Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §37.14.16.pr-37.14.16.2

Voidness of Freedman's Alienations in Fraud of Law

Passage 5866 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Ulpian discusses the distinction between alienations that are void by operation of law because they reduce a freedman's estate below 100,000 sesterces to evade the law, and those revocable by actions, and determines the order of voidness when successive alienations occur.

[ULPIANUS libro decimo ad legem Iuliam et Papiam. ] §37.14.16.prSi libertus minorem se centenario in fraudem legis fecerit, ipso iure non ualebit id quod factum est, et ideo quasi in centenarii liberti bonis locum habebit patronus: quidquid igitur quaqua ratione alienauit, ea alienatio nullius momenti est.
[ULPIANUS, in the tenth book on the Lex Iulia et Papia.] If a freedman, in fraud of the law, has made his estate less than a hundred thousand sesterces, that which was done will not be valid by operation of law, and therefore the patron will have his place as if in the goods of a hundred-thousand freedman; whatever, therefore, he has alienated in any way, that alienation is of no effect.
plane si qua alienauerit in fraudem patroni, adhuc tamen post alienationem maior centenario remaneat, alienatio quidem uires habebit, uerumtamen per Fauianam et Caluisianam actionem reuocabuntur ea quae per fraudem sunt alienata: et ita Iulianus saepissime scribit eoque iure utimur.
Clearly, if he has alienated anything in fraud of his patron, but still remains above a hundred thousand after the alienation, the alienation will indeed have effect, but nevertheless those things which were alienated in fraud will be revoked by the Faviana and Calvisiana actions; and so Julian writes very frequently, and we follow this rule of law.
diuersitatis autem ea ratio est. quotiens in fraudem legis fit alienatio, non ualet quod actum est: in fraudem autem fit, cum quis se minorem centenario facit ad hoc, ut legis praeceptum euertat.
Now the reason for this distinction is this: whenever an alienation is made in fraud of the law, what was done is not valid; but it is done in fraud of the law when someone makes himself less than a hundred thousand for this purpose, namely, to evade the precept of the law.
at cum alienatione facta nihilo minus centenarius est, non uidetur in fraudem legis factum, sed tantum in fraudem patroni: idcirco Fauiano uel Caluisiano iudicio reuocabitur id quod alienatum est.
But when, after the alienation is made, he is nonetheless a hundred-thousand man, it does not seem to be done in fraud of the law, but only in fraud of the patron; therefore, that which was alienated will be revoked by the Faviana or Calvisiana action.
§37.14.16.1Si quis plures res simul alienando minorem se centenario fecerit, quarum una reuocata uel omnium partibus maior centenario efficitur: utrum reuocamus omnes an pro rata ex singulis, ut centenarium eum faciamus? magisque est, ut omnium rerum alienatio facta nullius momenti sit.
If someone, by alienating several things at the same time, has made himself less than a hundred thousand, and by the revocation of one of them or by parts of them all he is made greater than a hundred thousand: do we revoke all of them, or a proportional part from each, so as to make him a hundred-thousand man? It is more acceptable that the alienation made of all the things is of no effect.
§37.14.16.2Si quis plane non semel alienauerit, sed quasdam res ante, quasdam postea, alienatio earum rerum quae postea alienatae sunt ipso iure non reuocabitur, sed priorum: in posterioribus Fauianae locus erit.
If a man has clearly not alienated all at once, but some things before and some later, the alienation of those things which were alienated later will not be revoked by operation of law, but that of the earlier ones; for the later ones, there will be room for the Faviana action.

Notes

  1. 37.14.16.prminorem se centenario — The adjective centenarius is used substantively to mean 'possessing a hundred thousand sesterces'. Under the Lex Iulia et Papia, if a freedman died leaving an estate of 100,000 sesterces or more, the patron had a statutory right to a specific share of the inheritance. Thus, deliberately reducing one's estate below this threshold (minorem se centenario facere) was considered 'in fraud of the law' (in fraudem legis).
  2. 37.14.16.prin fraudem legis — 'In fraud of the law', contrasting with 'in fraud of the patron' (in fraudem patroni). An alienation that makes the freedman possess less than 100,000 sesterces to bypass the statutory threshold is void by operation of law (ipso iure non ualebit / nullius momenti est). On the other hand, if he still remains above 100,000 after the alienation, it is not in fraud of the law but only in fraud of the patron, meaning the transaction is not void ipso iure, but requires a revocatory action (actio Faviana or Calvisiana).
  3. 37.14.16.2alienatio earum rerum quae postea alienatae sunt ipso iure non reuocabitur, sed priorum — The logic of voidness when assets are alienated at different times. The earlier alienation (priorum) is the decisive act that reduced the freedman's estate below the 100,000 sesterces threshold, and is thus void by operation of law (ipso iure) as being 'in fraud of the law'. Conversely, the subsequent alienations (posterioribus), made when he was already below the 100,000 mark, cannot be said to have reduced his estate below that threshold; therefore, they are not void ipso iure, but are subject to revocation via the Faviana action as transactions in fraud of the patron.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §37.14.16.pr-37.14.16.2. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:37.14.16.pr-37.14.16.2

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.