[IDEM libro uicensimo octauo quaestionum. ] §46.3.95.5Quaesitum est, an ita stipulari quis possit: 'mihi aut filio meo decem dari?' uel ita: 'mihi aut patri?' sed non incommode potest adhiberi distinctio, ut filio quidem stipulante patris tunc adiciatur persona, cum stipulatio ei adquiri non possit: e contrario autem nihil prohibeat patre stipulante filii personam adici, cum totiens, quod pater filio stipulatur, sibi stipulatus intellegitur, cum ipsi sibi stipulatus non est, et in proposito manifestum est non obligationis, sed solutionis gratia filii personam adiectam.
[THE SAME, in the twenty-eighth book of Questions.] The question was asked whether anyone can stipulate thus: 'Do you promise ten to be given to me or to my son?' or thus: 'to me or to my father?' But a distinction can not inconveniently be applied: that when the son indeed stipulates, the person of the father is added only when the stipulation cannot be acquired for him; on the contrary, however, nothing prevents the person of the son from being added when the father stipulates, since as often as a father stipulates for his son, he is understood to stipulate for himself when he has not stipulated for his own self, and in the proposed case it is clear that the person of the son was added not for the sake of the obligation, but for the sake of payment.
§46.3.95.6Usum fructum mihi aut Titio dari stipulatus sum: Titio capite deminuto, facultas soluendi Titio non intercidit, quia et sic stipulari possumus: 'mihi aut Titio, cum capite minutus erit, dari?' §46.3.95.7Nam si furiosi uel pupilli persona adiecta sit, ita tutori uel curatori pecunia recte dabitur, si condicionis quoque implendae causa recte pecunia tutori uel curatori datur.
I stipulated for a usufruct to be given 'to me or to Titius.' Although Titius has suffered a change of status, the possibility of paying Titius is not lost, because we can also stipulate thus: 'to be given to me or to Titius when he shall have suffered a change of status?' For if the person of an insane person or of a pupil has been added, money will be rightly paid to the tutor or curator only if, for the purpose of fulfilling a condition, money is also rightly paid to the tutor or curator.
quod quidem Labeo et Pegasus putauerunt utilitatis causa recipiendum: idque ita recipi potest, si pecunia in rem uel pupilli uel furiosi uersa est, quomodo si domino iussus dare seruo dedisset, ut domino daret.
Indeed, Labeo and Pegasus thought that this should be accepted for the sake of utility: and it can be accepted thus only if the money has been turned to the benefit of either the pupil or the insane person, just as if one who was ordered to give to a slave had given it to the slave so that he might give it to the master.
ceterum qui seruo dare iussus est, domino dando non aliter implesse condicionem intellegendus est, quam si ex uoluntate serui dedit.
However, he who has been ordered to give to a slave is understood to have fulfilled the condition by giving to the master only if he gave it in accordance with the will of the slave.
idem respondendum est in solutione, si stipulato Sempronio sibi aut Sticho Maeuii seruo decem dari debitor Maeuio domino pecuniam soluerit.
The same must be answered in the case of payment, if Sempronius, having stipulated ten to be given 'to himself or to Stichus, the slave of Maevius,' the debtor has paid the money to the master Maevius.
§46.3.95.8Si creditor debitoris hereditatem ad se non pertinentem possedit et tantum ad eum peruenit, quantum, si quilibet alius bonorum possessor ei solueret, liberaret heredem, non potest dici fideiussores liberari: neque enim ipsum sibi soluisse pecuniam credendum est, a quo hereditas euincitur.
If a creditor has possessed an inheritance of his debtor which does not belong to him, and as much has come to him as would release the heir if any other possessor of the goods had paid it to him, it cannot be said that the sureties are released: for it must not be believed that he himself has paid money to himself, from whom the inheritance is evicted.
§46.3.95.9Dolo fecisti, quo minus possideres quod ex hereditate ad alium pertinente adprehenderas: si possessor corpus aut litis aestimationem praestitit, ea res tibi proderit, quia nihil petitoris interest: ceterum si tu ante conuentus ex praeterito dolo praestiteris, nihil ea res possessori proderit.
You have acted with fraud so that you would cease to possess what you had seized from an inheritance belonging to another: if the current possessor has provided the thing itself or the valuation of the suit, that event will benefit you, because the plaintiff has no further interest. However, if you, having been previously sued on account of your past fraud, have made the provision, that event will not benefit the possessor.
§46.3.95.10Si mandatu meo Titio pecuniam credidisses, eiusmodi contractus similis est tutori et debitori pupilli: et ideo mandatore conuento et damnato, quamquam pecunia soluta sit, non liberari debitorem ratio suadet, sed et praestare debet creditor actiones mandatori aduersus debitorem, ut ei satisfiat.
If by my mandate you had lent money to Titius, a contract of this kind is similar to that of a tutor and a debtor of the pupil: and therefore, the mandator having been sued and condemned, although the money has been paid, reason advises that the debtor is not released; but the creditor ought to provide the actions against the debtor to the mandator, so that he may be satisfied.
et hoc pertinet tutoris et pupilli debitoris nos fecisse comparationem: nam cum tutor pupillo tenetur ob id, quod debitorem eius non conuenit, neque iudicio cum altero accepto liberatur alter nec, si damnatus tutor soluerit, ea res proderit debitori: quin etiam dici solet tutelae contraria actione agendum, ut ei pupillus aduersus debitores actionibus cedat.
And this relates to our having made a comparison between a tutor and the debtor of a pupil: for when a tutor is held liable to the pupil on account of his not having sued his debtor, neither is the one released by a trial being undertaken with the other, nor, if the condemned tutor has paid, will that event benefit the debtor; indeed, it is even commonly said that one must sue by the counter-action of guardianship, so that the pupil may cede the actions against the debtors to him.
§46.3.95.11Si creditor a debitore culpa sua causa ceciderit, prope est, ut actione mandati nihil a mandatore consequi debeat, cum ipsius uitio acciderit, ne mandatori possit actionibus cedere.
If a creditor has lost his case against the debtor through his own fault, it is close to the rule that he ought to obtain nothing from the mandator by the action of mandate, since it happened by his own fault that he cannot cede the actions to the mandator.
§46.3.95.12Si inter emptorem et uenditorem conuenerit, priusquam aliquid ex alterutra parte solueretur, ut ab emptione discedatur, fideiussor eo nomine acceptus soluto contractu liberabitur.
If it has been agreed between the buyer and the seller, before anything was paid by either party, to withdraw from the sale, the surety accepted on that account will be released upon the dissolution of the contract.