[ULPIANUS libro tertio decimo ad edictum. ] §4.8.11.prlitigatores ierint, mox ad eundem arbitrum redierint, praetorem non debere eum cogere inter eos disceptare, qui ei contumeliam hanc fecerunt, ut eum spernerent et ad alium irent.
[ULPIANUS libro tertio decimo ad edictum.] If litigants have gone [to another arbitrator] and shortly after returned to the same arbitrator, the praetor ought not to compel him to arbitrate between those who have done him this insult, namely, of despising him and going to another.
§4.8.11.1Arbitrum autem cogendum non esse sententiam dicere, nisi compromissum interuenerit.
An arbitrator, however, is not to be compelled to pronounce his award unless a submission to arbitration (compromissum) has been entered into.
§4.8.11.2Quod ait praetor: 'pecuniam compromissam', accipere nos debere, non si utrimque poena nummaria, sed si et alia res uice poenae, si quis arbitri sententia non steterit, promissa sit: et ita Pomponius scribit.
When the praetor says "money submitted to arbitration," we ought to understand this as applying not only if a monetary penalty is promised on both sides, but also if some other thing is promised in place of a penalty in case anyone should not abide by the arbitrator's award; and Pomponius writes to this effect.
quid ergo, si res apud arbitrum depositae sunt co pacto, ut ei daret qui uicerit, uel ut eam rem daret, si non pareatur sententiae, an cogendus sit sententiam dicere? et puto cogendum.
What then, if property is deposited with the arbitrator on the condition that he should deliver it to the winner, or deliver that property if the award is not obeyed—must he be compelled to pronounce his award? And I think he must.
tantundem et si quantitas certa ad hoc apud eum deponatur.
The same applies if a certain sum of money is deposited with him for this purpose.
proinde et si alter rem, alter pecuniam stipulanti promiserit, plenum compromissum est et cogetur sententiam dicere.
Consequently, even if one party promises property and the other money to the stipulator, there is a full submission to arbitration and he will be compelled to pronounce his award.
§4.8.11.3Interdum, ut Pomponius scribit, recte nudo pacto fiet compromissum, ut puta si ambo debitores fuerunt et pacti sunt, ne petat quod sibi debetur qui sententiae arbitri non paruit.
Sometimes, as Pomponius writes, a submission to arbitration is validly made by a bare pact; for example, if both were debtors and agreed that whoever does not abide by the arbitrator's award shall not claim what is owed to him.
§4.8.11.4Item Iulianus scribit non cogendum arbitrum sententiam dicere, si alter promiserit, alter non.
Likewise, Julian writes that an arbitrator is not to be compelled to pronounce his award if one party has promised and the other has not.
idem dicit, et si sub condicione fuerit poena compromissa, ueluti 'si nauis ex Asia uenerit, tot milia': non enim prius arbitrum cogendum sententiam dicere, quam condicio exstiterit: ne sit inefficax deficiente condicione.
He says the same if the penalty of the submission is subject to a condition, such as "if a ship arrives from Asia, so many thousands"; for the arbitrator is not to be compelled to pronounce his award before the condition is fulfilled, lest the award be ineffective if the condition fails.
et ita Pomponius libro trigensimo tertio ad edictum scribit.
And Pomponius writes to this effect in his thirty-third book on the Edict.