[IDEM libro decimo ad edictum. ] §3.5.5.9Sed si hominis liberi qui tibi bona fide seruiebat negotia gessero: si quidem putans tuum esse seruum gessi, Pomponius scribit earum rerum peculiarium causa, quae te sequi debent, tecum mihi fore negotiorum gestorum actionem, earum uero rerum, quae ipsum sequuntur, non tecum, sed cum ipso.
But if I manage the business of a free person who was serving you in good faith: if indeed I did so thinking he was your slave, Pomponius writes that, with respect to those affairs of the peculium which ought to follow you, I will have the action for business managed against you, but with respect to those affairs which follow him, not against you, but against him.
sed si liberum sciui, earum quidem rerum, quae eum sequuntur, habebo aduersus eum actionem, earum uero, quae te sequuntur, aduersus te.
But if I knew he was free, with respect to those affairs which follow him, I will have the action against him, but with respect to those which follow you, against you.
§3.5.5.10Si Titii seruum putans qui erat Sempronii, dedero pecuniam ne occideretur, ut Pomponius ait, habebo negotiorum gestorum aduersus Sempronium actionem.
If, thinking a slave belonged to Titius when he actually belonged to Sempronius, I gave money so that he would not be killed, as Pomponius says, I will have the action for business managed against Sempronius.
§3.5.5.11Item quaeritur apud Pedium libro septimo, si Titium quasi debitorem tuum extra iudicium admonuero et is mihi soluerit, cum debitor non esset, tuque postea cognoueris et ratum habueris: an negotiorum gestorum actione me possis conuenire.
Likewise, it is asked in the seventh book of Pedius, if I out-of-court dun Titius as if he were your debtor, and he pays me although he was not your debtor, and you later find out and ratify it, whether you can sue me by the action for business managed.
et ait dubitari posse, quia nullum negotium tuum gestum est, cum debitor tuus non fuerit: sed ratihabitio, inquit, fecit tuum negotium: et sicut ei a quo exactum est aduersus eum datur repetitio qui ratum habuit, ita et ipsi debebit post ratihabitionem aduersus me competere actio.
And he says it can be doubted, because no business of yours was managed, since he was not your debtor; but ratification, he says, made it your business. And just as a recovery is given to the person from whom the money was exacted against the one who ratified it, so also after the ratification the action against me must be available to you yourself.
sic ratihabitio constituet tuum negotium, quod ab initio tuum non erat, sed tua contemplatione gestum.
Thus, ratification will establish as your business that which from the beginning was not yours, but was managed out of consideration for you.
§3.5.5.12Idem ait, si Titii debitorem, cui te heredem putabam, cum esset Seius heres, conuenero similiter et exegero, mox tu ratum habueris: esse mihi aduersus te et tibi mutuam negotiorum gestorum actionem.
He says the same if, while thinking you were the heir of Titius when Seius was actually the heir, I similarly sue his debtor and exact payment, and soon you ratify it: that there is a mutual action for business managed for me against you and for you against me.
adquin alienum negotium gestum est, sed ratihabitio hoc conciliat: quae res efficit, ut tuum negotium gestum uideatur et a te hereditas peti possit.
Although indeed another's business was managed, yet ratification reconciles this; which fact brings it about that your business is seen to have been managed, and the inheritance can be claimed from you.
§3.5.5.13Quid ergo, inquit Pedius, si, cum te heredem putarem, insulam fulsero hereditariam tuque ratum habueris, an sit mihi aduersus te actio? sed non fore ait, cum hoc facto meo alter sit locupletatus et alterius re ipsa gestum negotium sit, nec possit, quod alii adquisitum est ipso gestu, hoc tuum negotium uideri.
"What then," says Pedius, "if, while thinking you were the heir, I prop up an apartment building belonging to the inheritance, and you ratify it, is there an action for me against you?" But he says there will not be, since by this act of mine another has been made wealthier, and the business was in fact managed for another, nor can that which has been acquired for another by the management itself be seen as your business.
§3.5.5.14Uideamus in persona eius, qui negotia administrat, si quaedam gessit quaedam non, contemplatione tamen eius alius ad haec non accessit, et si uir diligens (quod ab eo exigimus) etiam ea gesturus fuit: an dici debeat negotiorum gestorum cum teneri et propter ea quae non gessit? quod puto uerius.
Let us consider in the person of him who administers affairs, if he managed some and not others, yet out of consideration for him no other person approached them, and if a diligent man (which we require of him) would also have managed those things: whether it should be said that he is held liable under the action for business managed also for those things which he did not manage? Which I think is more correct.
certe si quid a se exigere debuit, procul dubio hoc ei imputabitur.
Certainly, if he ought to have exacted anything from himself, without a doubt this will be imputed to him.
quamquam enim hoc ei imputari non possit, cur alios debitores non conuenerit, quoniam conueniendi eos iudicio facultatem non habuit, qui nullam actionem intendere potuit: tamen a semet ipso cur non exegerit, ei imputabitur: et si forte non fuerit usurarium debitum, incipit esse usurarium, ut diuus Pius Flauio Longino rescripsit: nisi forte, inquit, usuras ei remiserat.
For although this cannot be imputed to him, why he did not sue other debtors, since he did not have the faculty of suing them in court, who could bring no action: yet why he did not exact from himself will be imputed to him. And if by chance it was not an interest-bearing debt, it begins to bear interest, as the deified Pius wrote in a rescript to Flavius Longinus: "unless by chance," he says, "he had remitted the interest to him."