Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §4.3.28.pr

Perpetual Action on the Facts for Gain from Fraud

Passage 689 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

This section explains the scope of the perpetual action on the facts (actio in factum) granted against the heir and the wrongdoer himself regarding enrichment from fraud, based on the principle that no one should profit from another's loss.

[GAIUS libro quarto ad edictum prouinciale. ] §4.3.28.prItaque si accepto lata sit tibi pecunia, omnimodo cum herede tuo agetur.
[GAIUS libro quarto ad edictum prouinciale.] Therefore, if money has been entered as received to you (discharged), an action will be brought against your heir under any circumstances.
at si res tibi tradita sit, si quidem mortuo te ea res extitit, agetur cum herede tuo, si minus, non agetur.
But if a thing has been delivered to you, if indeed that thing existed at your death, an action will be brought against your heir; if not, it will not be brought.
sed utique in heredem perpetuo dabitur, quia non debet lucrari ex alieno damno.
But in any event, an action will be granted against the heir perpetually, because one ought not to profit from another's loss.
cui conueniens est, ut et in ipso, qui dolo commiserit, in id quod locupletior esset perpetuo danda sit in factum actio.
Consistent with this, an action on the facts (actio in factum) should be granted perpetually even against the very person who committed the fraud, to the extent that he was made richer.

Notes

  1. §4.3.28.prsi accepto lata sit tibi pecunia — Passive of the verb accepto ferre (to enter as received in the account book). It refers to the formal discharge of a verbal obligation (acceptilatio).
  2. §4.3.28.prsi minus — An elliptical expression meaning "if not", representing the negative alternative of the preceding conditional clause si quidem mortuo te ea res extitit (i.e., "if the thing did not exist at your death").
  3. §4.3.28.prin id quod locupletior esset — A restrictive clause with the relative pronoun quod, meaning "to the extent that he was made richer (as a result of the fraud)". The imperfect subjunctive esset is due to the sequence of tenses in the subordinate clause.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §4.3.28.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:4.3.28.pr

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.