: whether the thing was sold and the entire transaction is valid, or rather that only that agreement is invalid, just as it would be invalid if, after the purchase was contracted, a new plan was adopted and that agreement was made.
et uerius est pactum dumtaxat irritum esse. §24.1.31.5Idem dicemus, si donationis causa pacti sint, ne fugitiuum aut erronem praestent, id est integras esse actiones aedilicias et ex empto. §24.1.31.6Quod uir uxori in diem debet, sine metu donationis praesens soluere potest, quamuis commodum temporis retenta pecunia sentire potuerit. §24.1.31.7Quod legaturus mihi aut hereditatis nomine relicturus es, potes rogatus a me uxori meae relinquere et non uidetur ea esse donatio, quia nihil ex bonis meis deminuitur: in quo maxime maiores. donanti succurrisse Proculus ait, ne amore alterius alter despoliaretur, non quasi maliuolos, ne alter locupletior fieret. §24.1.31.8Si uir uxori munus immodicum calendis Martiis aut natali die dedisset, donatio est: sed si impensas, quas faceret mulier, quo honestius se tueretur, contra est. §24.1.31.9Non uidetur locupletior facta esse mulier, si aut in opsonio aut in unguentis aut in cibariis familiae donatam sibi pecuniam impenderit. §24.1.31.10Quae uir cibaria uxoris familiae iumentisue praestiterit, quae in usu communi erant, non condicentur: quod si familiam domesticam uxoris aut uenaliciam pauit, contra puto obseruari debere.
And it is more correct that only the agreement is invalid.\n\nWe shall say the same if they have agreed, for the purpose of a donation, that they shall not warrant the slave not to be a runaway or a wanderer; that is, the aedilian actions and the action on purchase remain unimpaired.\n\nWhat a husband owes his wife with a future due date, he can pay immediately without fear of the prohibition of donation, although he could have enjoyed the advantage of time by retaining the money.\n\nWhat you are going to bequeath to me or leave to me by way of inheritance, you can, at my request, leave to my wife, and this is not deemed to be a donation, because nothing is diminished from my property; in this respect especially, Proculus says that our ancestors came to the aid of the donor so that one might not be despoiled by love of the other, and not as if they were malevolent, to prevent the other from becoming richer.\n\nIf a husband has given an immoderate gift to his wife on the Kalends of March or on her birthday, it is a donation; but if it is for expenses which the woman would make in order to maintain herself more respectably, the contrary is true.\n\nA woman is not deemed to have become richer if she has spent money donated to her either on side dishes, or on perfumes, or on food for the household.\n\nWhat food a husband has provided for his wife's household or beasts of burden which were in common use will not be subject to personal action for recovery; but if he fed his wife's domestic household or slaves kept for sale, I think the contrary should be observed.