[IAVOLENUS libro sexto ex posterioribus Labeonis. ] §24.3.66.prIn his rebus, quas praeter numeratam pecuniam doti uir habet, dolum malum et culpam eum praestare oportere Seruius ait.
[JAVOLENUS, From the Posthumous Works of Labeo, book 6] Servius says that in respect of those things which the husband holds as dowry in addition to ready money, he must answer for fraud and negligence.
ea sententia Publii Mucii est: nam is in Licinnia Gracchi uxore statuit, quod res dotales in ea seditione, qua Gracchus occisus erat, perissent, ait, quia Gracchi culpa ea seditio facta esset, Licinniae praestari oportere.
This is also the opinion of Publius Mucius; for in the case of Licinia, the wife of Gracchus, he decided, regarding the fact that the dotal property had perished in that riot in which Gracchus was killed, and said that because that riot had occurred through the fault of Gracchus, compensation ought to be made to Licinia.
§24.3.66.1Seruis uxoris uir nummos in uestiarium dederat, quo parato deinde intra annum diuortium intercesserat.
A husband had given money to his wife's slaves for their clothing allowance, and after this had been provided, a divorce occurred within a year.
placuit Labeoni Trebatio, qualia uestimenta post diuortium essent, talia uiro reddi: idem iuris futurum fuisset, si ipsa uestimenta uir emisset et seruis dedisset: quod si uestimenta non redderentur, tum uirum pretium in dote compensaturum.
Labeo and Trebatius held that the clothing should be returned to the husband in whatever condition it was after the divorce. The same rule of law would have applied if the husband had bought the clothing itself and given it to the slaves; but if the clothing was not returned, then the husband would set off the price against the dowry.
§24.3.66.2Filia familias diuortio facto dotem patri reddi iusserat: deinde parte dotis persoluta pater decesserat.
A daughter under paternal power had ordered, after a divorce had taken place, that her dowry be returned to her father; then, after a part of the dowry had been paid, the father died.
reliquam partem, si nec delegata nec promissa nouandi animo patri fuisset, mulieri solui debere Labeo Trebatius putant, idque uerum est.
Labeo and Trebatius think that the remaining part, if it had been neither delegated to the father nor promised to him with the intention of novating, ought to be paid to the woman, and this is correct.
§24.3.66.3Mancipia in dotem aestimata accepisti: pactum conuentum deinde factum est, ut diuortio facto tantidem aestimata redderes nec de partu dotalium ancillarum mentio facta est.
You received appraised slaves as dowry; subsequently, an agreement was made that upon divorce you should return them at the same valuation, and no mention was made of the offspring of the dotal female slaves.
manebit, inquit Labeo, partus tuus, quia is pro periculo mancipiorum penes te esse deberet. §24.3.66.4Mulier, quae centum dotis apud uirum habebat, diuortio facto ducenta a uiro errante stipulata erat.
Labeo says: "The offspring will remain yours, because it ought to belong to you in return for your bearing the risk of the slaves." A woman who had a dowry of one hundred with her husband had, after a divorce, stipulated for two hundred from her husband, who was in error.
Labeo putat, quanta dos fuisset, tantam deberi, siue prudens mulier plus esset stipulata siue imprudens: Labeonis sententiam probo.
Labeo thinks that only as much is owed as the dowry had actually been, whether the woman stipulated for more knowingly or unknowingly; I approve of Labeo's opinion.
§24.3.66.5Uxor diuortio facto partem dotis receperat, partem apud uirum reliquerat, deinde alii nupserat et iterum uidua facta ad priorem uirum redierat, cui centum decem doti dederat neque eius pecuniae, quae reliqua ex priore dote erat, mentionem fecerat.
A wife, after a divorce, had received a part of her dowry and left a part with her husband; she then married another man, and having become a widow again, returned to her former husband, to whom she gave one hundred and ten as dowry, making no mention of that money which remained from the former dowry.
diuortio facto reliquum ex priore dote iisdem diebus uirum redditurum ait Labeo, quibus reddidisset, si superius diuortium inter eos factum non esset, quoniam prioris dotis causa in sequentem dotis obligationem esset translata: et hoc uerum puto.
Labeo says that upon divorce, the husband must return the remainder of the former dowry within the same time in which he would have returned it if the previous divorce had been the only one between them, because the cause of the former dowry had been transferred into the subsequent obligation of dowry; and I think this is correct.
§24.3.66.6Si uir socero iniussu uxoris manente matrimonio dotem acceptam fecisset, etiamsi id propter egestatem soceri factum esset, uiri tamen periculum futurum ait Labeo, et hoc uerum est.
If a husband, during the subsistence of the marriage, had given a release for the dowry to his father-in-law without the order of his wife, even if this was done because of the poverty of the father-in-law, Labeo says that the risk will nevertheless be the husband's; and this is correct.
§24.3.66.7Si quis pro muliere dotem uiro promisit, deinde herede muliere relicta decesserit, qua ex parte mulier ei heres esset, pro ea parte dotis periculum, quod uiri fuisset, ad mulierem pertinere ait Labeo, quia nec melius aequius esset, quod exigere uir ab uxore non potuisset, ob id ex detrimento uiri mulierem locupletari: et hoc uerum puto.
If anyone has promised a dowry to a husband on behalf of a woman, and subsequently dies leaving the woman as his heir, Labeo says that the risk concerning the dowry which would have been the husband's falls upon the woman in proportion to her share as heir; because it is neither better nor fairer that, on account of what the husband could not have demanded from his wife, the woman should be enriched to the detriment of the husband; and I think this is correct.