[IDEM libro trigesimo tertio ad edictum. ] §24.3.22.8Sin autem in saeuissimo furore muliere constituta maritus dirimere quidem matrimonium calliditate non uult, spernit autem infelicitatem uxoris et non ad eam flectitur nullamque ei competentem curam inferre manifestissimus est, sed abutitur dotem: tunc licentiam habeat uel curator furiosae uel cognati adire iudicem competentem, quatenus necessitas imponatur marito omnem talem mulieris sustentationem sufferre et alimenta praestare et medicinae eius succurrere et nihil praetermittere eorum, quae maritum uxori adferre decet secundum dotis quantitatem.
[THE SAME, Book 33 on the Edict.] But if, while the woman is in a state of most severe madness, the husband indeed does not want to dissolve the marriage out of craftiness, but slights the misfortune of his wife, is not moved toward her, and is most clearly shown to provide no suitable care for her, but rather misuses the dowry: then let either the curator of the insane woman or her cognates have the permission to approach the competent judge, so that the necessity may be imposed upon the husband to bear all such support of the woman, to provide maintenance, to assist in her medical treatment, and to omit nothing of those things which it is fitting for a husband to offer to his wife according to the quantity of the dowry.
sin uero dotem ita dissipaturus ita manifestus est, ut non hominem frugi oportet, tunc dotem sequestrari, quatenus ex ea mulier competens habeat solacium una cum sua familia, pactis uidelicet dotalibus, quae inter eos ab initio nuptiarum inita fuerint, in suo statu durantibus et alterius exspectantibus sanitatem et mortis euentum.
But if indeed he is so clearly going to squander the dowry in a way that does not befit an honorable man, then let the dowry be sequestrated, so that from it the woman may have suitable support together with her household, while indeed the dotal pacts which had been entered into between them from the beginning of the marriage remain in their status and await the recovery of the other or the event of death.
§24.3.22.9Item pater furiosae utiliter intendere sibi filiaeue suae reddi dotem potest: quamuis enim furiosa nuntium mittere non possit, patrem tamen eius posse certum est.
Likewise, the father of an insane daughter can effectively claim by an action modeled on utility that the dowry be returned to him or to his daughter; for although the insane daughter cannot send a notice of divorce, it is certain that her father can.
§24.3.22.10Si soluto matrimonio pater furiosus sit, curator eius uoluntate filiae dotem petere poterit: aut si curatoris copia non sit, agere filiae permittendum erit cauerique oportebit de rato.
If, after the dissolution of the marriage, the father is insane, his curator will be able to claim the dowry with the consent of the daughter; or if a curator is not available, the daughter must be permitted to sue, and security must be given for ratification.
§24.3.22.11Idem decernendum est et si ab hostibus captus sit pater, puellae dandam actionem de dote repetenda.
The same must be decreed even if the father has been captured by enemies, that the action for reclaiming the dowry must be given to the girl.
§24.3.22.12Transgrediamur nunc ad hunc articulum, ut quaeramus, aduersus quos competit de dote actio.
Let us now pass to this article, to inquire against whom the action for the dowry lies.
et aduersus ipsum maritum competere palam est, siue ipsi dos data sit siue alii ex uoluntate mariti uel subiecto iuri eius uel non subiecto.
And it is clear that it lies against the husband himself, whether the dowry was given to him or to another by the husband's will, whether subject to his power or not subject.
sed si filius familias sit maritus et dos socero data sit, aduersus socerum agetur.
But if the husband is a son in power and the dowry was given to the father-in-law, the action will be brought against the father-in-law.
plane si filio data sit, si quidem iussu soceri, adhuc absolute socer tenebitur: quod si filio data sit non iussu patris, Sabinus et Cassius responderunt nihilo minus cum patre agi oportere: uideri enim ad eum peruenisse dotem, penes quem est peculium: sufficit autem ad id damnandum quod est in peculio uel si quid in rem patris uersum est.
Clearly, if it was given to the son, indeed by order of the father-in-law, the father-in-law will still be absolutely liable; but if it was given to the son not by order of the father, Sabinus and Cassius answered that the action must nevertheless be brought against the father; for the dowry is deemed to have reached him who has control of the peculium; and it is sufficient for condemning him to the extent of what is in the peculium, or if anything has been turned to the father's advantage.
sin autem socero dotem dederit, cum marito non poterit experiri, nisi patri heres exstiterit.
On the other hand, if she gave the dowry to the father-in-law, she will not be able to sue the husband, unless he has become the heir to his father.
§24.3.22.13Si mulier in condicione mariti errauerit putaueritque esse liberum, cum seruus esset, concedi oportet quasi priuilegium in bonis uiri mulieri, uidelicet ut, si sint et alii creditores, haec praeferatur circa de peculio actionem et, si forte domino aliquid debeat seruus, non praeferatur mulier nisi in his tantum rebus, quae uel in dote datae sunt uel ex dote comparatae, quasi et hae dotales sint.
If a woman is mistaken about the status of her husband and thought he was free when he was a slave, a kind of privilege in the property of the husband must be granted to the woman, namely that, if there are other creditors, she is preferred in the action concerning the peculium; and if by chance the slave owes something to his master, the woman is not preferred except only in those things which were either given as dowry or purchased from the dowry, as if these also were dotal property.