[IULIANUS libro quinto ex Minicio. ] §24.1.39.prUir uxori pecuniam cum donare uellet, permisit ei, ut a debitore suo stipuletur: illa cum id fecisset, priusquam pecuniam auferret, diuortium fecit: quaero, utrum uir eam summam petere debeat an ea promissione propter donationis causam actio nulla esset.
[JULIANUS in his fifth book on Minicius.] When a husband wished to donate money to his wife, he permitted her to stipulate for it from his debtor. When she had done so, but before she took the money, she divorced him. I ask whether the husband ought to claim that sum, or whether, on account of the cause of donation, no action arose from that promise.
respondi inanem fuisse eam stipulationem.
I answered that the stipulation was without effect.
sed si promissor mulieri ignorans soluisset, si quidem pecunia exstat, uindicare eam debitor potest: sed si actiones suas marito praestare paratus est, doli mali exceptione se tuebitur ideoque maritus hanc pecuniam debitoris nomine uindicando consequetur.
But if the promisor, in ignorance, had paid the wife, then if indeed the money is in existence, the debtor can vindicate it; but if he is ready to assign his actions to the husband, he will defend himself by the exception of fraud, and therefore the husband will obtain this money by vindicating it in the name of the debtor.
sed si pecunia non exstat et mulier locupletior facta est, maritus eam petet: intellegitur enim ex re mariti locupletior facta esse mulier, quoniam debitor doli mali exceptione se tueri potest.
But if the money is not in existence and the wife has been made richer, the husband will claim it; for the wife is understood to have been made richer from the property of the husband, since the debtor can defend himself by the exception of fraud.