[ULPIANUS libro septimo ad legem Iuliam et Papiam. ] §24.3.64.prSi uero negotium gerens mulieris non inuitae maritus dotalem seruum uoluntate eius manumiserit, debet uxori restituere quidquid ad eum peruenit.
[ULPIANUS, On the Lex Iulia et Papia, book 7.] But if a husband, acting as the business manager of his not unwilling wife, manumits a dotal slave with her consent, he must restore to his wife whatever has come to him.
§24.3.64.1Sed et si quid libertatis causa maritus ei imposuit, id uxori praestabit.
Moreover, if the husband imposed anything on him on account of his manumission, he shall make this good to his wife.
§24.3.64.2Plane si operae fuerint marito exhibitae, non aestimatio earum, non erit aequum hoc nomine uxori maritum quippiam praestare.
Obviously, if actual services were rendered to the husband, and not their valuation, it will not be equitable for the husband to make any performance to his wife on this account.
§24.3.64.3Sed si post manumissionem aliquid ei fuerit liberto impositum, id uxori praestandum est.
But if, after the manumission, anything was imposed on the freedman, this must be made good to the wife.
§24.3.64.4Sed et si reum maritus acceperit adpromissoremue, aeque aduersus ipsum obligationem debet praestare.
But also, if the husband has accepted a principal debtor or a guarantor, he must likewise make good the obligation against him.
§24.3.64.5Item quidquid ad eum ex bonis liberti peruenerit, aeque praestare cogetur, si modo ad eum quasi ad patronum peruenerit: ceterum si alio iure, non cogetur praestare: nec enim beneficium quod in eum libertus contulit, hoc uxori debet, sed id tantum, quod iure patronatus adsequitur uel adsequi potuit.
Likewise, whatever has come to him from the property of the freedman, he will be equally compelled to make good, provided only that it came to him as if to a patron; but if by any other right, he will not be compelled to make it good. For he does not owe to his wife the benefit which the freedman conferred upon him, but only that which he obtains or could have obtained by right of patronage.
plane si ex maiore parte quam debet heres scriptus fuerit, quod amplius est non praestabit: et si forte, cum ei nihil deberet libertus, heredem eum scripsit, nihil uxori restituet.
Clearly, if he was appointed heir to a greater share than he is entitled to, he will not make good what is in excess; and if by chance, when the freedman owed him nothing, he appointed him heir, he shall restore nothing to his wife.
§24.3.64.6Dabit autem, ut ait lex, quod ad eum peruenit.
But he shall give, as the law says, what has come to him.
peruenisse accipimus, siue iam exegit siue exigere potest, quia actio ei delata est.
We understand "to have come" to mean either that he has already collected it or that he can collect it because an action has been granted to him.
§24.3.64.7Adicitur in lege, ut et, si dolo malo aliquid factum sit, quo minus ad eum perueniat, teneatur.
It is added in the law that, if anything has been done with malicious intent to prevent it from coming to him, he is held liable.
§24.3.64.8Si filium exheredauerit patronus et ad eum bona liberti pertineant, uidendum est, an heres hoc nomine teneatur.
If a patron has disinherited his son, and the property of the freedman goes to him, it must be considered whether the heir is held liable on this account.
et cum nihil neque ad ipsum patronum neque ad heredem eius perueniat, quomodo fieri potest, ut hoc nomine teneatur?
And since nothing comes either to the patron himself or to his heir, how is it possible for him to be held liable on this account?
§24.3.64.9De uiro heredeque eius lex tantum loquitur: de socero successoribusque soceri nihil in lege scriptum est: et hoc Labeo quasi omissum adnotat.
The law speaks only of the husband and his heir; nothing is written in the law concerning the father-in-law and his successors; and Labeo notes this as if it were an omission.
in quibus igitur casibus lex deficit, non erit nec utilis actio danda.
Therefore, in those cases where the law is deficient, not even an equitable action should be granted.
§24.3.64.10Quod ait lex: 'quanta pecunia erit, tantam pecuniam dato', ostendit aestimationem hereditatis uel bonorum liberti, non ipsam hereditatem uoluisse legem praestare, nisi maritus ipsas res tradere maluerit: et hoc enim benignius admitti debet.
When the law says, "let him give as much money as there shall be," it shows that the law intended the valuation of the inheritance or of the property of the freedman to be made good, and not the inheritance itself, unless the husband preferred to deliver the things themselves; for this also ought to be admitted with greater favor.