[IDEM libro decimo ad edictum. ] §3.5.5.prItem si, cum putaui a te mihi mandatum, negotia gessi, et hic nascitur negotiorum gestorum actio cessante mandati actione.
[THE SAME, on the Edict, book 10.] Likewise if, while thinking I had a mandate from you, I managed your business, here too an action for business managed arises, since the action on mandate is unavailable.
idem est etiam, si pro te fideiussero, dum puto mihi a te mandatum esse.
The same holds true if I act as surety for you, while thinking I have a mandate from you.
§3.5.5.1Sed et si, cum putaui Titii negotia esse cum essent Sempronii, ea gessi, solus Sempronius mihi actione negotiorum gestorum tenetur.
But also if, while thinking they were the affairs of Titius when they were actually those of Sempronius, I managed them, Sempronius alone is bound to me by the action for business managed.
§3.5.5.2Iulianus libro tertio digestorum scribit, si pupilli tui negotia gessero non mandatu tuo, sed ne tutelae iudicio tenearis, negotiorum gestorum te habebo obligatum: sed et pupillum, modo si locupletior fuerit factus.
Julian writes in the third book of his Digests that if I manage the business of your ward, not by your mandate, but so that you are not held liable under the action on guardianship, I will hold you bound by the action for business managed; but also the ward, provided only that he has been made wealthier.
§3.5.5.3Item si procuratori tuo mutuam pecuniam dedero tui contemplatione, ut creditorem tuum uel pignus tuum liberet, aduersus te negotiorum gestorum habebo actionem, aduersus eum cum quo contraxi nullam.
Likewise, if I lend money to your agent out of consideration for you, in order to free your creditor or release your pledge, I will have the action for business managed against you, but none against the person with whom I contracted.
quid tamen si a procuratore tuo stipulatus sum? potest dici superesse mihi aduersus te negotiorum gestorum actionem, quia ex abundanti hanc stipulationem interposui.
What, however, if I took a stipulation from your agent? It can be said that the action for business managed against you still remains to me, because I introduced this stipulation as an extra precaution.
§3.5.5.4Si quis pecuniam uel aliam quandam rem ad me perferendam acceperit: quia meum negotium gessit, negotiorum gestorum mihi actio aduersus eum competit.
If anyone has received money or some other thing to be delivered to me, because he managed my business, the action for business managed is available to me against him.
§3.5.5.5Sed et si quis negotia mea gessit non mei contemplatione, sed sui lucri causa, Labeo scripsit suum eum potius quam meum negotium gessisse (qui enim depraedandi causa accedit, suo lucro, non meo commodo studet): sed nihilo minus, immo magis et is tenebitur negotiorum gestorum actione.
But also if someone managed my business not out of consideration for me, but for the sake of his own gain, Labeo wrote that he managed his own business rather than mine (for he who approaches for the purpose of plundering studies his own gain, not my advantage); but nevertheless, or rather all the more, he too will be held liable under the action for business managed.
ipse tamen si circa res meas aliquid impenderit, non in id quod ei abest, quia improbe ad negotia mea accessit, sed in quod ego locupletior factus sum habet contra me actionem.
However, if he himself has expended anything in connection with my property, he has an action against me, not for what he is out of pocket, because he approached my business dishonestly, but only for the amount by which I have been made wealthier.
§3.5.5.6Si quis ita simpliciter uersatus est, ut suum negotium in suis bonis quasi meum gesserit, nulla ex utroque latere nascitur actio, quia nec fides bona hoc patitur.
If anyone has acted with such simple-mindedness as to manage his own business in his own property as if it were mine, no action arises on either side, because good faith does not allow this.
quod si et suum et meum quasi meum gesserit, in meum tenebitur: nam et si cui mandauero, ut meum negotium gerat, quod mihi tecum erat commune, dicendum esse Labeo ait, si et tuum gessit sciens, negotiorum gestorum eum tibi teneri.
But if he managed both his own and mine as if they were mine, he will be liable with respect to mine; for even if I mandate someone to manage my business which I had in common with you, Labeo says it must be held that if he managed yours too, knowing it, he is bound to you by the action for business managed.
§3.5.5.7Si quis quasi seruus meus negotium meum gesserit, cum esset uel libertus uel ingenuus, dabitur negotiorum gestorum actio.
If anyone, while being either a freedman or freeborn, managed my business as if he were my slave, the action for business managed will be granted.
§3.5.5.8Sed si ego tui filii negotia gessero uel serui, uideamus, an tecum negotiorum gestorum habeam actionem.
But if I manage the business of your son or slave, let us see whether I have the action for business managed against you.
et mihi uidetur uerum, quod Labeo distinguit et Pomponius libro uicensimo sexto probat, ut si quidem contemplatione tui negotia gessi peculiaria, tu mihi tenearis: quod si amicitia filii tui uel serui, uel eorum contemplatione, aduersus patrem uel dominum de peculio dumtaxat dandam actionem.
And it seems to me to be true, as Labeo distinguishes and Pomponius approves in his twenty-sixth book, that if indeed I managed the affairs of the peculium out of consideration for you, you are liable to me; but if I did so out of friendship for your son or slave, or out of consideration for them, the action should be granted against the father or master only to the extent of the peculium.
idemque est et si sui iuris esse eos putaui.
And the same is true even if I thought they were independent.
nam et si seruum r n necessarium emero filio tuo et tu ratum habueris, nihil agitur ratihabitione eodem loco Pomponius scribit hoc adiecto, quod putat, etsi nihil sit in peculio, quoniam plus patri dominoue debetur, et in patrem dandam actionem, in quantum locupletior ex mea administratione factus sit.
For even if I buy a necessary slave (or thing) for your son, and you ratify it, nothing is effected by the ratification, Pomponius writes in the same place, adding this: that he thinks that, even if there is nothing in the peculium, because more is owed to the father or master, an action must also be given against the father, to the extent that he has been made wealthier by my administration.