[ULPIANUS libro septuagensimo primo ad edictum. ] §43.26.8.prQuaesitum est, si Titius me rogauerit, ut re Sempronii utatur, deinde ego Sempronium rogauero, ut concederet, et ille, dum mihi uult praestitum, concesserit.
[ULPIAN, On the Edict, book seventy-one.] It has been asked: if Titius should ask me to use a thing of Sempronius, then I should ask Sempronius to grant it, and he, wishing a favor to be done to me, should grant it.
§43.26.8.1Titius a me habet precario et ego cum eo agam interdicto de precario: Sempronius autem non aget cum eo, quia haec uerba 'ab illo precario habes' ostendunt ei demum competere interdictum, a quo quis precario rogauit, non cuius res est.
Titius holds by precarium from me, and I shall proceed against him by the interdict on precarium; Sempronius, however, will not proceed against him, because these words 'you hold by precarium from that person' show that the interdict belongs only to him from whom one requested by precarium, not to him whose thing it is.
an tamen Sempronius mecum, quasi a me rogatus, interdictum habeat? et magis est, ne habeat, quia non habeo precario, cum non mihi, sed alii impetraui.
Yet, does Sempronius have the interdict against me, as if requested by me? And it is more correct that he does not, because I do not hold by precarium, since I obtained it not for myself, but for another.
mandati tamen actionem potest aduersus me habere, quia me mandante dedit tibi: aut si quis dixerit non mandatu meo, sed magis mihi credentem hoc fecisse, dicendum est in factum dandam actionem et aduersus me.
He can, however, have an action of mandate against me, because he gave it to you on my mandate; or if anyone should say that he did this not on my mandate, but rather trusting me, it must be said that an action in factum should be granted against me too.
§43.26.8.2Quod a Titio precario quis rogauit, id etiam ab herede eius precario habere uidetur: et ita et Sabinus et Celsus scribunt eoque iure utimur.
What one requested by precarium from Titius, he is deemed to hold by precarium also from Titius' heir; and both Sabinus and Celsus write so, and we follow this rule of law.
ergo et a ceteris successoribus habere quis precario uidetur.
Therefore, one is deemed to hold by precarium also from other successors.
idem et Labeo probat et adicit, etiamsi ignoret quis heredem, tamen uideri eum ab herede precario habere.
Labeo also approves the same and adds that, even if one does not know who the heir is, he is nevertheless deemed to hold by precarium from the heir.
§43.26.8.3Illud tamen uideamus quale sit, si a me precario rogaueris et ego eam rem alienauero, an precarium duret re ad alium translata.
Let us, however, see how the matter stands if you should request of me by precarium and I should alienate that thing: does the precarium endure when the thing is transferred to another?
et magis est, ut, si ille non reuocet, posse interdicere quasi ab illo precario habeas, non quasi a me: et si passus est aliquo tempore a se precario habere, recte interdicet, quasi a se precario habeas.
And it is more correct that, if he does not revoke it, he can bring the interdict as if you held by precarium from him, not as if from me; and if he permitted you for some time to hold by precarium from him, he will rightly bring the interdict, as if you held by precarium from him.
§43.26.8.4Eum quoque precario teneri uoluit praetor, qui dolo fecit, ut habere desineret.
The praetor willed that he too should be held liable under precarium, who by dolus brought it about that he ceased to hold.
illud adnotatur, quod culpam non praestat is qui precario rogauit, sed solum dolum praestat, quamquam is, qui commodatum suscepit, non tantum dolum, sed etiam culpam praestat.
The following is noted: that he who requested by precarium is not liable for negligence, but is liable only for dolus, although he who received a commodatum is liable not only for dolus but also for negligence.
nec immerito dolum solum praestat is qui precario rogauit, cum totum ex liberalitate descendat eius qui precario concessit et satis sit, si dolus tantum praestetur.
And not without reason does he who requested by precarium answer only for dolus, since the whole matter derives from the liberality of him who granted by precarium, and it is sufficient if only dolus is answered for.
culpam tamen dolo proximam contineri quis merito dixerit.
However, one would rightly say that negligence extremely close to dolus is included.
§43.26.8.5Ex hoc interdicto restitui debet in pristinam causam: quod si non fuerit factum, condemnatio in tantum fiet, quanti interfuit actoris ei rem restitui ex eo tempore, ex quo interdictum editum est: ergo et fructus ex die interdicti editi praestabuntur.
Based on this interdict, restoration must be made to the original state; and if this has not been done, condemnation shall be made for as much as it was in the interest of the plaintiff for the thing to be restored to him, from the time when the interdict was issued. Therefore, fruits also shall be accounted for from the day the interdict was issued.
§43.26.8.6Si seruitute usus non fuit is qui precario rogauit ac per hoc amissa sit, uideamus, an interdicto teneatur.
If he who requested by precarium did not use a servitude, and through this it was lost, let us see whether he is held liable under the interdict.
ego arbitror non alias, quam si dolo fecerit.
I think not otherwise than if he did so with dolus.
§43.26.8.7Et generaliter erit dicendum in restitutionem uenire dolum et culpam latam dumtaxat, cetera non uenire.
And generally, it must be said that only dolus and gross negligence come into the restoration, and other things do not.
plane post interdictum editum oportebit et dolum et culpam et omnem causam uenire: nam ubi moram quis fecit precario, omnem causam debebit constituere.
To be sure, after the interdict has been issued, it will be necessary that both dolus and negligence and the entire case come into it; for when one has committed default regarding a precarium, he must restore the entire case.
§43.26.8.8Interdictum hoc et post annum competere Labeo scribit eoque iure utimur: cum enim nonnumquam in longum tempus precarium concedatur, absurdum est dicere interdictum locum non habere post annum.
Labeo writes that this interdict is available even after a year, and we follow this rule of law; for since a precarium is sometimes granted for a long period, it is absurd to say that the interdict has no place after a year.
§43.26.8.9Hoc interdicto heres eius qui precario rogauit tenetur quemadmodum ipse, ut, siue habet siue dolo fecit quo minus haberet uel ad se perueniret, teneatur: ex dolo autem defuncti hactenus, quatenus ad eum peruenit.
By this interdict, the heir of him who requested by precarium is held liable in the same manner as the deceased himself, so that he is held liable whether he holds the thing or has acted with dolus so that he should not hold it or that it should not come to him; but for the dolus of the deceased, only to the extent that it has come to him.