Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §3.5.20.pr-3.5.20.3

Hostage Ransom Actions and Continuation of Business After Death

Passage 592 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

In §3.5.20.pr-3, Paulus discusses the granting of an action against a former hostage who failed to return, the mutual obligations arising from hereditary management affecting even a pupillus, the necessity of continuing ongoing business after the principal's death, and the scope of liability for a third party's management acting under one's mandate.

[PAULUS libro nono ad edictum. ] §3.5.20.prNam et Seruius respondit, ut est relatum apud Alfenum libro trigensimo nono digestorum: cum a Lusitanis tres capti essent et unus ea condicione missus, uti pecuniam pro tribus adferret, et nisi redisset, ut duo pro eo quoque pecuniam darent, isque reuerti noluisset et ob hanc causam illi pro tertio quoque pecuniam soluissent: Seruius respondit aequum esse praetorem in eum reddere iudicium.
[PAULUS, On the Edict, book nine] For Servius also replied, as is reported in Alfenus, book thirty-nine of the Digests: when three had been captured by the Lusitanians, and one was released on the condition that he should bring the money for the three, and that if he did not return, the other two should also give the money for him, and he had refused to return, and for this reason they had paid the money for the third as well: Servius replied that it was equitable for the praetor to grant an action against him.
§3.5.20.1Qui negotia hereditaria gerit, quodammodo sibi hereditatem seque ei obligat: ideoque nihil refert an etiam pupillus heres existat, quia id aes alienum cum ceteris hereditariis oneribus ad eum transit.
He who manages hereditary business in a way binds the inheritance to himself and himself to it: and therefore it does not matter whether even a pupillus exists as heir, because that debt passes to him along with the other hereditary burdens.
§3.5.20.2Si uiuo Titio negotia eius administrare coepi, intermittere mortuo eo non debeo: noua tamen inchoare necesse mihi non est, uetera explicare ac conseruare necessarium est.
If, while Titius was alive, I began to administer his business, I ought not to suspend it upon his death: yet it is not necessary for me to start new matters, but it is necessary to settle and preserve the old ones.
ut accidit cum alter ex sociis mortuus est: nam quaecumque prioris negotii explicandi causa geruntur, nihilum refert, quo tempore consummentur, sed quo tempore inchoarentur.
This is just as happens when one of partners has died: for whatever is done for the sake of settling the former business, it does not matter at what time it is completed, but at what time it was begun.
§3.5.20.3Mandatu tuo negotia mea Lucius Titius gessit: quod is non recte gessit, tu mihi actione negotiorum gestorum teneris non in hoc tantum, ut actiones tuas praestes, sed etiam quod imprudenter eum elegeris, ut quidquid detrimenti neglegentia eius fecit, tu mihi praestes.
By your mandate Lucius Titius managed my business: as to what he did not manage properly, you are bound to me by the action for business management, not only to this extent, that you make available your own actions, but also because you selected him imprudently, so that whatever damage his negligence caused, you make it good to me.

Notes

  1. §3.5.20.prcum a Lusitanis tres capti essent — A circumstantial *cum* clause with subjunctive verbs (*capti essent*, *missus [esset]*, *noluisset*, *soluissent*), forming a long introductory context for the main clause *Seruius respondit*.
  2. §3.5.20.prin eum reddere iudicium — In the prepositional phrase *in eum* (against him) with the accusative, *eum* refers to the third person who was released but did not return. The subject of the infinitive *reddere iudicium* (to grant an action) is *praetorem* (the praetor) in the accusative-and-infinitive construction.
  3. §3.5.20.1sibi hereditatem seque ei obligat — This indicates a mutual obligatory relationship using the datives *sibi* (to himself) and *ei* (to it, i.e., to the inheritance *hereditatem*). It expresses the reciprocal binding of claims and debts between the manager and the inheritance.
  4. §3.5.20.3non in hoc tantum, ut actiones tuas praestes, sed etiam quod — A correlative construction indicating two distinct grounds/scopes: *non in hoc tantum, ut...* (not only to this extent, that...) followed by an *ut* clause of result or purpose, and *sed etiam quod...* (but also because...) followed by a causal *quod* clause with the subjunctive *elegeris*, showing the imprudent choice of the agent.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §3.5.20.pr-3.5.20.3. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:3.5.20.pr-3.5.20.3

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.