[ULPIANUS libro decimo ad edictum. ] §3.5.7.prSi autem is fuit qui negotia administrauit a quo mandatum non exigebatur, posse ei imputari, cur oblata de rato cautione eum non conuenit: si modo facile ei fuerit satisdare.
[ULPIANUS, on the Edict, book ten] But if he who managed the affairs was a person from whom a mandate was not required, it can be imputed to him as a fault why he did not sue him by offering security for ratification; provided only that it was easy for him to give security.
certe in sua persona indubitatum est: et ideo si ex causa fuit obligatus, quae certo tempore finiebatur, et tempore liberatus est, nihilo minus negotiorum gestorum actione erit obligatus.
Certainly, with regard to his own person, this is beyond doubt; and therefore, if he was bound under a cause which was terminated within a certain time, and was released by time, he will nonetheless be liable under the action on business managed.
idem erit dicendum et in ea causa, ex qua heres non teneretur, ut Marcellus scribit.
The same must be said in that cause under which an heir would not be held liable, as Marcellus writes.
§3.5.7.1Item si fundum tuum uel ciuitatis per obreptionem petiero negotium tuum uel ciuitatis gerens et ampliores quam oportuit fructus fuero consecutus, debebo hoc ipsum tibi uel rei publicae praestare, licet petere non potuerim.
Likewise, if, while managing your business or that of a city, I should claim your land or that of the city through misrepresentation and obtain more fruits than was proper, I shall be obliged to render this very thing to you or to the municipality, even though I could not have claimed it.
§3.5.7.2Si quocumque modo ratio compensationis habita non est a iudice, potest contrario iudicio agi: quod si post examinationem reprobatae fuerint pensationes, uerius est quasi re iudicata amplius agi contrario iudicio non posse, quia exceptio rei iudicatae opponenda est.
If in any way whatever no account of set-off was taken by the judge, an action can be brought by the contrary action; but if, after examination, the set-offs were rejected, it is more correct that no further action can be brought by the contrary action, as if the matter were already adjudicated, because the exception of res iudicata must be opposed.
§3.5.7.3Iulianus libro tertio tractat, si ex duobus sociis alter me prohibuerit administrare, alter non: an aduersus eum qui non prohibuit habeam negotiorum gestorum actionem? mouetur eo, quod si data fuerit aduersus eum actio, necesse erit et eum pertingi qui uetuit: sed et illud esse iniquum eum qui non prohibuit alieno facto liberari, cum et si mutuam pecuniam alteri ex sociis prohibente socio dedissem, utique eum obligarem.
Julian discusses in his third book whether, if one of two partners has forbidden me to manage their affairs and the other has not, I have an action on business managed against the one who did not forbid me. He is moved by the consideration that if an action is granted against him, it will be necessary for the one who forbade also to be affected; but on the other hand, it is unfair that the one who did not forbid should be released by the act of another, since even if I had given a loan of money to one of the partners while the other partner forbade it, I would certainly bind him.
et puto secundum Iulianum debere dici superesse contra eum qui non prohibuit negotiorum gestorum actionem, ita tamen ut is qui prohibuit ex nulla parte neque per socium neque per ipsum aliquid damni sentiat.
And I think, following Julian, it should be said that the action on business managed survives against the one who did not forbid, provided, however, that the one who forbade suffers no loss in any part, either through his partner or through himself.