Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §4.8.18.pr

Validity of Majority Decisions and Participation of All Judges

Passage 839 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Pomponius adduces the example where a judgment rendered by two of three judges in the absence of the third is invalid, illustrating the principle that a majority decision is ratified only when all have participated.

[POMPONIUS libro septimo decimo epistularum et uariarum lectionum. ] §4.8.18.prsicuti tribus iudicibus datis quod duo ex consensu absente tertio iudicauerunt, nihil ualet, quia id demum, quod maior pars omnium iudicauit, ratum est, cum et omnes iudicasse palam est.

[POMPONIUS in his seventeenth book of Letters and Miscellany.] Just as, when three judges have been appointed, what two have decided by agreement in the absence of the third is of no validity, because only that is ratified which the majority of all has decided, when it is also clear that all have judged.

Notes

4.8.18.prquod — A relative pronoun incorporating its antecedent, with the entire clause `quod ... iudicauerunt` acting as the subject clause of the main verb `ualet`.
4.8.18.prid demum... cum — The demonstrative pronoun `id` accompanied by the restrictive adverb `demum` ("only then," "only that") serves as the subject of the main clause, establishing a correlative relationship with the `cum`-clause indicating the condition or time ("only when ... is it ratified").
4.8.18.pret omnes iudicasse palam est — The accusative with infinitive (AcI) construction `omnes iudicasse` ("that all have judged") serves as the subject of the impersonal expression `palam est` ("it is clear"). `et` functions as an intensive adverb meaning "also" or "even."

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §4.8.18.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:4.8.18.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.