[ULPIANUS libro septuagensimo sexto ad edictum. ] §44.4.4.11Si quis ex uncia heres sit scriptus, ex qua ducenta consequi potuit, deinde propter hoc legatum, in quo centum erant, praetulit, ne molestiis hereditariis implicaretur: an, si legatum petat, exceptione doli mali summoueatur? et ait Iulianus non esse eum summouendum.
If anyone has been written as heir to a twelfth share, from which he could have obtained two hundred, and subsequently, in order not to be entangled in the troubles of the inheritance, preferred this legacy, in which there were one hundred: if he claims the legacy, is he to be barred by the exception of doli mali? And Julian says that he must not be barred.
quod si a substituto pretium accepit uel quod pretii loco haberi posset, ne adeat hereditatem, petens legatum dolo, inquit, facere intellegetur ac per hoc doli exceptione repelletur.
But if he received a price, or what could be held in place of a price, from the substitute heir in order not to enter upon the inheritance, Julian says that in claiming the legacy he will be understood to act with dolus, and through this he will be barred by the exception of doli.
§44.4.4.12Quaesitum est, si, cum fundi usum fructum haberem, eum fundum uolente me uendideris, an uindicanti mihi usum fructum exceptio sit obicienda.
The question was raised: if, when I had the usufruct of a tract of land, you sold that land with my consent, whether the exception must be opposed to me if I claim the usufruct.
et hoc iure utimur, ut exceptio doli noceat.
And we use this rule of law, that the exception of doli prejudices.
§44.4.4.13Marcellus ait aduersus doli exceptionem non dari replicationem doli.
Marcellus says that against the exception of doli, a replicatio of doli is not granted.
Labeo quoque in eadem opinione est: ait enim iniquum esse communem malitiam petitori quidem praemio esse, ei uero, cum quo ageretur, poenae esse, cum longe aequum sit ex eo, quod perfide gestum est, actorem nihil consequi.
Labeo also is of the same opinion; for he says it is unjust that a common malice should be a reward to the claimant, but a penalty to the person with whom the action is brought, since it is far more equitable that the plaintiff obtain nothing from what has been done perfidiously.
§44.4.4.14Contra senatus consulti quoque Macedoniani exceptionem de dolo dandam replicationem ambigendum non esse eamque nocere debere etiam constitutionibus et sententiis auctorum cauetur.
On the other hand, it is provided by the imperial constitutions and the opinions of the authorities that against the exception of the Senatus Consultum Macedonianum, a replicatio of dolus must undoubtedly be granted and that it ought to prejudice.
§44.4.4.15Labeo et si ex stipulatu actio competat propter doli clausulam, tamen nocere doli exceptionem ait, si aduersus ea, inquit, factum erit: posse enim petitorem, antequam stipulatio committatur, nihil dolo malo fecisse et tunc facere cum petat: propter quod exceptionem esse necessariam.
Labeo says that even if an action on a stipulation is available because of a doli clause, nevertheless the exception of doli prejudices if, he says, something is done contrary to those terms; for the claimant, before the stipulation is committed, may have done nothing with dolus malus and may do so when he claims; on which account the exception is necessary.
§44.4.4.16Aduersus parentes patronosque neque doli exceptio neque alia quidem, quae patroni parentisue opinionem apud bonos mores suggillet, competere potest: in factum tamen erit excipiendum, ut, si forte pecunia non numerata dicatur, obiciatur exceptio pecuniae non numeratae.
Against parents and patrons, neither the exception of doli nor indeed any other exception that would damage the reputation of the patron or parent according to good morals can be available; yet an exception in factum must be opposed, so that if by chance it is said that the money was not paid, the exception of unpaid money is opposed.
nihil autem interest, utrum patronus ex suo contractu an uero ex alieno conueniatur: semper enim reuerentia ei exhibenda est tam uiuo quam defuncto.
Moreover, it makes no difference whether the patron is sued on his own contract or indeed on that of another; for reverence must always be shown to him, both while alive and when deceased.
si autem cum herede liberti patronus agat, puto excipere debere de dolo patroni heredem liberti.
But if the patron sues the heir of the freedman, I think the heir of the freedman must plead the dolus of the patron.
libertum autem de dolo patroni, etsi ab herede eius conueniatur, minime exceptionem obiecturum: namque conuenit tam uiuo quam mortuo patrono a liberto honorem exhiberi.
The freedman, however, will by no means oppose an exception concerning the dolus of the patron, even if he is sued by his heir; for it is agreed that honor must be shown by the freedman to the patron, both alive and dead.
in stipulatione plane doli clausula non erit detrahenda, quia ex doli clausula non de dolo actio intenditur, sed ex stipulatu.
Clearly, in a stipulation, the doli clause must not be removed, because from the doli clause an action de dolo is not intended, but an action on the stipulation.
§44.4.4.17In hac exceptione et de dolo serui uel alterius personae iuri nostro subiectae excipere possumus et de eorum dolo, quibus adquiritur.
In this exception, we can plead concerning the dolus of a slave or other person subject to our power, and concerning the dolus of those through whom acquisition is made.
sed de seruorum et filiorum dolo, si quidem ex peculiari eorum negotio actio intendatur, in infinitum exceptio obicienda est: si autem non ex peculiari causa, tum de eo dumtaxat excipi oportet, qui admissus sit in ipso negotio quod geritur, non etiam si postea aliquis dolus interuenisset: neque enim esse aequum serui dolum amplius domino nocere, quam in quo opera eius esset usus.
But concerning the dolus of slaves and sons, if indeed the action is brought on their peculiar business, the exception is to be opposed without limit; but if it is not on a peculiar cause, then it is proper to plead only concerning him who was admitted in the very business which is transacted, and not also if some dolus had intervened afterwards; for it is not equitable that the dolus of a slave should prejudice the master further than in what he had used his services.
§44.4.4.18Quaesitum est, an de procuratoris dolo, qui ad agendum tantum datus est, excipi possit.
The question was raised whether one can plead concerning the dolus of a procurator who was appointed only to bring the action.
et puto recte defendi, si quidem in rem suam procurator datus sit, etiam de praeterito eius dolo, hoc est si ante acceptum iudicium dolo quid fecerit, esse excipiendum, si uero non in rem suam, dolum praesentem in exceptionem conferendum.
And I think it is correctly maintained that, if indeed the procurator was appointed in rem suam, one must plead also concerning his past dolus, that is, if he did anything with dolus before the joinder of issue; but if not in rem suam, present dolus must be brought into the exception.
si autem is procurator sit, cui omnium rerum administratio concessa est, tunc de omni dolo eius excipi posse Neratius scribit.
If, however, he is a procurator to whom the administration of all affairs has been granted, then Neratius writes that one can plead concerning all his dolus.
§44.4.4.19Mandaui Titio, ut a te stipularetur, deinde Titius Seio, et stipulatus a te Seius est et iudicium edidit: ait Labeo excipiendum esse tam de meo quam et Seii dolo.
I mandated Titius to stipulate from you, then Titius mandated Seius, and Seius stipulated from you and brought the action; Labeo says that one must plead concerning both my dolus and that of Seius.