[ULPIANUS libro tertio de officio consulis. ] §42.1.15.6Si post addictum pignus aliqua controuersia emptori moueatur, an sit cognitio eiusdem iudicis, qui sententiam exsecutus fuerit, uidendum est.
If, after the pledge has been adjudged, some controversy is raised against the buyer, it must be considered whether the trial of this belongs to the same judge who executed the judgment.
et cum semel emptio perfecta sit eiusque qui comparauit periculum uertatur, non puto locum esse cognitioni: certe posteaquam inductus est emptor in possessionem, nonne cessabunt partes eorundem iudicum? idemque et si ipsi, cui quis iudicatus est, res fuerit addicta.
And since the sale is once perfected and the risk has passed to him who purchased, I do not think there is room for a trial: certainly, after the buyer has been put into possession, will not the duties of the same judges cease? And the same is true if the thing has been adjudged to the person himself in whose favor the judgment was given.
§42.1.15.7Sed si emptor, cui pignora sunt addicta exsequente iudice, pretium non soluat, utrum aduersus emptorem porrigere manus debeant idem iudices, qui sententiam exsequuntur, uidendum est.
But if the buyer, to whom the pledges have been adjudged under the execution of the judge, does not pay the price, it must be considered whether the same judges who execute the judgment ought to stretch out their hands against the buyer.
et non puto eos ultra procedere: ceterum longe res abibit.
And I do not think they should proceed further; otherwise, the matter will go too far.
quid enim dicemus? condemnabunt emptorem et sic exsequentur aduersus eum sententiam, an statim pro iudicato habebunt? et quid si neget se emisse aut exsoluisse contendat? melius igitur erit, si non se interponant, maxime cum nec habeat actionem aduersus eum is, cui iudicatum fieri desideratur.
For what shall we say? Will they condemn the buyer and thus execute the judgment against him, or will they immediately treat it as a decided matter? And what if he denies that he bought, or contends that he has paid? It will therefore be better if they do not interpose, especially since he for whom the execution of the judgment is desired has no action against him.
nec iniuria adficietur: oportet enim res captas pignori et distractas praesenti pecunia distrahi, non sic, ut post tempus pecunia soluatur.
Nor will he suffer injury: for things taken as a pledge and sold ought to be sold for ready money, not in such a way that the money is to be paid after some time.
certe si se interponant, hactenus debebunt interuenire, ut ipsam rem addictam capiant et distrahant, quasi nondum uinculo pignoris liberatam.
Certainly, if they do interpose, they ought to intervene only so far as to take and sell the adjudged thing itself, as if it were not yet released from the bond of pledge.
§42.1.15.8Sic quoque iudices exsequentur iudicatum, ut nomina iure pignoris capiant, si nihil aliud sit quod capi possit: posse enim nomen iure pignoris capi imperator noster rescripsit.
Judges will also execute a judgment in this way, namely, by taking claims by right of pledge, if there is nothing else that can be taken: for our Emperor has replied by rescript that a claim can be taken by right of pledge.
§42.1.15.9Sed utrum confessum nomen tantum capi possit an etiam si neget quis se debere, uideamus.
But let us see whether only an acknowledged claim can be taken, or also if someone denies that he owes.
et magis est, ut id dumtaxat capiatur, quod confitetur: ceterum si negetur, aequissimum erit discedi a nomine, nisi forte quis exemplum secutus corporalium pignerum ultra processerit dixeritque ipsos debere iudices de nomine cognoscere, ut cognoscunt de proprietate: sed contra rescriptum est.
And it is more correct that only that which is acknowledged should be taken: otherwise, if it is denied, it will be most equitable to depart from the claim, unless by chance someone, following the example of corporeal pledges, should go further and say that the judges themselves ought to try the question of the claim, just as they try the question of ownership; but there is a rescript to the contrary.
§42.1.15.10Item quid dicemus? utrum ipsi iudices conuenient nomen exigentque id quod debetur et in causam iudicati conuertent, an uero uendent nomen, ut pignora corporalia solent? et necesse est, ut quod eis facilius uideatur ad rem exsequendam, hoc faciant.
Likewise, what shall we say? Whether the judges themselves shall sue for the claim and demand what is owed, and turn it to the cause of the judgment, or whether they shall sell the claim, as is customary with corporeal pledges? And it is necessary that they should do whichever of these seems easier to them for executing the matter.
§42.1.15.11Sed et si pecunia penes argentarios sit, aeque capi solet.
But even if the money is in the hands of bankers, it is equally accustomed to be taken.
hoc amplius et si penes alium quem, destinata tamen ei, qui condemnatus est, solet pignoris iure capi et conuerti in causam iudicati.
Furthermore, even if it is in the hands of anyone else, but destined for him who has been condemned, it is accustomed to be taken by right of pledge and turned to the cause of the judgment.
§42.1.15.12Praeterea pecuniam quoque depositam nomine condemnati uel in arcam reclusam solent capere, ut iudicato satisfiat.
Besides, they are accustomed also to take money deposited in the name of the condemned person, or locked up in a chest, so that satisfaction may be given to the judgment.
hoc amplius et si pupillaris pecunia in arcam reposita sit ad praediorum comparationem, et citra permissum praetoris ab eo, qui exsequitur iudicatum, solet capi et in causam iudicati conuerti.
Furthermore, even if the money of a ward has been deposited in a chest for the purchase of estates, it is accustomed to be taken by him who executes the judgment, even without the permission of the praetor, and turned to the cause of the judgment.