Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §47.2.16.pr

Inadmissibility of Theft Action against Sons in Power

Passage 7877 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

This section explains that a father's inability to sue a son under his power for theft is rooted in the very nature of things—since one cannot sue oneself, one cannot sue those under one's power—rather than any positive legal prohibition.

[IDEM libro septimo ad Sabinum. ] §47.2.16.prNe cum filio familias pater furti agere possit, non iuris constitutio, sed natura rei impedimento est, quod non magis cum his, quos in potestate habemus, quam nobiscum ipsi agere possumus.
[THE SAME in the seventh book on Sabinus.] That a father cannot bring an action for theft against a son under his power is not because of a legal constitution, but is prevented by the nature of the thing, since we can no more bring an action against those whom we have in our power than against ourselves.

Notes

  1. §47.2.16.prNe cum filio familias pater furti agere possit — A `ne` clause functioning practically as a noun clause in correlation with `impedimento est` (serves as a hindrance). While such clauses of hindrance typically follow the main verb, this clause is preposed to the beginning of the sentence for topicalization.
  2. §47.2.16.prnon magis cum his ... quam nobiscum ipsi — The formula `non magis A quam B` means 'no more A than B', indicating that A (bringing an action against those in one's power) is just as impossible as B (bringing an action against oneself). The phrase `agere possumus` is elliptically omitted after `nobiscum ipsi`.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §47.2.16.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:47.2.16.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.