[SCAEUOLA libro quinto responsorum. ] §45.1.135.prSi ita quis promiserit: 'decem tibi dabo, qua die petieris, et eorum usuras in dies triginta', quaero, usurae utrum ex die stipulationis an ex die, qua petita sors fuerit, debeantur.
[SCAEUOLA, Opinions, book 5.] If anyone has promised as follows: 'I will give you ten on whatever day you demand it, and interest on them for thirty days,' it is asked whether the interest is due from the day of the stipulation or from the day on which the principal was demanded.
respondit secundum ea quae proponerentur ex die stipulationis deberi, nisi aliud actum manifeste probaretur.
He answered that, according to the facts set forth, it is due from the day of the stipulation, unless it is clearly proved that something else was agreed upon.
§45.1.135.1Item quaesitum est, quando pecuniam reddere debebo 'cum primum petierit'. respondit uerba quae proponerentur ex die, quo stipulatio facta esset, initium capere.
Likewise, it was asked, when I ought to return money 'as soon as he demands it.' He answered that the words set forth take effect from the day on which the stipulation was made.
§45.1.135.2Seia cauit Lucio Titio, quod mandante eo hortos emisset, cum pretium omne cum usuris ab eo recepisset, se in eum proprietatem hortorum translaturam: deinde in continenti inter utrumque conuenit, ut intra kalendas Apriles primas uniuersam summam mandator numeraret et hortos acciperet.
Seia guaranteed to Lucius Titius that, because she had purchased gardens on his mandate, she would transfer the ownership of the gardens to him when she had received the entire price with interest from him. Then, immediately thereafter, it was agreed between them both that the mandator should pay the entire sum and receive the gardens within the first of April.
quaeritur, cum ante kalendas Apriles non omne pretium cum usuris a Lucio Titio Seiae solutum sit, interposito tamen modico tempore reliquum pretium cum usuris Seiae Titius soluere paratus fuerit neque Seia accipere uoluit et usque in hodiernum per Titium non stet, quo minus reliquum solueret, an nihilo minus Lucius Titius, si Seiae uniuersam pecuniam soluere paratus sit, ex stipulatu agere possit.
It is asked whether, when the entire price with interest was not paid by Lucius Titius to Seia before the first of April, but Titius, after a moderate time had elapsed, was ready to pay the remaining price with interest to Seia, and Seia refused to accept it, and up to the present day it is not due to Titius that he did not pay the remainder, Lucius Titius, if he is ready to pay the entire sum to Seia, can nevertheless sue on the stipulation.
respondit posse, si non multo post optulisset nec mulieris quicquam propter eam moram interesset: quod omne ad iudicis cognitionem remittendum est.
He answered that he can, if he offered it not long after and the woman had no interest affected by that delay; all of which must be left to the determination of the judge.
§45.1.135.3Ea lege donatum sibi esse a Seia seruum et traditum, ut ne ad fratrem eius aut filium aut uxorem aut socrum perueniret, scripsit et haec ita stipulante Seia spopondit Titius, qui post biennium heredes reliquit Seiam et fratrem, cui ne seruiret, expressum erat: quaeritur an Seia cum fratre et coherede ex stipulatu agere possit.
Titius wrote that a slave had been donated and delivered to him by Seia on the condition that he should not come into the hands of her brother, son, wife, or mother-in-law, and Titius promised this, with Seia stipulating accordingly. Titius died after two years, leaving as heirs Seia and the brother whom it had been expressly stated the slave should not serve. It is asked whether Seia can sue her brother and co-heir on the stipulation.
respondit posse in id, quod eius interest.
He answered that she can, to the extent of her interest.
§45.1.135.4Filia, quae de inofficioso agere instituit et transegit postea cum heredibus stipulatione interposita et subiecta doli clausula, apud praefectum de falso testamento egit nec probauit: quaero, an ex doli clausula possit conueniri.
A daughter, who had begun to bring an action for an inofficious will and afterwards settled with the heirs by entering into a stipulation with an added fraud clause, brought an action before the prefect for a forged testament but did not prove it. I ask whether she can be sued on the fraud clause.
respondi nihil ad eam stipulationem id, quod postea actum proponeretur, pertinere.
He answered that what was set forth as having been done afterwards has no bearing on that stipulation.