[ULPIANUS libro undecimo ad edictum. ] §4.2.9.prMetum autem praesentem accipere debemus, non suspicionem inferendi eius: et ita Pomponius libro uicensimo octauo scribit.
[ULPIAN, On the Edict, book 11] We ought to understand fear as present, not the suspicion of its being brought to bear; and so Pomponius writes in his twenty-eighth book.
ait enim metum illatum accipiendum, id est si illatus est timor ab aliquo.
For he says that the fear brought to bear is to be understood, that is, if fear has been brought to bear by someone.
denique tractat, si fundum meum dereliquero audito, quod quis cum armis ueniret, an huic edicto locus sit? et refert Labeonem existimare edicto locum non esse et unde ui interdictum cessare, quoniam non uideor ui deiectus, qui deici non expectaui sed profugi.
Finally, he discusses: if I should abandon my land upon hearing that someone was coming with arms, does this edict have place? And he reports that Labeo thinks the edict has no place, and that the interdict for recovery of possession by force (unde vi) also ceases, since I do not seem to have been ejected by force, as I did not wait to be ejected but fled.
aliter atque si, posteaquam armati ingressi sunt, tunc discessi: huic enim edicto locum facere.
It is otherwise than if, after armed men entered, I then departed; for in that case he says the edict has place.
idem ait, et si forte adhibita manu in meo solo per uim aedifices, et interdictum quod ui aut clam et hoc edictum locum habere, scilicet quoniam metu patior id te facere.
He says the same also if by chance, with a band of men brought in, you build on my soil by force: both the interdict concerning what is done by force or stealth (quod vi aut clam) and this edict have place, obviously because out of fear I allow you to do this.
sed et si per uim tibi possessionem tradidero, dicit Pomponius hoc edicto locum esse.
But even if I deliver possession to you by force, Pomponius says this edict has place.
§4.2.9.1Animaduertendum autem, quod praetor hoc edicto generaliter et in rem loquitur nec adicit a quo gestum: et ideo siue singularis sit persona, quae metum intulit, uel populus uel curia uel collegium uel corpus, huic edicto locus erit.
Furthermore, it must be noted that the praetor speaks in this edict generally and in rem, and does not add by whom it was done; and therefore, whether it is an individual person who brought to bear the fear, or a people, or a senate, or a guild, or an association, or a corporation, this edict will have place.
sed licet uim factam a quocumque praetor conplectatur, eleganter tamen Pomponius ait, si quo magis te de ui hostium uel latronum uel populi tuerer uel liberarem, aliquid a te accepero uel te obligauero, non debere me hoc edicto teneri, nisi ipse hanc tibi uim summisi: ceterum si alienus sum a ui, teneri me non debere, ego enim operae potius meae mercedem accepisse uideor.
But although the praetor embraces force applied by anyone whomsoever, Pomponius nevertheless elegantly says: if, in order to protect or free you all the more from the force of enemies, bandits, or a mob, I should accept something from you or bind you to an obligation, I ought not to be held under this edict, unless I myself directed this force against you; but if I am unconnected with the force, I ought not to be held, for I seem rather to have accepted a reward for my service.
§4.2.9.2Idem Pomponius scribit quosdam bene putare etiam serui manumissionem uel aedificii depositionem, quam quis coactus fecit, ad restitutionem huius edicti porrigendam esse.
The same Pomponius writes that some rightly think that even the manumission of a slave or the demolition of a building, which someone performed under compulsion, should be extended to the restitution of this edict.
§4.2.9.3Sed quod praetor ait ratum se non habiturum, quatenus accipiendum est uideamus.
But let us see to what extent we should understand what the praetor says, that he will not hold it valid.
et quidem aut imperfecta res est, licet metus interuenerit, ut puta stipulationem numeratio non est secuta, aut perfecta, si post stipulationem et numeratio facta est aut per metum accepto debitor liberatus est uel quid simile contigerit quod negotium perficeret.
And indeed, a matter is either incomplete, although fear has intervened—as, for example, if the payment of money did not follow a stipulation—or complete, if after the stipulation payment was also made, or the debtor was released by an acceptilation through fear, or something similar happened which completed the business.
et Pomponius scribit in negotiis quidem perfectis et exceptionem interdum et actionem conpetere, in imperfectis autem solam exceptionem.
And Pomponius writes that in complete transactions both an exception and an action are sometimes available, but in incomplete ones only an exception.
sed ex facto scio, cum Campani metu cuidam illato extorsissent cautionem pollicitationis, rescriptum esse ab imperatore nostro posse eum a praetore in integrum restitutionem postulare, et praetorem me adsidente interlocutum esse, ut siue actione uellet aduersus Campanos experiri, esse propositam, siue exceptione aduersus petentes, non deesse exceptionem.
But I know from a factual case, when the Campanians, by bringing to bear fear on someone, had extorted a bond of promise, it was written in a rescript by our Emperor that he could petition the praetor for restitution in integrum, and the praetor, with me sitting as assessor, gave an interlocutory decree that if he wished to sue the Campanians by an action, it was available, or if he wished to defend by an exception against those suing him, the exception was not lacking.
ex qua constitutione colligitur, ut siue perfecta siue imperfecta res sit, et actio et exceptio detur.
From this constitution it is gathered that whether the matter is complete or incomplete, both an action and an exception are granted.
§4.2.9.4Uolenti autem datur et in rem actio et in personam rescissa acceptilatione uel alia liberatione.
Furthermore, to one who wishes, there is given both an action in rem and one in personam, after the acceptilation or other release has been rescinded.
§4.2.9.5Iulianus libro tertio digestorum putat eum, cui res metus causa tradita est, non solum reddere, uerum et de dolo repromittere debere.
Julian, in the third book of his Digests, thinks that he to whom a thing was delivered by reason of fear ought not only to return it, but also to give security against fraud (de dolo).
§4.2.9.6Licet tamen in rem actionem dandam existimemus, quia res in bonis est eius, qui uim passus est, uerum non sine ratione dicetur, si in quadruplum quis egerit, finiri in rem actionem uel contra.
However, although we think that an action in rem should be granted because the thing remains in the property of him who suffered the force, it will not be said without reason that if anyone sues for fourfold, the action in rem is terminated, or vice versa.
§4.2.9.7Ex hoc edicto restitutio talis facienda est, id est in integrum, officio iudicis, ut, si per uim res tradita est, retradatur et de dolo sicut dictum est repromittatur, ne forte deterior res sit facta.
Under this edict, such restitution must be made—that is, in integrum—by the office of the judge, so that if a thing was delivered by force, it is delivered back, and security is given against fraud as has been said, lest by chance the thing has been made worse.
et si acceptilatione liberatio interuenit, restituenda erit in pristinum statum obligatio, usque adeo, ut Iulianus scribat libro quarto digestorum, si pecunia debita fuit, quae accepta per uim facta est, nisi uel soluatur uel restituta obligatione iudicium accipiatur, quadruplo eum condemnandum.
And if a release by acceptilation has intervened, the obligation must be restored to its pristine state, to such an extent that Julian writes in the fourth book of his Digests: if money was owed, and the release of it was made through force, unless it is either paid or, with the obligation restored, the trial is accepted, he must be condemned in fourfold.
sed et si per uim stipulanti promisero, stipulatio accepto facienda erit.
But also if under force I promise to someone stipulating, the stipulation must be released by acceptilation.
sed et si usus fructus uel seruitutes amissae sunt, restituendae erunt.
Moreover, if a usufruct or servitudes have been lost, they must be restored.
§4.2.9.8Cum autem haec actio in rem sit scripta nec personam uim facientis coerceat, sed aduersus omnes restitui uelit quod metus causa factum est: non inmerito Iulianus a Marcello notatum est scribens, si fideiussor uim intulit, ut accepto liberetur, in reum non esse restituendam actionem, sed fideiussorem, nisi aduersus reum quoque actionem restituat, debere in quadruplum condemnari.
Since, however, this action is written in rem and does not coerce the person of the one applying force, but wills that whatever was done by reason of fear be restored against all persons: Julian is not without merit noted by Marcellus when writing that if a surety brought to bear force in order to be released by acceptilation, the action must not be restored against the principal debtor, but the surety, unless he also restores the action against the principal debtor, must be condemned in fourfold.
sed est uerius, quod Marcellus notat: etiam aduersus reum competere hanc actionem, cum in rem sit scripta.
But it is truer, as Marcellus notes, that this action is available even against the principal debtor, since it is written in rem.