Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §38.15.5.pr-38.15.5.2

Impossibility of Notice to Father and Slave Sale Time Limits

Passage 6068 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

The text discusses the exclusion of periods during which a son in power cannot inform his father from the calculation for claiming the possession of goods. It also explains how the time limit is calculated for the old and new masters when a slave of another appointed as heir is sold.

[MARCELLUS libro nono digestorum. ] §38.15.5.prCum filio familias bonorum possessio delata est, dies, quibus certiorare patrem non potest, ut uel iubeat adgnosci bonorum possessionem uel ratam habeat agnitionem bonorum possessionis, non cedunt.
[MARCELLUS, from the ninth book of the Digests.] When the possession of goods is granted to a son in power, the days on which he cannot inform his father so that he may either order the possession of goods to be accepted or ratify the acceptance of the possession of goods, do not run.
fingamus statim primo die, quo fuerit delata, adgnouisse eum bonorum possessionem, certiorare patrem, ut comprobet, non posse, non cedent dies centum: incipient autem cedere, cum certior fieri potuit.
Let us suppose that immediately on the first day on which it was granted, he accepted the possession of goods, but could not inform his father so that he might approve it; the hundred days will not run. However, they will begin to run when it became possible for him to be informed.
praeteritis autem centum diebus frustra ratum habebit.
But after the hundred days have passed, he will ratify it in vain.
§38.15.5.1Quaeri potest, si, cum posset filius petere bonorum possessionem, patre ita absente, ut certiorare eum non possit, uel etiam furente, petere neglexerit, an peti amplius non possit.
The question can be asked: if, when the son could have sought the possession of goods, the father being so absent that he could not inform him, or even being insane, he neglected to seek it, whether it can no longer be sought.
sed quid noceat non petitam bonorum possessionem, quae, si petita esset, tamen non ante adquireretur, quam pater comprobasset?
But what harm does the unsought possession of goods do, which, if it had been sought, would nevertheless not have been acquired before the father had approved it?
§38.15.5.2Si seruus alienus heres institutus uenisset, quaeritur, an posteriori domino dies bonorum possessionis petendae imputari oporteret.
If a slave of another who had been appointed heir should have been sold, the question is raised whether the days for seeking the possession of goods ought to be imputed to the subsequent master.
et placet, quantum priori domino superfuerit, ei imputari.
And it is held that whatever remained to the prior master should be imputed to him.

Notes

  1. §38.15.5.1non petitam bonorum possessionem — This is an accusative with infinitive (A.c.I.) construction with the omission of esse after petitam. It functions as the subject (meaning 'the fact that the possession of goods was not sought') of the rhetorical question quid noceat ('how would it harm?'). While noceo usually governs the dative, the accusative here is used as the subject of the A.c.I.
  2. §38.15.5.2uenisset — This is the subjunctive pluperfect of uēneo ('to be sold'), not uĕnio ('to come'). It refers to the situation where a slave of another, after being appointed heir, was sold (transferred) to another master, which is confirmed by the contrast with the subsequent posteriori domino ('the subsequent master').

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §38.15.5.pr-38.15.5.2. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:38.15.5.pr-38.15.5.2

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.