Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §49.1.23.pr-49.1.23.3

Agreed Judges and Grounds Restricting the Right to Appeal

Passage 8487 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Papinianus discusses the right of appeal in mutually agreed judge appointments, the invalidity of appointments made by an unauthorized procurator, the restriction on appeals by a son in power, and the forfeiture of appeal rights for those who ignore a peremptory edict.

[IDEM libro nono decimo responsorum. ] §49.1.23.prEx consensu litigantium citra compromissum a praeside prouinciae iudice dato uictus potest prouocare.
[THE SAME, On Responses, Book XIX.] By the consent of the litigants, without an arbitration agreement, if a judge is appointed by the governor of the province, the defeated party can appeal.
§49.1.23.1Cum procurator Caesaris, qui partibus praesidis non fungebatur, in lite priuatorum ius dandi iudicis non habuisset, frustra prouocatum ab ea sententia constitit, quae non tenebat.
Since the procurator of Caesar, who was not performing the duties of a governor, did not have the right to appoint a judge in a lawsuit of private individuals, it was established that the appeal was made in vain against a judgment that was not binding.
§49.1.23.2Filium familias, cum aduersus patrem eius de bonis, quae per ipsum poterant adquiri, pronuntiatum esset, respondi non nisi patris nomine potuisse prouocare.
I responded that a son in power, when a judgment had been rendered against his father regarding property which could be acquired through the son himself, could appeal only in the father's name.
§49.1.23.3Eum, qui cognouit edictum peremptorium, secundum ordinis causam dati placuit non recte prouocasse, cum in eius potestate fuerit ante diem praestitutum pro tribunali respondentem aut defensum edicti denuntiationem rumpere.
It was held that a person who had notice of a peremptory edict, issued in accordance with the course of the proceedings, did not appeal rightly, since it was within his power, before the appointed day, to break the force of the notification of the edict by answering before the tribunal or by being defended.

Notes

  1. §49.1.23.prcitra compromissum — The preposition `citra`, which classically means "on this side of", is frequently used in later and juristic Latin in the sense of `sine` ("without"). Here, `compromissum` refers to an "arbitration agreement" or "compromise" by which the parties agree to submit their dispute to an arbitrator.
  2. §49.1.23.1frustra prouocatum — This is an impersonal passive perfect infinitive (with `esse` omitted from `prouocatum esse`), meaning "that an appeal was made". The entire clause acts as the subject of the impersonal verb `constitit` ("it was established").
  3. §49.1.23.2Filium familias — This is the subject accusative of the indirect statement (accusative with infinitive construction) introduced by the verb `respondi` ("I responded"). It refers to a son in power (*filius familias*), and its governing infinitive is `potuisse prouocare`.
  4. §49.1.23.3respondentem aut defensum — Both participles are in the accusative (masculine singular) to agree with the implied subject of the infinitive `rumpere` (which refers back to `Eum` in the main clause). `respondentem` is a present active participle ("answering"), and `defensum` is a perfect passive participle ("being defended" by a representative).

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §49.1.23.pr-49.1.23.3. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:49.1.23.pr-49.1.23.3

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.