[ULPIANUS libro trigesimo tertio ad edictum. ] §24.3.24.prSi constante matrimonio propter inopiam mariti mulier agere uolet, unde exactionem dotis initium accipere ponamus? et constat exinde dotis exactionem competere, ex quo euidentissime apparuerit mariti facultates ad dotis exactionem non sufficere.
[ULPIANUS, Book 33 on the Edict.] If, while the marriage is still standing, the woman wishes to bring an action because of her husband's poverty, from what moment should we assume that the recovery of the dowry begins? And it is established that the recovery of the dowry is competent from the moment it becomes most clearly apparent that the husband's resources are not sufficient for the recovery of the dowry.
§24.3.24.1Si exheredato marito mulier agat, magis est, ut ex die aditae patris hereditatis incipiat ei dotis exactio.
If the woman brings an action against a husband who has been disinherited, it is more correct that the recovery of the dowry begins for her from the day on which his father's inheritance was entered upon.
§24.3.24.2Quotiens mulieri satisdandum est de solutione dotis post certum tempus, si maritus satisdare non possit, tunc deducto commodo temporis condemnatio residui repraesentatur: sed si, cum maritus satisdare posset, nollet, in solidum eum condemnandum Mela ait non habita ratione commodi temporis.
Whenever security must be given to the woman for the payment of the dowry after a certain time, if the husband cannot give security, then, after deducting the benefit of time, condemnation for the remainder is made immediately; but Mela says that if the husband, although able to give security, is unwilling to do so, he must be condemned in full without taking into account the benefit of time.
iudicis igitur officio conuenit, ut aut satisdatione interposita absoluat maritum aut habita ratione compensationis eum condemnet, quod quidem hodie magis usurpatur: nec ferenda est mulier, si dicat magis se uelle dilationem pati quam in repraesentatione deductionem.
It is therefore appropriate for the office of the judge either to discharge the husband upon security being given, or to condemn him taking into account the compensation, which indeed is more commonly practiced today; nor should the woman be tolerated if she says that she prefers to suffer the delay rather than have a deduction in immediate payment.
§24.3.24.3Siue autem mariti siue uxoris periculo dos fuit, nihilo minus legitimo tempore debet soluere maritus.
Whether the dowry was at the risk of the husband or of the wife, the husband must nevertheless pay within the lawful time.
§24.3.24.4Si uir uoluntate mulieris seruos dotales manumiserit, si quidem donare ei mulier uoluit, nec de libertatis causa impositis ei praestandis tenebitur: quod si negotium inter eos gestum est, utique tenebitur, ut officio iudicis caueat restituturum se mulieri, quidquid ad eum ex bonis liberti uel ex obligatione peruenisset.
If the husband has manumitted dotal slaves with the consent of the wife, if indeed the wife wished to make a gift to him, he will not be liable for performing whatever is imposed on him by reason of the manumission; but if a transaction was conducted between them, he will certainly be liable to give security by the office of the judge that he will restore to the woman whatever has come to him from the property of the freedman or from any obligation.
§24.3.24.5Si maritus saeuus in seruos dotales fuit, uidendum, an de hoc possit conueniri.
If the husband has been cruel to dotal slaves, it must be considered whether he can be sued on this account.
et si quidem tantum in seruos uxoris saeuus fuit, constat eum teneri hoc nomine: si uero et in suos est natura talis, adhuc dicendum est immoderatam eius saeuitiam hoc iudicio coercendam: quamuis enim diligentiam uxor eam demum ab eo exigat, quam rebus suis exiget, nec plus possit, attamen saeuitia, quae in propriis culpanda est, in alienis coercenda est, hoc est in dotalibus.
And if indeed he was cruel only to the wife's slaves, it is established that he is held liable on this account; but if he is of such a nature even towards his own slaves, it must still be said that his excessive cruelty is to be restrained by this action; for although the wife can only demand from him that diligence which he exhibits in his own affairs and no more, nevertheless cruelty, which is blameworthy in one's own property, must be restrained in the property of another, that is, in dotal property.
§24.3.24.6Si uxor uiri rem commodauerit eaque perierit, uidendum, an compensationem hoc nomine pati possit.
If the wife has lent an object belonging to the husband and it has perished, it must be considered whether she can suffer a set-off on this account.
et puto, si quidem prohibuit eam maritus commodare, statim deductionem fieri: si uero non prohibuit eam commodare, arbitrio iudicis modicum tempus ei indulgeri cautionem praebenti.
And I think that if indeed the husband forbade her to lend it, a deduction is made immediately; but if he did not forbid her to lend it, a moderate time is granted to her by the discretion of the judge upon her providing security.
§24.3.24.7Si bona mulieris pro parte sint publicata, superest mulieri reliquae partis dotis exactio: plus puto: et si post litem contestatam publicata sit pro parte dos, sufficiet arbitrium iudicis ad partis condemnationem faciendam.
If the wife's property has been partially confiscated, the recovery of the remaining part of the dowry is left to the woman; I think even more: even if the dowry is partially confiscated after joinder of issue, the discretion of the judge will be sufficient to make a condemnation for the remaining part.
quod si tota dos publicata sit, exspirabit iudicium.
But if the entire dowry is confiscated, the action will be extinguished.