[ULPIANUS libro septuagensimo sexto ad edictum. ] §44.4.4.28Si, cum legitima hereditas Gaii Seii ad te perueniret et ego essem heres institutus, persuaseris mihi per dolum malum, ne adeam hereditatem, et posteaquam ego repudiaui hereditatem, tu eam Sempronio cesseris pretio accepto isque a me petat hereditatem: exceptionem doli mali eius, qui ei cessit, non potest pati.
If, when the intestate inheritance of Gaius Seius was coming to you and I was the instituted heir, you persuaded me through dolus malus not to accept the inheritance, and after I repudiated the inheritance, you ceded it to Sempronius for a price received, and he claims the inheritance from me: he cannot be made to suffer the exception of dolus malus of the person who ceded it to him.
§44.4.4.29Si quis autem ex causa legati uindicet aut is, cui ex causa donationis res praestita est, uindicet, an de dolo exceptionem patiatur ex causa eius, in cuius locum successerit? et magis putat Pomponius summouendum: et ego puto exceptione eos esse repellendos, cum lucratiuam causam sint nancti: aliud est enim emere, aliud ex his causis succedere.
But if someone claims on the ground of a legacy, or he to whom a thing has been provided on the ground of a donation claims, whether he suffers the exception of dolus on the ground of the person to whose place he succeeded? And Pomponius rather thinks that he should be barred; and I think they ought to be repelled by the exception, since they have obtained a lucrative cause; for it is one thing to buy, another to succeed on these grounds.
§44.4.4.30Idem tractat Pomponius et in eum, qui pigneri accepit, si Seruiana uel hypothecaria actione experiatur: nam et hunc putat Pomponius summouendum, quia res ad eum qui dolo fecit reuersura est.
Pomponius discusses the same also in the case of him who received a thing in pledge, if he sues by the Servian or hypothecary action; for Pomponius thinks that this person too must be barred, because the thing is to return to him who committed the dolus.
§44.4.4.31Auctoris autem dolus, sicut diximus, emptori non obicitur.
But the dolus of a predecessor, as we have said, is not opposed to the buyer.
sed hoc in emptore solo seruabimus: item in eo, qui permutauerit uel in solutum accepit: item in similibus, qui uicem emptorum continent.
But we shall observe this not only in the case of a buyer: likewise in the case of him who has exchanged or received in lieu of payment; likewise in similar persons who hold the place of buyers.
ceterum si noxae deditus quis sit, Pomponius putat passurum exceptionem, quam ille pateretur, qui noxae dedit.
On the other hand, if someone is surrendered as noxa, Pomponius thinks that he will suffer the exception which the person who surrendered him as noxa would have suffered.
proinde ex quacumque alia causa, quae prope lucratiuam habet adquisitionem, quaesisse quis uideatur, patietur exceptionem doli ex persona eius, in cuius locum successit: sufficit enim, si is, qui pretium dedit uel uice pretii, cum sit bona fide emptor, ut non patiatur doli exceptionem ex persona auctoris, utique si ipse dolo caret.
Accordingly, from whatever other cause, which has an acquisition near to a lucrative one, someone seems to have acquired, he will suffer the exception of dolus from the person to whose place he succeeded; for it is sufficient if he who gave a price or what takes the place of a price, when he is a buyer in good faith, does not suffer the exception of dolus from the person of the predecessor, especially if he himself is free from dolus.
ceterum si ipse dolo non careat, peruenietur ad doli exceptionem et patietur de dolo suo exceptionem.
But if he himself is not free from dolus, it will come to the exception of dolus and he will suffer the exception concerning his own dolus.
§44.4.4.32Si a Titio fundum emeris qui Sempronii erat isque tibi traditus fuerit pretio soluto, deinde Titius Sempronio heres extiterit et eundem fundum Maeuio uendiderit et tradiderit: Iulianus ait aequius esse praetorem te tueri, quia et, si ipse Titius fundum a te peteret, exceptione in factum comparata uel doli mali summoueretur et, si ipse eum possideret et Publiciana peteres, aduersus excipientem 'si non suus esset' replicatione utereris, ac per hoc intellegeretur eum fundum rursum uendidisse, quem in bonis non haberet.
If you bought from Titius a land which belonged to Sempronius, and it was delivered to you upon payment of the price, and subsequently Titius became the heir of Sempronius and sold and delivered the same land to Maevius: Julian says that it is more equitable for the praetor to protect you, because, both if Titius himself claimed the land from you, he would be barred by an exception framed on the facts or by the exception of dolus malus, and if he himself possessed it and you brought the Publician action, you would use a replication against the person pleading the exception 'if it was not his own'; and through this it would be understood that he sold again a land which he did not have among his goods.
§44.4.4.33Metus causa exceptionem Cassius non proposuerat contentus doli exceptione, quae est generalis: sed utilius uisum est etiam de metu opponere exceptionem.
Cassius had not proposed the exception on the ground of fear, being content with the exception of dolus, which is general; but it seemed more useful to oppose an exception also concerning fear.
etenim distat aliquid doli exceptione, quod exceptio doli personam complectitur eius, qui dolo fecit: enimuero metus causa exceptio in rem scripta est 'si in ea re nihil metus causa factum est', ut non inspiciamus, an is qui agit metus causa fecit aliquid, sed an omnino metus causa factum est in hac re a quocumque, non tantum ab eo qui agit.
For indeed it differs somewhat from the exception of dolus, because the exception of dolus encompasses the person of him who committed the dolus; whereas the exception on the ground of fear is written in rem, "if in that matter nothing has been done on the ground of fear," so that we do not look to whether he who sues did something on the ground of fear, but whether anything at all was done on the ground of fear in this matter by anyone, not only by him who sues.
et quamuis de dolo auctoris exceptio non obiciatur, ueruntamen hoc iure utimur, ut de metu non tantum ab auctore, uerum a quocumque adhibito exceptio obici possit.
And although the exception concerning the dolus of a predecessor is not opposed, nevertheless we use this rule of law, that the exception concerning fear can be opposed, when applied not only by the predecessor, but by anyone.
§44.4.4.34Illud sciendum est hanc exceptionem de metu eum obicere debere, qui metum non a parente passus est, in cuius fuit potestate: ceterum parenti licere deteriorem condicionem liberorum in rebus peculiariis facere.
This must be known, that he ought to oppose this exception concerning fear, who did not suffer fear from a parent in whose power he was; for it is allowed for a parent to make the condition of children worse in respect of peculium.
sed si se abstinuerit hereditate paterna, succurrendum ei erit, ut alioquin succurritur.
But if he abstained from the paternal inheritance, he must be relieved, just as he is relieved in other circumstances.