[ULPIANUS libro undecimo ad edictum. ] §4.3.9.prSi quis adfirmauit minimam esse hereditatem et ita eam ab herede emit, non est de dolo actio, cum ex uendito sufficiat.
[ULPIAN, book eleven on the Edict.] If anyone has asserted that an inheritance is minimal and has thus bought it from the heir, there is no action for fraud, since the action on the sale is sufficient.
§4.3.9.1Si autem mihi persuaseris, ut repudiem hereditatem, quasi minus soluendo sit, uel ut optem seruum, quasi melior eo in familia non sit: dico de dolo dandam, si callide hoc feceris.
But if you have persuaded me to reject an inheritance, as if it were insolvent, or to choose a slave, as if there were no better one than him in the household, I say that an action for fraud must be granted if you have done this craftily.
§4.3.9.2Item si tabulae testamenti, ne de inofficioso diceretur, diu suppressae sint, mox mortuo filio prolatae, heredes filii aduersus eos qui suppresserunt et lege Cornelia et de dolo posse experiri.
Likewise, if the tablets of a will have been suppressed for a long time lest a claim of an inofficious testament be made, and produced soon after the death of the son, the heirs of the son can bring an action against those who suppressed them, both under the Cornelian Law and for fraud.
§4.3.9.3Labeo libro trigensimo septimo posteriorum scribit, si oleum tuum quasi suum defendat Titius, et tu hoc oleum deposueris apud Seium, ut is hoc uenderet et pretium seruaret, donec inter uos deiudicetur cuius oleum esset, neque Titius uelit iudicium accipere: quoniam neque mandati neque sequestraria Seium conuenire potes nondum impleta condicione depositionis, de dolo aduersus Titium agendum.
Labeo writes in the thirty-seventh book of his Posthumous Works: if Titius claims your oil as his own, and you have deposited this oil with Seius so that he might sell it and keep the price until it is decided between you whose oil it was, and Titius is unwilling to accept trial, since you can sue Seius neither by the action of mandate nor by the stakeholder's action as the condition of the deposit has not yet been fulfilled, an action for fraud must be brought against Titius.
sed Pomponius libro uicensimo septimo posse cum sequestre praescriptis uerbis actione agi, uel si is soluendo non sit, cum Titio de dolo.
But Pomponius writes in his twenty-seventh book that an action can be brought against the stakeholder by an action in prescribed words, or, if he is insolvent, against Titius for fraud.
quae distinctio uera esse uidetur.
This distinction seems to be correct.
§4.3.9.4Et si seruum pigneratum noxae mihi dederis per iudicem et sis absolutus: de dolo teneris, si apparuerit esse eum pigneri datum.
And if you have surrendered a pledged slave as noxal surrender to me through a judge, and you have been acquitted, you are liable for fraud if it appears that he had been given in pledge.
§4.3.9.4aHaec de dolo actio noxalis erit: ideo Labeo quoque libro trigensimo praetoris peregrini scribit de dolo actionem serui nomine interdum de peculio, interdum noxalem dari.
This action for fraud will be noxal; therefore Labeo also writes in the thirtieth book on the Peregrine Praetor that an action for fraud on account of a slave is granted sometimes concerning the peculium, sometimes as a noxal action.
nam si ea res est, in quam dolus commissus est, ex qua de peculio daretur actio, et nunc in peculio dandam: sin uero ea sit, ex qua noxalis, hoc quoque noxale futurum.
For if the transaction in which fraud was committed is one from which an action on the peculium would be granted, now too it must be granted concerning the peculium; but if it is one from which a noxal action is granted, this also will be noxal.
§4.3.9.5Merito causae cognitionem praetor inseruit: neque enim passim haec actio indulgenda est.
With good reason the praetor inserted an inquiry into the cause; for this action must not be granted indiscriminately.
nam ecce in primis, si modica summa sit,
For behold, in the first place, if the sum is small,