[ULPIANUS libro quinquagensimo sexto ad edictum. ] §47.8.2.15Hac actione non puto posse actorem singulorum seruorum nomine agere aduersus dominum eorum, quia sufficit dominum semel quadruplum offerre.
In this action, I do not think that the plaintiff can sue the master in the name of each individual slave, because it is sufficient for the master to offer the fourfold value once.
§47.8.2.16Ex hac actione noxae deditio non totius familiae, sed eorum tantum uel eius, qui dolo fecisse comperietur, fieri debet.
Under this action, the noxal surrender ought to be made not of the entire household, but only of those or of him who shall be found to have acted with malice.
§47.8.2.17Haec actio uolgo ui bonorum raptorum dicitur.
This action is commonly called the action for robbery.
§47.8.2.18Hac actione is demum tenetur, qui dolum malum adhibuit.
Under this action, only he who employed malice aforethought is held liable.
si quis igitur suam rem rapuit, ui quidem bonorum raptorum non tenebitur, sed aliter multabitur.
Therefore, if anyone has snatched his own property by force, he will indeed not be held liable for robbery, but he will be punished in another way.
sed et si quis fugitiuum suum, quem bona fide aliquis possidebat, rapuit, aeque hac actione non tenebitur, quia rem suam aufert.
But also if anyone has snatched by force his own runaway slave, whom someone else possessed in good faith, he will likewise not be held liable under this action, because he is taking away his own property.
quid ergo, si sibi obligatam? debebit teneri.
What then, if it was pledged to him? He ought to be held liable.
§47.8.2.19Ui bonorum raptorum actio in impuberem, qui doli mali capax non est, non dabitur: nisi seruus ipsius uel familia eius admisisse proponantur, et serui et familiae nomine noxali ui bonorum raptorum actione tenetur.
The action for robbery will not be granted against a minor who is incapable of malice aforethought, unless his own slave or his household are alleged to have committed the act, and he is held liable in the name of both the slave and the household by a noxal action for robbery.
§47.8.2.20Si publicanus pecus meum abduxerit, dum putat contra legem uectigalis aliquid a me factum: quamuis errauerit, agi tamen cum eo ui bonorum raptorum non posse Labeo ait: sane dolo caret: si tamen ideo inclusit, ne pascatur et ut fame periret, etiam utili lege Aquilia.
If a tax collector has driven off my beast, while thinking that something has been done by me contrary to the tax law, Labeo says that although he was mistaken, an action for robbery cannot be brought against him, because he certainly lacks malice; however, if he shut it up for the purpose of preventing it from feeding and so that it might die of hunger, an action will also lie under the useful Aquilian law.
§47.8.2.21Si per uim abductum pecus incluserit quis, utique ui bonorum raptorum conueniri poterit.
If anyone has shut up a beast that was carried off by force, he can certainly be sued for robbery.
§47.8.2.22In hac actione non utique spectamus rem in bonis actoris esse: siue in bonis sit siue non sit, si tamen ex bonis sit, locum haec actio habebit.
In this action, we do not necessarily look to whether the thing is among the goods of the plaintiff; whether it is among his goods or not, if nevertheless it is out of his goods, this action will have place.
quare siue commodata res sit siue locata siue etiam pignerata proponatur siue deposita apud me sic, ut intersit mea eam non auferri, siue bona fide a me possideatur, siue usum fructum in ea habeam uel quod aliud ius, ut intersit mea non rapi: dicendum est competere mihi hanc actionem, ut non dominium accipiamus, sed illud solum, quod ex bonis meis, hoc est ex substantia mea res ablata esse proponatur.
Therefore, whether the thing is supposed to be lent, or let on hire, or even pledged, or deposited with me in such a way that it is to my interest that it should not be taken away, or is possessed by me in good faith, or I have a usufruct or some other right in it, so that it is to my interest that it should not be snatched by force, it must be said that this action is available to me, so that we do not understand ownership, but only this, that the thing is alleged to be taken from my goods, that is, out of my substance.
§47.8.2.23Et generaliter dicendum est, ex quibus causis furti mihi actio competit in re clam facta, ex hisdem causis habere me hanc actionem.
And generally, it must be said that for whatever causes an action for theft is available to me in a thing done clandestinely, for those same causes I have this action.
dicet aliquis: adquin ob rem depositam furti actionem non habemus. sed ideo addidi 'si intersit nostra non esse raptam': nam et furti actionem habeo, si in re deposita culpam quoque repromissi uel pretium depositionis non quasi mercedem accepi.
Someone will say: "But indeed, we do not have an action for theft on account of a deposited thing." But for that reason I added, "if it is to our interest that it should not be snatched by force"; for I also have an action for theft if, in the case of a deposited thing, I also promised liability for fault, or received a price for the deposit, not as a wage.
§47.8.2.24Utilius dicendum est et si cesset actio furti ob rem depositam, esse tamen ui bonorum raptorum actionem, quia non minima differentia est inter eum qui clam facit et eum qui rapit, cum ille celet suum delictum, hic publicet et crimen etiam publicum admittat.
It is more useful to say that even if the action for theft fails on account of a deposited thing, there is nevertheless the action for robbery, because there is no small difference between him who acts clandestinely and him who snatches by force, since the former conceals his offense, while the latter makes it public and even commits a public crime.
si quis igitur interesse sua uel modice docebit, debet habere ui bonorum raptorum actionem.
Therefore, if anyone shows that it is to his interest even in a small degree, he ought to have the action for robbery.
§47.8.2.25Si fugitiuus meus quasdam res instruendi sui causa emerit eaeque raptae sint, quia in bonis meis hae sunt res, possum de his ui bonorum raptorum actione agere.
If my runaway slave has bought certain things for the purpose of equipping himself and these have been snatched by force, because these things are among my goods, I can sue concerning them by the action for robbery.
§47.8.2.26Rerum raptarum nomine etiam furti uel damni iniuriae uel condictione agi potest uel certe singulae res uindicari possunt.
On account of the snatched goods, action can also be brought for theft or for wrongful damage, or by a claim for restoration, or at least individual things can be vindicated.
§47.8.2.27Haec actio heredi ceterisque successoribus dabitur.
This action will be granted to the heir and other successors.
aduersus heredes autem uel ceteros successores non dabitur, quia poenalis actio in eos non datur.
But it will not be granted against heirs or other successors, because a penal action is not granted against them.
an tamen in id, quod locupletiores facti sunt, dari debeat, uideamus.
However, let us see whether it ought to be granted to the extent that they have been made richer.
et ego puto ideo praetorem non esse pollicitum in heredes in id quod ad eos peruenit, quia putauit sufficere condictionem.
And I think that the reason why the praetor did not promise it against heirs to the extent of what has come to them is that he thought the claim for restoration was sufficient.