[ULPIANUS libro septuagensimo quinto ad edictum. ] §44.2.11.prSi mater filii impuberis defuncti ex senatus consulto bona uindicauerit idcirco, quia putabat rupto patris eius testamento neminem esse substitutum, uictaque fuerit, quia testamentum patris ruptum non erat, postea autem apertis pupillaribus tabulis apparuit non esse ei substitutum: si peteret rursus hereditatem, obstaturam exceptionem rei iudicatae Neratius ait.
[ULPIANUS, on the edict, book seventy-five.] If the mother of a deceased impuberate son claimed the property by virtue of a senatusconsultum on the ground that, thinking his father's will was ruptured, no substitute had been appointed, and was defeated because the father's will was not ruptured, but afterwards, upon the opening of the pupillary tablets, it appeared that no substitute had been appointed for him: Neratius says that if she should claim the inheritance again, the exception of res judicata will stand in her way.
ego exceptionem obesse ei rei iudicatae non dubito: sed ex causa succurrendum erit ei, quae unam tantum causam egit rupti testamenti.
I do not doubt that the exception of res judicata is a bar to her; but she, who pleaded only the single cause of the ruptured will, must be relieved on equitable grounds.
§44.2.11.1Denique et Celsus scribit, si hominem petiero, quem ob eam rem meum esse existimaui, quod mihi traditus ab alio est, cum is ex hereditaria causa meus esset, rursus petenti mihi obstaturam exceptionem.
Finally, Celsus also writes that if I claim a slave whom I believed to be mine on the ground that he was delivered to me by someone else, whereas he was mine by virtue of inheritance, the exception will stand in my way if I claim him again.
§44.2.11.2Si quis autem petat fundum suum esse eo, quod Titius eum sibi tradiderit, si postea alia ex causa petat causa adiecta, non debet submoueri exceptione.
But if anyone claims that a tract of land is his on the ground that Titius delivered it to him, and if he afterwards claims it on another ground, adding that ground, he ought not to be barred by the exception.
§44.2.11.3Item Iulianus scribit: cum ego et tu heredes Titio exstitissemus, si tu partem fundi, quem totum hereditarium dicebas, a Sempronio petieris et uictus fueris, mox eandem partem a Sempronio emero, agenti tibi mecum familiae erciscundae exceptio obstabit, quia res iudicata sit inter te et uenditorem meum: nam et si ante eandem partem petissem et agerem familiae erciscundae, obstaret exceptio 'quod res iudicata sit inter me et te'.
Likewise Julianus writes: when you and I had become heirs to Titius, if you claimed a part of a tract of land, which you said was entirely part of the inheritance, from Sempronius and were defeated, and soon after I bought the same part from Sempronius, the exception will stand in your way when you sue me for the partition of the inheritance, because there is res judicata between you and my vendor; for even if I had previously claimed the same part and were suing for the partition of the inheritance, the exception "that there is res judicata between me and you" would stand in the way.
§44.2.11.4Eandem causam facit etiam origo petitionis.
The origin of the petition also makes the same cause.
ceterum si forte petiero fundum uel hominem, mox alia causa noua post petitionem mihi accesserit, quae mihi dominium tribuat, non me repellet ista exceptio, nisi forte intermissum dominium in medio tempore rediit quodam postliminio.
But if I should happen to claim a tract of land or a slave, and soon after the petition a new cause should accrue to me which gives me ownership, this exception will not repel me, unless by chance the ownership, having been interrupted, returned in the meantime by some right of postliminium.
quid enim, si homo, quem petieram, ab hostibus fuerit captus, mox postliminio receptus? hic exceptione summouebor, quia eadem res esse intellegitur.
For what if the slave whom I had claimed was captured by enemies, and soon after recovered by postliminium? Here I shall be barred by the exception, because it is understood to be the same thing.
at si ex alia causa dominium fuerim nactus, non nocebit exceptio: et ideo si forte sub condicione res legata mihi fuerit, deinde medio tempore adquisito dominio petam, mox existente condicione legati rursus petam, putem exceptionem non obstare: alia enim causa fuit prioris dominii, haec noua nunc accessit.
But if I obtained ownership from another cause, the exception will not harm me; and therefore, if a thing should happen to be legated to me under a condition, and then, having acquired ownership in the meantime, I claim it, and soon after, the condition of the legacy being fulfilled, I claim it again, I think the exception does not stand in the way; for the cause of the prior ownership was different, and this new one has now accrued.
§44.2.11.5Itaque adquisitum quidem postea dominium aliam causam facit.
Thus, ownership acquired afterwards indeed makes another cause.
mutata autem opinio petitoris non facit.
But a change in the opinion of the claimant does not.
ut puta opinabatur ex causa hereditaria se dominium habere: mutauit opinionem et coepit putare ex causa donationis: haec res non parit petitionem nouam: nam qualecumque et undecumque dominium adquisitum habuit, uindicatione prima in iudicium deduxit.
For example, he believed that he had ownership from an hereditary cause; he changed his opinion and began to think it was from the cause of donation; this circumstance does not produce a new petition; for whatever kind of ownership he had acquired and from whatever source, he brought it into court in the first vindication.
§44.2.11.6Si quis iter petierit, deinde actum petat, puto fortius defendendum aliud uideri tunc petitum, aliud nunc, atque ideo exceptionem rei iudicatae cessare.
If anyone claims a right of way for footpaths, and then claims a right of way for beasts, I think it should be maintained more strongly that one thing was claimed then and another now, and therefore the exception of res judicata does not apply.
§44.2.11.7Hoc iure utimur, ut ex parte actoris in exceptione rei iudicatae hae personae continerentur, quae rem in iudicium deducunt: inter hos erunt procurator, cui mandatum est, tutor, curator furiosi uel pupilli, actor municipum: ex persona autem rei etiam defensor numerabitur, quia aduersus defensorem qui agit, litem in iudicium deducit.
We observe this rule of law, that on the part of the plaintiff in the exception of res judicata, those persons are included who bring the matter into court; among these will be an agent who has a mandate, a tutor, a curator of an insane person or of a pupil, and an agent of a municipality; but from the person of the defendant, a defender will also be counted, because he who sues against a defender brings the litigation into court.
§44.2.11.8Si quis hominem a filio familias petierit, deinde eundem a patre petat, locum habet haec exceptio.
If anyone claims a slave from a son in power, and then claims the same from the father, this exception has place.
§44.2.11.9Si egero cum uicino aquae pluuiae arcendae, deinde alteruter nostrum praedium uendiderit et emptor agat uel cum eo agatur, haec exceptio nocet, sed de eo opere, quod iam erat factum, cum iudicium acciperetur.
If I sue a neighbor for keeping off rainwater, and then either of us sells the estate and the buyer sues or is sued, this exception is harmful, but only concerning that work which had already been done when the joinder of issue took place.
§44.2.11.10Item si rem, quam a te petierat, Titius pignori Seio dederit, deinde Seius pigneraticia aduersus te utatur, distinguendum erit, quando pignori dedit Titius: et si quidem antequam peteret, non oportet ei nocere exceptionem: nam et ille petere debuit et ego saluam habere debeo pigneraticiam actionem.
Likewise, if Titius pledged to Seius a thing which he had claimed from you, and then Seius uses the action of pledge against you, we must distinguish when Titius gave it in pledge; and if indeed before he claimed it, the exception ought not to harm him; for both he ought to have claimed and I ought to have the action of pledge unimpaired.
sed si posteaquam petit, pignori dedit, magis est, ut noceat exceptio rei iudicatae.
But if he gave it in pledge after he claimed it, it is more correct that the exception of res judicata should harm him.