[ULPIANUS libro sexto disputationum. ] §40.1.4.prIs qui suis nummis emitur epistula diuorum fratrum ad Urbium Maximum in eam condicionem redigitur, ut libertatem adipiscatur.
[ULPIANUS, in the sixth book of Disputations.] One who is bought with his own money is placed, by a letter of the deified brothers to Urbius Maximus, in such a condition that he may obtain freedom.
§40.1.4.1Et primo quidem nummis suis non proprie uidetur emptus dici, cum suos nummos seruus habere non possit: uerum coniuentibus oculis credendum est suis nummis eum redemptum, cum non nummis eius, qui eum redemit, comparatur.
And in the first place indeed, he does not seem to be properly said to be bought with his own money, since a slave cannot have his own money; but, by winking at the matter, it must be believed that he was ransomed with his own money, when he is not purchased with the money of the one who ransomed him.
proinde siue ex peculio, quod ad uenditorem pertinet, siue ex aduenticio lucro, siue etiam amici beneficio uel liberalitate uel prorogante eo uel repromittente uel se delegante uel in se recipiente debitum redemptus sit, credendum est suis nummis eum redemptum: satis est enim, quod is, qui emptioni suum nomen accommodauerit, nihil de suo inpendit.
Accordingly, whether he is ransomed from the peculium which belongs to the seller, or from adventitious gain, or even by the kindness or liberality of a friend, whether that friend advances the money, or promises it, or delegates himself, or takes the debt upon himself, it must be believed that he was ransomed with his own money; for it is sufficient that he who lent his name to the purchase has expended nothing of his own.
§40.1.4.2Si ab ignoto emptus sit, postea autem pretium suum optulerit, dicendum erit non esse audiendum: ab initio enim hoc agi debet, ut imaginaria fieret emptio et per fidem contractus inter emptorem et seruum agatur.
If he was bought by a stranger and afterwards offered his own price, it must be said that he should not be heard; for from the beginning this must be intended, that the purchase should be imaginary and the contract conducted through good faith between the buyer and the slave.
§40.1.4.3Siue igitur non hoc ab initio esset actum, ut suis nummis redimeretur, siue hoc acto nummos seruus non dedit, cessabit libertas.
Therefore, whether this was not intended from the beginning, that he should be ransomed with his own money, or, though this was intended, the slave did not give the money, freedom will not apply.
§40.1.4.4Unde quaeri poterit, si, cum hoc ab initio esset actum, emptor festinauit et pretium numerauit, an postea ei satisfacto seruus constitutione uti possit: et puto posse.
Hence it can be asked, if, when this was intended from the beginning, the buyer hastened and paid the price, whether afterwards, upon satisfying him, the slave can avail himself of the constitution; and I think he can.
§40.1.4.5Proinde et si ei nummos prorogauit emptor, cum ei pariauerit, poterit ad libertatem peruenire.
Accordingly also, if the buyer advanced him money, when the slave has settled accounts with him, he will be able to arrive at freedom.
§40.1.4.6Siue autem exprimetur in contractu (uelut in emptione) hoc 'ut manumittatur' siue non exprimatur, uerius est libertatem competere.
Moreover, whether this "that he be manumitted" is expressed in the contract (such as in the purchase) or is not expressed, it is more true that freedom applies.
§40.1.4.7Ergo et si forte quis sic comparauerit suis nummis, ne eum manumittat, benigna est opinio dicentium hunc ad libertatem peruenire, cum et nomen emptionis imaginarius iste emptor accommodet et praeterea nihil ei absit.
Therefore, even if by chance someone has purchased him with the slave's money on the condition that he should not manumit him, kind is the opinion of those who say that he arrives at freedom, since that imaginary buyer both lends the name of purchase and besides loses nothing.
§40.1.4.8Nihil autem interest, a quo quis suis nummis ematur, a fisco uel ciuitate uel a priuato, cuiusque sit sexus is qui emit.
But it makes no difference from whom one is bought with his own money, whether from the treasury, or a city, or a private person, or what is the sex of the one who buys.
sed et si minor sit uiginti annis qui uendidit, interueniet constitutio.
But even if the seller is under twenty years of age, the constitution will apply.
nec comparantis quidem aetas spectatur: nam et si pupillus emat, aequum est eum fidem implere, cum sine damno eius hoc sit futurum.
Nor indeed is the age of the purchaser considered; for even if a ward buys, it is equitable that he fulfill the trust, since this will be without loss to him.
idem et si seruus est.
The same is true if he is a slave.
§40.1.4.9In illis sane seruis non interuenit constitutio, qui in totum perduci ad libertatem non possunt, ut puta si exportandus uel hac lege uenierit (uel testamento hanc condicionem acceperat), ne umquam manumitteretur.
Indeed, in the case of those slaves who cannot be brought to freedom at all, as for example, if he was sold to be exported, or under the condition (or had received this condition by will) that he should never be manumitted, the constitution does not apply.
§40.1.4.10Suis autem nummis redemptus etsi totum pretium non numerauit, ex operis tamen ipsius accesserit aliquid, ut repleri pretium possit, uel si quid suo merito adquisierit, dicendum est libertatem competere.
But if he who is ransomed with his own money, even though he did not pay the whole price, yet if something has been added from his own labors so that the price can be completed, or if he has acquired anything by his own merit, it must be said that freedom applies.
§40.1.4.11Quod si partem suis nummis redimeret, cum partem serui haberet, ad constitutionem non pertinebit, non magis quam qui, cum proprietatem haberet, usum fructum redemit.
But if he should redeem a part with his own money, when he had a part of the slave, it will not belong to the constitution, no more than he who, when he had the ownership, redeemed the usufruct.
§40.1.4.12Sed qui, cum fructuarius esset, proprietatem redemit, in ea condicione est, ut ad constitutionem pertineret.
But he who, when he was a usufructuary, redeemed the ownership, is in such a condition that he belongs to the constitution.
§40.1.4.13Sed et si duo seruum redemerint, alter propriis nummis, alter nummis serui, dicendum erit constitutionem cessare: nisi forte is qui propriis nummis redemit manumittere fuerit paratus.
But also if two have redeemed a slave, one with his own money, the other with the slave's money, it must be said that the constitution ceases to apply; unless by chance he who redeemed with his own money has been prepared to manumit.
§40.1.4.14Sed et si partem quis redemit, pars altera ex causa lucratiua accesserit, dicendum erit constitutionem locum habere.
But also if someone has redeemed a part, and the other part has accrued from a lucrative cause, it must be said that the constitution takes place.