[PAULUS libro septimo responsorum. ] §24.3.49.prMaeuia marito suo inter alias res dotis etiam instrumentum solidorum decem¹ tradidit, quo Otacilius eidem Maeuiae cauerat daturum se, cum nuptum ire coepisset, decem milia: ex eo instrumento maritus nihil exegit, quia nec potuit: quaesitum est, si dos a marito petatur, an compellendus sit etiam illam summam, quae instrumento continetur, refundere? respondi potuisse quidem eum, cui actiones mandatae sunt, debitorem conuenire: sed si sine dolo malo uel culpa exigere pecuniam non potuit, neque dotis nomine eum conueniri posse neque mandati iudicio.
[PAULUS, Book 7 of Opinions.] Maevia delivered to her husband, among other dotal property, also an instrument for ten solidi, by which Otacilius had guaranteed to the same Maevia that he would pay ten thousand when she began to be married. From that instrument the husband collected nothing, because he was not even able to. The question was raised: if the dowry is claimed from the husband, should he be compelled to restore also that sum which is contained in the instrument? I answered that he to whom the actions were assigned indeed could have sued the debtor; but if, without willful misconduct or fault, he could not collect the money, he cannot be sued either on account of the dowry or by the action of mandate.
§24.3.49.1Fundus aestimatus in dotem datus a creditore antecedente ex causa pignoris ablatus est: quaesitum est, an mulier, si aestimationem dotis repetat, exceptione summouenda sit: ait enim se propterea non teneri, quod pater eius dotem pro se dedit, cui heres non exstiterit.
An estimated tract of land given as dowry was taken away by a prior creditor by reason of a pledge. The question was raised whether the wife, if she demands the appraised value of the dowry, should be barred by an exception; for the husband says that he is not liable for the reason that her father, whose heir she did not stand as, gave the dowry on her behalf.
Paulus respondit praedio euicto sine dolo et culpa uiri pretium petenti mulieri doli mali exceptionem obesse: consequi enim eam pretium fundi euicti euidens iniquitas est, cum dolus patris ipsi nocere debeat.
Paulus answered that when the estate is evicted without willful misconduct or fault of the husband, the exception of fraud opposes the wife who demands the price; for it is an obvious inequity that she should obtain the price of the evicted land when the fraud of the father ought to harm her.