Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §3.6.1.pr-3.6.1.4

Action for Money Received for Vexatious Litigation

Passage 621 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

This passage discusses the limitation period and penalties of the action on the facts against acceptances of money for vexatious litigation, and explores the non-applicability of imperial constitutions and actions in cases of compromise.

[ULPIANUS libro decimo ad edictum. ] §3.6.1.prIn eum qui, ut calumniae causa negotium faceret uel non faceret, pecuniam accepisse dicetur, intra annum in quadruplum eius pecuniae, quam accepisse dicetur, post annum simpli in factum actio competit.
Against a person who is said to have accepted money in order to perform or not to perform some legal act for the purpose of vexatious litigation, an action on the facts is available within a year for fourfold the amount of the money he is said to have accepted, and after a year for the single value.
§3.6.1.1Hoc autem iudicium non solum in pecuniariis causis, sed et ad publica crimina pertinere Pomponius scribit, maxime cum et lege repetundarum teneatur, qui ob negotium faciendum aut non faciendum per calumniam pecuniam accepit.
Pomponius writes, however, that this action pertains not only to pecuniary cases but also to public crimes, especially since a person who has accepted money through vexatious litigation for performing or not performing some legal act is also held liable under the law on extortion.
§3.6.1.2Qui autem accepit pecuniam siue ante iudicium siue post iudicium acceptum, tenetur.
But he who accepted the money is liable, whether it was accepted before the acceptance of the trial or after the acceptance of the trial.
§3.6.1.3Sed et constitutio imperatoris nostri, quae scripta est ad Cassium Sabinum, prohibuit iudici uel aduersario in publicis uel priuatis uel fiscalibus causis pecuniam dare, et ex hac causa litem perire iussit.
But also the constitution of our Emperor, which was addressed to Cassius Sabinus, prohibited giving money to a judge or an adversary in public, private, or fiscal cases, and ordered that for this reason the suit should be lost.
nam tractari potest, si aduersarius non per calumniam transigendi animo accepit, an constitutio cessat? et puto cessare sicuti hoc quoque iudicium: neque enim transactionibus est interdictum, sed sordidis concussionibus.
For it can be discussed whether, if the adversary accepted it not for vexatious litigation but with the intention of compromising, the constitution ceases to apply? And I think it does cease to apply, just as this action also does; for it is not compromises that are prohibited, but sordid extortions.
§3.6.1.4Pecuniam autem accepisse dicemus etiam si aliquid pro pecunia accepimus.
Furthermore, we shall say that a person has accepted money even if we have accepted something instead of money.

Notes

  1. 3.6.1.prIn eum qui, ut calumniae causa negotium faceret uel non faceret, pecuniam accepisse dicetur — The core of the main clause is 'In eum... in factum actio competit' (an action on the facts is available against him). The antecedent 'eum' is modified by the relative clause 'qui... dicetur'. The 'ut' clause expresses purpose, meaning 'in order to perform or not to perform a legal transaction for the sake of calumny (vexatious litigation)'. 'eius pecuniae' is a genitive dependent on 'in quadruplum'.
  2. 3.6.1.2siue ante iudicium siue post iudicium acceptum — 'iudicium acceptum' is the passive perfect participle of the Roman legal technical phrase 'iudicium accipere' (to accept a trial, i.e., to reach the joinder of issue, 'litis contestatio'). Therefore, it refers to the legal stages 'whether before the acceptance of the trial or after the acceptance of the trial', rather than just 'before or after a judgment'. The participle 'acceptum' agrees with the neuter noun 'iudicium'.
  3. 3.6.1.3an constitutio cessat — The indicative present 'cessat' is used after 'an' introducing an indirect question. This reflects a common tendency in late classical juristic Latin where the indicative is employed in indirect questions. The verb 'cessare' is used in the legal sense of 'to cease to apply' or 'to remain inoperative'.
  4. 3.6.1.3sicuti hoc quoque iudicium — 'hoc quoque iudicium' is placed as the subject of the omitted verb 'cessat' (just as this action also ceases to apply). It implies that, just as this action (on the facts for vexatious litigation) is inoperative in the case of an intention to compromise, so too is the imperial constitution. It establishes a parallel exclusion of compromises from both remedies.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §3.6.1.pr-3.6.1.4. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:3.6.1.pr-3.6.1.4

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.