[ULPIANUS libro trigesimo secundo ad Sabinum. ] §24.1.5.prSi sponsus sponsae donaturus tradiderit Titio, ut is sponsae daret, deinde Titius tradiderit post nuptias secutas: si quidem eum interposuerit maritus, donationem non ualere, quae post contractas nuptias perficiatur: si uero mulier eum interposuerit, iamdudum perfectam donationem, hoc est ante nuptias, atque ideo quamuis contractis nuptiis Titius tradiderit, donationem ualere.
[ULPIANUS libro trigesimo secundo ad Sabinum.] If a fiancé, intending to make a donation to his fiancée, should deliver a thing to Titius so that he might give it to the fiancée, and then Titius should deliver it after the marriage has followed: if indeed the husband interposed him, the donation is not valid, which is completed after the marriage has been contracted; but if the woman interposed him, the donation was completed long before, that is, before the marriage, and therefore even though Titius delivered it after the marriage was contracted, the donation is valid.
§24.1.5.1Si maritus duos reos habeat Titium et mulierem et mulieri accepto tulerit donationis causa, neuter liberatur, quia acceptilatio non ualet: et haec Iulianus libro septimo decimo digestorum scribit.
If a husband has two debtors, Titius and his wife, and should give a release (acceptilatio) to his wife for the sake of a donation, neither is discharged, because the release is not valid; and Julian writes this in the seventeenth book of his Digests.
plane si mihi proponas Titio accepto latum, ipse quidem liberabitur, mulier uero manebit obligata.
Clearly, if you propose to me that the release was given to Titius, he indeed will be discharged, but the wife will remain obligated.
§24.1.5.2Generaliter tenendum est, quod inter ipsos aut qui ad eos pertinent aut per interpositas personas donationis causa agatur, non ualere: quod si aliarum extrinsecus rerum personarumue causa commixta sit, si separari non potest, nec donationem impediri, si separari possit, cetera ualere, id quod donatum sit non ualere.
Generally, it must be held that whatever is done between them or those who belong to them, or through interposed persons, for the sake of a donation, is not valid; but if the cause of other things or persons from the outside is mixed in, if it cannot be separated, the donation also is not impeded, but if it can be separated, the other things are valid, and that which was donated is not valid.
§24.1.5.3Si debitor uiri pecuniam iussu mariti uxori promiserit, nihil agitur.
If a debtor of the husband, by the order of the husband, should promise money to the wife, nothing is done.
§24.1.5.4Si uxor uiri creditori donationis causa promiserit et fideiussorem dederit, neque uirum liberari neque mulierem obligari uel fideiussorem eius Iulianus ait, perindeque haberi ac si nihil promississet.
If a wife, for the sake of a donation, should promise to her husband's creditor and give a surety, Julian says that neither the husband is discharged nor the wife or her surety is obligated, and it is regarded just as if she had promised nothing.
§24.1.5.5Circa uenditionem quoque Iulianus quidem minoris factam uenditionem nullius esse momenti ait: Neratius autem (cuius opinionem Pomponius non improbat) uenditionem donationis causa inter uirum et uxorem factam nullius esse momenti, si modo, cum animum maritus uendendi non haberet, idcirco uenditionem commentus sit, ut donaret: enimuero si, cum animum uendendi haberet, ex pretio ei remisit, uenditionem quidem ualere, remissionem autem hactenus non ualere, quatenus facta est locupletior: itaque si res quindecim uenit quinque, nunc autem sit decem, quinque tantum praestanda sunt, quia in hoc locupletior uidetur facta.
Concerning sale also, Julian indeed says that a sale made for a lower price is of no moment; but Neratius (whose opinion Pomponius does not disapprove) says that a sale made between husband and wife for the sake of a donation is of no moment, if only, when the husband did not have the intention of selling, he contrived the sale for this reason, namely, to make a donation; but indeed, if, when he had the intention of selling, he remitted a part of the price to her, the sale indeed is valid, but the remission is not valid to the extent that she was made richer; therefore, if a thing of fifteen was sold for five, but now is worth ten, only five must be paid, because she is seen to have been made richer to this extent.
§24.1.5.6Si donationis causa uir uel uxor seruitute non utatur, puto amitti seruitutem, uerum post diuortium condici posse.
If, for the sake of a donation, a husband or wife does not use a servitude, I think the servitude is lost, but after a divorce it can be recovered by a condictio.
§24.1.5.7Si uxor uel maritus exceptione quadam donationis causa summoueri uoluerint, facta a iudice absolutione ualebit quidem sententia, sed condicetur ei, cui donatum est.
If a wife or husband wished to be barred by some exception for the sake of a donation, once an acquittal has been made by the judge, the judgment indeed will be valid, but a condictio will lie against the one to whom the donation was made.
§24.1.5.8Concessa donatio est sepulturae causa: nam sepulturae causa locum marito ab uxore uel contra posse donari constat et si quidem intulerit, faciet locum religiosum.
A donation is allowed for the sake of burial: for it is well established that a place can be donated for the sake of burial by a wife to her husband or vice versa, and if indeed he (or she) should bring in a body, he will make the place religious.
hoc autem ex eo uenit, quod definiri solet eam demum donationem impediri solere, quae et donantem pauperiorem et accipientem faciet locupletiorem: porro hic non uidetur fieri locupletior in ea re quam religioni dicauit.
Moreover, this comes from the fact that it is customary to define that only that donation is usually impeded which makes the donor poorer and the recipient richer; furthermore, in this case, the recipient is not seen to be made richer in that thing which he dedicated to religion.
nec mouit quemquam, quod emeret, nisi a marito accepisset: nam etsi pauperior ea fieret, nisi maritus dedisset, non tamen idcirco fit locupletior, quod non expendit.
Nor does it affect anyone that she (or he) would have bought it, if she had not received it from her husband; for even if she would have become poorer unless her husband had given it, she is not therefore made richer because she did not make an expenditure.