Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §25.2.11.pr-25.2.11.3

Tendering an Oath in the Action for Property Removed

Passage 3686 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Ulpian discusses liability for property removed during marital expulsion, the procedure and requirements of tendering an oath in the action for property removed, who is obliged to swear, and the praetor's refusal to allow referring the oath back.

[ULPIANUS libro trigesimo tertio ad edictum. ] §25.2.11.prMarcellus libro octauo digestorum scribit, siue uir uxorem siue uxor uirum domo expulit et res amouerunt, rerum amotarum teneri.
[ULPIAN, On the Edict, book 33.] Marcellus writes in the eighth book of his Digests that, whether the husband has expelled the wife or the wife has expelled the husband from the home and they have removed property, they are liable for the property removed.
§25.2.11.1Qui rerum amotarum instituit actionem si uelit magis iusiurandum deferre, cogitur aduersarius iurare nihil diuortii causa amotum esse, dum prius de calumnia iuret qui iusiurandum defert.
If the person who brings the action for property removed wishes rather to tender an oath, the opponent is compelled to swear that nothing was removed on account of the divorce, provided that the person who tenders the oath first swears concerning calumny.
§25.2.11.2Iurare autem tam uir quam uxor cogetur.
Furthermore, both the husband and the wife will be compelled to swear.
pater autem amouentis iurare non cogitur, cum iniquum sit de alieno facto alium iurare: is ergo cogitur iurare, qui amouisse dicitur.
But the father of the person who removed the property is not compelled to swear, since it is unjust for one person to swear concerning another's deed: therefore, he is compelled to swear who is said to have removed it.
et idcirco nec heres eius, qui quaeue amouisse dicetur, iurare cogetur.
And for that reason, neither the heir of the person who is said to have removed it will be compelled to swear.
§25.2.11.3Si quis delatum sibi iusiurandum referre uelit, non uidetur praetor permisisse,
If anyone wishes to refer back the oath tendered to him, the praetor does not seem to have permitted this,

Notes

  1. §25.2.11.prrerum amotarum — Refers to the lawsuit name *actio rerum amotarum* (action for property removed). Here, the genitive depends on the passive infinitive *teneri* (to be held liable / prosecuted), indicating the charge or liability.
  2. §25.2.11.1dum prius de calumnia iuret — The conjunction *dum* with the subjunctive *iuret* introduces a proviso ("provided that..."). *de calumnia* refers to the "oath of calumny" (*iusiurandum de calumnia*), in which the plaintiff must swear that the action is not brought in bad faith or for harassment.
  3. §25.2.11.2qui quaeue — A combination of the masculine singular relative pronoun *qui* and the feminine singular relative pronoun *quae* with the enclitic disjunctive particle *-ve*, meaning "the man or woman who...".
  4. §25.2.11.3non uidetur praetor permisisse — A personal construction where the verb *uidetur* is used with the nominative subject *praetor* and the perfect infinitive *permisisse* ("the praetor does not seem to have permitted"). It has the same logical meaning as an impersonal construction (*it does not appear that the praetor permitted*).

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §25.2.11.pr-25.2.11.3. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:25.2.11.pr-25.2.11.3

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.