Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §25.2.3.pr-25.2.3.4

Removal of Property After Divorce and Liability of Daughters

Passage 3678 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

The passage discusses the applicability of theft actions after divorce, the limitation of actions out of respect for status, and the parental liability and litigation requirements when a daughter under power removes property.

[PAULUS libro septimo ad Sabinum. ] §25.2.3.pret ideo, si post diuortium easdem res contrectat, etiam furti tenebitur.
[PAULUS, on Sabinus, book 7.] And therefore, if after the divorce she handles these same things, she will also be held liable for theft.
§25.2.3.1Item si seruus eius furtum fecerit, furti cum ea agere possumus.
Likewise, if her slave commits a theft, we can bring an action for theft against her.
§25.2.3.2Sed et cum uxore furti agere possibile est, si ei cui heredes simus furtum fecit, uel nobis antequam nuberet: tamen propter reuerentiam personarum in utroque casu furtiuam tantum condictionem competere, non etiam furti actionem dicimus.
But it is also possible to bring an action for theft against a wife if she committed a theft against someone whose heirs we are, or against us before she married: however, out of respect for the persons, we say that in either case only the condictio furtiva lies, and not also the action for theft.
§25.2.3.3Item uerum est quod Ofilius ait etiam eas res, quas diuortii tempore mulier comederit uendiderit donauerit qualibet ratione consumpserit, rerum amotarum iudicio contineri.
Likewise, what Ofilius says is true: that even those things which the woman at the time of the divorce has consumed, sold, given away, or in any way destroyed, are included in the action for things removed.
§25.2.3.4Si filia familias res amouerit, Mela Fulcinius aiunt de peculio dandam actionem, quia displicuit eam furti obligari: uel in ipsam ob res amotas dari actionem.
If a daughter under paternal power has removed things, Mela and Fulcinius say that an action on the peculium should be granted, because it was disapproved that she should be held liable for theft; or that an action for things removed should be granted against her herself.
sed si pater adiuncta filia de dote agat, non aliter ei dandam actionem, quam si filiam rerum amotarum iudicio in solidum et cum satisdatione defendat.
But if the father, with his daughter joined, sues for the dowry, the action should not be granted to him unless he defends his daughter in the action for things removed for the whole amount and with security.
sed mortua filia in patrem rerum amotarum actionem dari non oportere Proculus ait, nisi quatenus ex ea re pater locupletior sit
However, Proculus says that if the daughter is dead, the action for things removed ought not to be granted against the father, except to the extent that the father has become richer from that matter.

Notes

  1. §25.2.3.2cui heredes simus — The dative of the relative pronoun cui serves as the indirect object of furtum fecit. The subjunctive simus expresses a general or hypothetical assumption ('someone whose heirs we might be').
  2. §25.2.3.3quod Ofilius ait ... rerum amotarum iudicio contineri — The conjunction quod introduces a noun clause which acts as the subject of the main clause uerum est. In the following accusative with infinitive (A.C.I.) construction dependent on ait, eas res is the subject accusative of the infinitive contineri.
  3. §25.2.3.4non aliter ei dandam actionem, quam si — The phrase non aliter quam si expresses a restrictive condition ('not otherwise than if' or 'only if'). Dandam is a gerundive with [esse] understood, expressing necessity or propriety, meaning 'the action should not be granted'.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §25.2.3.pr-25.2.3.4. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:25.2.3.pr-25.2.3.4

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.