[ULPIANUS libro septuagensimo sexto ad edictum. ] §44.4.4.prApud Celsum quaeritur, si, cum Titio mandassent creditores hereditarii, ut adiret hereditatem, unus non mandasset decipiendi eius causa, mandaturus alioquin, si non foret hic aditurus, deinde agat, an exceptione repellatur: et ait Celsus doli eum exceptione repellendum.
[ULPIANUS, from the seventy-sixth book on the Edict.] In Celsus, the question is raised: if, when the estate creditors had mandated Titius to enter upon the inheritance, one of them did not give the mandate for the purpose of deceiving him (though he would otherwise have mandated if Titius had not been going to enter upon it), and subsequently that one creditor should bring an action, whether he is barred by an exception. And Celsus says that he must be barred by the exception of doli.
§44.4.4.1Iulianus scribsit, si quis, cum aeger esset, centum aureos uxoris suae consobrino spopondisset, uolens scilicet eam pecuniam ad mulierem peruenire, deinde conualuerit, an exceptione uti possit, si conueniatur.
Julian writes: if someone, when he was ill, had promised one hundred aurei to his wife’s cousin, clearly wishing that money to reach his wife, and subsequently recovered, whether he can use an exception if he is sued.
et refert Labeoni placuisse doli mali uti eum posse.
And he reports that Labeo was of the opinion that he could use the exception of doli mali.
§44.4.4.2Si in arbitrum compromisserimus, deinde cum non stetissem ob aduersam ualitudinem, poena commissa est, an uti possim doli exceptione? et ait Pomponius prodesse mihi doli exceptionem.
If we have submitted a dispute to an arbiter, and then, because I did not appear owing to ill health, the penalty was incurred, can I use the exception of doli? And Pomponius says that the exception of doli benefits me.
§44.4.4.3Item quaeritur, si cum eo, a quo tibi sexaginta deberentur, compromisseris, deinde per imprudentiam poenam centum stipulatus fueris.
Likewise, the question is raised: if you have entered into an arbitration agreement with someone who owed you sixty, and then through oversight you stipulated for a penalty of one hundred.
Labeo putat conuenire officio arbitri iubere tantum tibi dari, quantum re uera debeatur, et, si non fiat, non uetare, ne quid amplius petatur: sed etiamsi id omissum fuerit, peti posse quod debetur Labeo dicit, et si forte poena petatur, doli mali exceptionem profuturam.
Labeo thinks that it is consistent with the duty of the arbiter to order that only so much be given to you as is actually owed, and, if this is not done, not to forbid that any more be sought; but Labeo says that even if this was omitted, what is owed can be sought, and if by chance the penalty is sought, the exception of doli mali will be of benefit.
§44.4.4.4Si quis pupillo soluerit sine tutoris auctoritate id quod debuit exque ea solutione locupletior factus sit pupillus, rectissime dicitur exceptionem petentibus nocere: nam et si mutuam acceperit pecuniam uel ex quo alio contractu locupletior factus sit, dandam esse exceptionem.
If anyone, without the authority of the tutor, has paid to a pupil what he owed and from that payment the pupil has been made richer, it is most correctly said that the exception prejudices the claimants; for even if the pupil received a loan of money or was enriched from any other contract, the exception must be granted.
idemque et in ceteris erit dicendum, quibus non recte soluitur: nam si facti sint locupletiores, exceptionem locum habebit.
And the same must be said in the case of other persons to whom payment is not correctly made; for if they have been made richer, the exception will take place.
§44.4.4.5Item Labeo scribit, si quis fugitiuum esse sciens emerit seruum et si stipulatus fuerit fugitiuum non esse, deinde agat ex stipulatu, non esse eum exceptione repellendum, quoniam hoc conuenit (quamuis ex empto actionem non haberet): sed, si non conuenisset, exceptione repelletur.
Likewise, Labeo writes: if someone, knowing a slave to be a runaway, has bought him, and if he stipulated that he was not a runaway, and subsequently sues on the stipulation, he is not to be barred by an exception, because this was agreed upon (although he would not have an action on purchase); but if it had not been agreed upon, he will be barred by the exception.
§44.4.4.6Quod si is, cui pecunia debeatur, cum debitore decidit et nomen eius uendidit Seio, cui debitor mandauerat, ut nomen emeret, deque ea re emptor stipulatus est, deinde creditor eam pecuniam retinet, quam per iudicem abstulit, an emptor ex stipulatu possit experiri? et Ofilius putat, si uenditor nominis paratus non sit reddere, quantum ab emptore acceperit, non nocituram exceptionem doli mali: et puto sententiam Ofilii ueram.
But if he to whom money is owed settled with the debtor and sold his claim to Seius, whom the debtor had mandated to buy the claim, and the buyer stipulated concerning this matter, and then the creditor retains that money which he recovered through a judge, can the buyer sue on the stipulation? And Ofilius thinks that if the seller of the claim is not prepared to return as much as he received from the buyer, the exception of doli mali will not prejudice the buyer; and I think the opinion of Ofilius is correct.
§44.4.4.7Labeo ait, si de homine petito secundum actorem fuerit iudicatum et iussu iudicis satisdatum sit hominem intra certum diem tradi, et, si traditus non fuisset, poenam stipulatus sit, petitorem, qui et hominem uindicat et poenam petit, exceptione esse repellendum: iniquum enim esse et hominem possidere et poenam exigere.
Labeo says that if judgment has been given in favor of the plaintiff regarding a slave claimed, and by order of the judge security was given that the slave should be delivered within a certain day, and a penalty was stipulated if he was not delivered, the claimant who both claims the slave and demands the penalty must be barred by an exception; for it is unjust both to possess the slave and to exact the penalty.
§44.4.4.8Item quaeritur, si uniones tibi pignori dedero et conuenerit, ut soluta pecunia redderentur, et hi uniones culpa tua perierint et pecuniam petas.
Likewise, the question is raised: if I have given you pearls in pledge, and it was agreed that they should be returned when the money was paid, and these pearls have perished through your fault, and you sue for the money.
exstat Neruae et Atilicini sententia dicentium ita esse excipiendum: 'si inter me et te non conuenit, ut soluta pecunia uniones mihi reddantur': sed est uerius exceptionem doli mali nocere debere.
There exists an opinion of Nerva and Atilicinus saying that the exception should be phrased thus: "unless it was agreed between me and you that the pearls should be returned to me when the money was paid"; but it is more correct that the exception of doli mali ought to prejudice you.
§44.4.4.9Si minor mihi infantem donauerit, deinde eum uindicet, exceptione doli mali repellendus est, nisi alimenta reddat et si quis alius sumptus probabilis in eum factus sit.
If a minor has donated an infant to me, and subsequently claims him back, he must be barred by the exception of doli mali, unless he refunds the cost of maintenance and any other reasonable expense incurred on him.
§44.4.4.10Praeterea sciendum est, si quis quid ex testamento contra uoluntatem petat, exceptione eum doli mali repelli solere: et ideo heres, qui non habet uoluntatem, per exceptionem doli repellitur.
Furthermore, it must be known that if anyone claims anything from a testament contrary to the testator's intention, he is usually barred by the exception of doli mali; and therefore an heir who does not have the testator's intention is barred by the exception of doli.