Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §4.8.25.pr-4.8.25.2

Partial Arbitral Award and Adjournment of Proceedings

Passage 846 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

This passage discusses the validity of an arbitrator's decision when they adjourn the deadline after deciding only some of the matters, the limits of the adjournment clause, and the handling of guarantors in the extension of a compromise.

[ULPIANUS libro tertio decimo ad edictum. ] §4.8.25.prLabeo ait, si arbiter, cum in compromisso cautum esset, ut eadem die de omnibus sententiam diceret et ut posset diem proferre, de quibusdam rebus dicta sententia, de quibusdam non dicta diem protulit: ualere prolationem sententiaeque eius posse impune non pareri.
[ULPIANUS in his thirteenth book on the Edict.] Labeo says that if an arbitrator, although it had been provided in the compromise that he should give his decision on all matters on the same day and that he could adjourn the day, adjourned the day when a decision had been given on some matters but not on others: the adjournment is valid, and his decision can be disobeyed with impunity.
et Pomponius probat Labeonis sententiam, quod et mihi uidetur: quia officio in sententia functus non est.
And Pomponius approves of Labeo's opinion, which also seems right to me; because he did not perform his duty in his decision.
§4.8.25.1Haec autem clausula 'diem compromissi proferre' nullam aliam dat arbitro facultatem quam diem prorogandi: et ideo condicionem primi compromissi neque minuere neque immutare potest: et ideo cetera quoque discutere et pro omnibus unam sententiam ferre debebit.
Moreover, this clause 'to adjourn the day of the compromise' gives no other power to the arbitrator than that of extending the day; and therefore he cannot reduce or alter the condition of the first compromise; and therefore he will also have to examine the remaining matters and give a single decision for all of them.
§4.8.25.2Si per fideiussorem fuerit cautum in primo compromisso, et sequens similiter proferendum Labeo dicit.
If security was given by a guarantor in the first compromise, Labeo says that the subsequent one should similarly be presented with security.
sed Pomponius dubitat, utrum isdem an et aliis tam idoncis: quid enim, inquit, si idem fideiubere noluerint? sed puto, si noluerint fideiubere, tunc alios non absimiles adhibendos,
But Pomponius doubts whether it should be by the same guarantors or also by others equally suitable; for he says, "what if the same persons do not wish to act as guarantors?" But I think that if they do not wish to act as guarantors, then others who are not dissimilar should be employed.

Notes

  1. §4.8.25.prsententiaeque eius posse impune non pareri — The passive impersonal infinitive pareri is used for the intransitive verb parere (to obey), which governs the dative; thus sententiae eius is its dative complement. The whole phrase forms an infinitive clause acting as the subject of posse, meaning 'that his decision can be disobeyed with impunity' (literally, 'that it is possible for his decision not to be obeyed with impunity').
  2. §4.8.25.2sequens similiter proferendum — sequens (the subsequent one) is a substantivated neuter singular, with compromissum (compromise) understood. proferendum is a gerundive with esse omitted. The verb proferre here carries a double nuance, building on the previous 'to adjourn' while implying that the subsequent compromise should be 'extended' (or 'presented') under the same terms of security.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §4.8.25.pr-4.8.25.2. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:4.8.25.pr-4.8.25.2

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.