Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §45.3.11.pr

Stipulation by Common Slave for Himself or Specific Masters

Passage 7519 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Ulpian discusses the validity of a slave's stipulation made "for himself, or Primus, or Secundus (his masters)," arguing that only the addition of specific master names is void while the core stipulation remains valid for all co-owners, unlike the case where the slave stipulates only for specific masters.

[ULPIANUS libro quadragensimo octauo ad Sabinum. ] §45.3.11.prSed si sibi aut Primo aut Secundo dominis suis stipulatus sit, et hic tantundem erit probandum, quod Iulianus, inutilem esse stipulationem.
[ULPIAN, from the forty-eighth book on Sabinus.] But if a slave should stipulate for himself, or for Primus, or for Secundus, his masters, here too the same must be approved as Julian held, namely, that the stipulation is void.
sed utrum adiectio inutilis est aut tota stipulatio utilis non est? puto adiectionem solam esse inutilem: eo enim quod ait 'mihi' omnibus adquisiit ex personae? et puto uel solui eis posse, quemadmodum cum ego mihi aut Titio stipuler.
But is the addition void, or is the entire stipulation not valid? I think that the addition alone is void; for by the fact that he said "for me," he acquired for all of them from his own person. And I think that payment can even be made to them, just as when I stipulate for myself or for Titius.
cur ergo cum Primo aut Secundo dominis stipulatio non constitit nec solutio est? illa ratio est, quia non inuenimus, in cuius persona stipulatio constitit, in cuius solutio.
Why then, when he stipulates for "Primus or Secundus, his masters," does the stipulation not stand, nor is there any valid payment? The reason is that we do not find in whose person the stipulation stood, and in whose person the payment.

Notes

  1. §45.3.11.prtantundem erit probandum, quod Iulianus, inutilem esse stipulationem — The phrase "tantundem... quod Iulianus" means "the very same thing that Julian [approved/held]." The subsequent accusative with infinitive clause "inutilem esse stipulationem" stands in apposition to "tantundem," specifying its content. A verb like "probauit" or "sensit" is ellipted after "Iulianus."
  2. §45.3.11.preo enim quod ait 'mihi' — A causal adverbial phrase consisting of the ablative demonstrative pronoun "eo" and the appositive clause-introducing "quod," meaning "by the fact that..." The word "mihi" (for me) refers to the standard formula uttered by the slave in the stipulation, which establishes the acquisition of rights for all co-owners (omnibus adquisiit).
  3. §45.3.11.prin cuius solutio — A highly elliptical and parallel structure standing for "in cuius [persona] solutio [constitit]," where "persona" and "constitit" are omitted from the preceding clause. It explains that in a stipulation naming specific masters "either Primus or Secundus," we cannot determine (non inuenimus) in whose person the obligation (stipulatio) was established and in whose person the mere capacity to receive payment (solutio) was established.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §45.3.11.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:45.3.11.pr

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.