[IULIANUS libro quinquagensimo sexto digestorum. ] §46.8.22.prSi sine iudice non debitam pecuniam exegerit procurator et dominus ratam solutionem non habuerit, sed eandem pecuniam petere instituerit: fideiussores tenentur et condictio, qua procurator teneretur, si stipulatio interposita non fuisset, peremitur.
[JULIAN, Digest, Book LVI] If an agent has collected money which is not due without a judge, and the principal has not ratified the payment but has initiated a claim for the same money, the sureties are liable and the action for recovery, to which the agent would have been liable if the stipulation had not been interposed, is barred.
quotiens enim procuratori pecunia soluitur et dominus eam solutionem ratam non habet, existimo id agi, ut condictio perematur et sola actio ei, qui indebitum soluit, aduersus procuratorem ex stipulatu competat.
For whenever money is paid to an agent and the principal does not ratify that payment, I think the intention is that the action for recovery is barred and only the action from the stipulation against the agent is competent to the person who paid what was not due.
hoc amplius praestant fideiussores impensas, quae in iudicium factae fuissent.
Furthermore, the sureties make good the expenses which would have been incurred in the trial.
quod si dominus ratam habuisset, fideiussores quidem liberantur, sed ab ipso domino eadem pecunia per condictionem peti potest.
But if the principal had ratified it, the sureties are indeed released, but the same money can be claimed from the principal himself by an action for recovery.
§46.8.22.1Quod si procurator debitam domino pecuniam sine iudice exegisset, idem iuris est, hoc secus, quod, si dominus ratam rem habuisset, nulla eius pecuniae repetitio futura est.
But if the agent had collected money due to the principal without a judge, the same rule of law applies, with this difference: if the principal had ratified the transaction, there will be no recovery of that money.
§46.8.22.2Quod si procurator per iudicem non debitam pecuniam exegisset, dici potest, siue ratum dominus habuisset siue non habuisset, fideiussores non teneri, uel quia nulla res esset, quam dominus ratam habere possit, uel quia nihil stipulatoris interest ratum haberi: adficietur ergo iniuria is, qui procuratori soluit.
But if the agent had collected money not due through a judge, it can be said that, whether the principal ratified it or not, the sureties are not liable, either because there was nothing that the principal could ratify, or because it is of no concern to the stipulator that it be ratified; therefore, the person who paid the agent will suffer injury.
magis tamen est, ut, si dominus ratum non habuerit, fideiussores teneantur.
It is, however, more correct that, if the principal has not ratified it, the sureties are liable.
§46.8.22.3Quod si debitam pecuniam procurator per iudicem, cui nihil mandatum fuerit, petierit, magis est, ut in solidum fideiussores teneantur, si dominus ratum non habuerit.
But if the agent has claimed money due through a judge who was given no mandate, it is more correct that the sureties are liable in full if the principal has not ratified it.
§46.8.22.4Cum autem procurator recte petit, dominus perperam, non debet procurator praestare, ne iniuria iudicis dominus aliquid consequatur: numquam enim propter iniuriam iudicis fideiussores obligantur.
But when the agent sues rightly and the principal wrongly, the agent ought not to make provision, lest the principal obtain something by the error of the judge; for the sureties are never obligated on account of the error of the judge.
uerius tamen est hoc casu fideiussores non nisi in impensas litis teneri.
It is, however, more true that in this case the sureties are liable only for the expenses of the litigation.
§46.8.22.5MARCELLUS: si dominus ratam rem non habuerit, sed lite mota rem amiserit, nihil praeter impendia in stipulationem ratam rem deducitur.
MARCELLUS: If the principal has not ratified the transaction, but has lost the thing after litigation was commenced, nothing except the expenses is brought into the stipulation for ratification.
§46.8.22.6IULIANUS. Si procuratori eius, qui mortuus erat, sine iudice soluta fuerint legata, stipulatio committetur, nisi heres ratum habuerit, utique si debita fuerint: tunc enim non dubie interest stipulatoris ratam solutionem ab herede haberi, ne bis eadem praestet.
JULIAN. If legacies have been paid without a judge to the agent of a deceased person, the stipulation will be committed unless the heir has ratified it, especially if they were due; for then it is undoubtedly to the interest of the stipulator that the payment be ratified by the heir, lest he pay the same thing twice.
§46.8.22.7Si in stipulationem ratam rem haberi hactenus comprehensum fuerit 'Lucium Titium ratum habiturum?', cum id aperte ageretur, ut heredis ceterorumque personae, ad quos ea res pertinet, omitterentur, difficile est existimari doli clausulam committi.
If in the stipulation for ratification it was only included "that Lucius Titius will ratify it," when it was clearly intended that the persons of the heir and of others to whom the matter pertains should be omitted, it is difficult to consider that the clause against fraud is committed.
sane cum per imprudentiam hae personae omittantur, actio ex doli clausula competit.
Clearly, when these persons are omitted through oversight, an action lies under the clause against fraud.
§46.8.22.8Si procurator iudicium de hereditate ediderit, deinde dominus fundum ex ea hereditate petierit, stipulatio ratam rem haberi committetur, quia, si uerus procurator fuisset, exceptio rei iudicatae dominum summoueret.
If an agent has brought an action concerning an inheritance, and then the principal claims a tract of land from that inheritance, the stipulation for ratification will be committed, because, if he had been a true agent, the plea of res judicata would bar the principal.
plerumque autem stipulatio ratam rem haberi his casibus committetur, quibus, si uerus procurator egisset, domino aut ipso iure aut propter exceptionem actio inutilis esset.
Generally, however, the stipulation for ratification will be committed in those cases in which, if a true agent had acted, the action would be useless to the principal either by operation of law or on account of a plea.
§46.8.22.9Qui patris nomine iniuriarum agit ob eam rem, quod filius eius uerberatus pulsatusue sit, in stipulatione cogendus est filii quoque personam comprehendere, praesertim cum fieri possit, ut pater ante decedat, quam sciret procuratorem suum egisse, et ita iniuriarum actio redeat ad filium.
He who sues for injuries in the name of a father on the ground that his son has been beaten or struck, must be compelled to include the person of the son also in the stipulation, especially since it is possible that the father may die before he knows that his agent has acted, and thus the action for injuries would revert to the son.
§46.8.22.10Sed et si nepoti iniuria facta fuerit et procurator aui propter hanc causam iniuriarum aget, non solum filii, sed etiam nepotis persona comprehendenda erit in stipulatione: quid enim prohibet et patrem et filium, antequam scirent procuratorem egisse, decedere? quo casu iniquum est fideiussores non teneri nepote iniuriarum agente.
But also if an injury has been done to a grandson and the agent of the grandfather sues for injuries on this account, not only the person of the son but also that of the grandson must be included in the stipulation; for what prevents both the father and the son from dying before they know that the agent has acted? In which case it is unjust that the sureties should not be liable when the grandson sues for injuries.