[IDEM libro tertio decimo responsorum. ]
[THE SAME in the thirteenth book of Opinions.] A person, having acknowledged certain documents as if they were genuine, paid after the sentence of the judge.
§44.1.11.prQui adgnitis instrumentis, quasi uera essent, soluit post sententiam iudicis, quaero, si postea cognita rei ueritate et repertis falsis instrumentis accusare uelit et probare falsa esse instrumenta, ex quibus conueniebatur, cum instrumentis subscripserat ex praecepto siue interlocutione iudicis, an praescriptio ei opponi possit? cum et principalibus constitutionibus manifeste cauetur, etsi res iudicata esset ex falsis instrumentis, si postea falsa inueniantur, nec rei iudicatae praescriptionem opponi.
I ask whether, if later, the truth of the matter being known and the documents being found to be forged, he wishes to accuse and prove that the documents on the basis of which he was sued are forged, an exception can be pleaded against him, even though he had signed the documents by the order or interlocutory decree of the judge? Especially since it is clearly provided by imperial constitutions that even if a matter was decided on the basis of forged documents, if they are later found to be forged, the exception of res iudicata is not to be opposed.
Modestinus respondit ob hoc, quod per errorem solutio facta est uel cautio de soluendo interposita proponitur ex his instrumentis, quae nunc falsa dicuntur, praescriptioni locum non esse.
Modestinus replied that, because it is presented that the payment was made or security for payment was given through error on the basis of those documents which are now said to be forged, there is no room for an exception.