Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §26.8.14.pr

Absence of a Tutor and Ignorance of the Transaction

Passage 3910 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

It discusses that there is no legal difference whether a tutor was absent during a transaction, or whether he was present but ignorant of its nature.

[IDEM libro trigesimo primo digestorum. ] §26.8.14.prNon multum interest, afuerit tutor, cum negotium contraheretur, an praesens ignorauerit, quale esset quod contrahebatur.
[THE SAME, in the thirty-first book of the Digests.] It does not make much difference whether the tutor was absent when the transaction was contracted, or whether, being present, he was ignorant of the nature of what was being contracted.

Notes

  1. §26.8.14.prNon multum interest, afuerit... an... ignorauerit — The impersonal verb interest takes a disjunctive indirect question clause as its subject, using the perfect subjunctive verbs afuerit and ignorauerit.
  2. §26.8.14.prpraesens — The nominative singular adjective praesens predicatively modifies the implied subject of ignorauerit (tutor), expressing a concessive or circumstantial sense ("although present" or "being present").
  3. §26.8.14.prquale esset quod contrahebatur — An indirect question clause acting as the object of ignorauerit. The verb esset is in the imperfect subjunctive due to the sequence of tenses following the past-tense main verb ignorauerit. The pronoun quod is a relative pronoun with its antecedent implied.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §26.8.14.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:26.8.14.pr

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.