[IDEM libro sexagensimo ad edictum. ] §5.1.19.prHeres absens ibi defendendus est, ubi defunctus debuit, et conueniendus, si ibi inueniatur, nulloque suo proprio priuilegio excusatur.
[THE SAME, in the sixtieth book on the Edict.] An absent heir must defend himself where the deceased was bound, and must be sued there if he is found there, and he is not excused by any privilege of his own.
§5.1.19.1Si quis tutelam uel curam uel negotia uel argentariam uel quid aliud, unde obligatio oritur, certo loci administrauit: etsi ibi domicilium non habuit, ibi se debebit defendere et, si non defendat neque ibi domicilium habeat, bona possideri patietur.
If anyone has administered a guardianship, a curatorship, business affairs, banking business, or anything else from which an obligation arises, in a certain place: even if he did not have his domicile there, he will be obliged to defend himself there, and if he does not defend himself and does not have his domicile there, he will suffer his goods to be possessed.
§5.1.19.2Proinde et si merces uendidit certo loci uel disposuit uel comparauit: uidetur, nisi alio loci ut defenderet conuenit, ibidem se defendere.
Accordingly, if he has sold, disposed of, or purchased merchandise in a certain place, it is held that, unless it was agreed that he should defend himself in another place, he must defend himself in that very place.
numquid dicimus eum, qui a mercatore quid comparauit aduena, uel ei uendidit quem scit inde confestim profecturum, non oportet ibi bona possideri, sed domicilium sequi eius? at si quis ab eo qui tabernam uel officinam certo loci conductam habuit, in ea causa est ut illic conueniatur: quod magis habet rationem.
Do we say that in the case of one who purchased something from a merchant who is a stranger, or sold to one whom he knows will immediately depart thence, his goods ought not to be possessed there, but that his domicile must be followed? But if someone dealt with one who had a shop or a workshop leased in a certain place, he is in such a position that he may be sued there; which is more reasonable.
nam ubi sic uenit ut confestim discedat, quasi a uiatore emptis, uel eo qui transuehebatur, uel eo qui παραπλεῖ, emit: durissimum est, quotquot locis quis nauigans uel iter faciens delatus est, tot locis se defendi.
For where one comes in such a way that he departs immediately, and buys as if from a traveler, or one who was being carried past, or one who sails past (παραπλεῖ): it is most harsh that, in as many places as a person sailing or journeying has been carried, in so many places he should defend himself.
at si quo constitit, non dico iure domicilii, sed tabernulam pergulam horreum armarium officinam conduxit ibique distraxit egit: defendere se eo loci debebit.
But if he has established himself somewhere—I do not say by right of domicile, but has leased a small shop, a booth, a warehouse, a cupboard, or a workshop, and has sold and conducted business there—he will be obliged to defend himself in that place.
§5.1.19.3Apud Labeonem quaeritur, si homo prouincialis seruum institorem uendendarum mercium gratia Romae habeat: quod cum eo seruo contractum est, ita habendum atque si cum domino contractum sit: quare ibi se debebit defendere.
In Labeo the question is discussed: if a provincial has a slave as an agent in Rome for the purpose of selling merchandise, what is contracted with that slave is to be treated just as if it had been contracted with the master; wherefore he will be obliged to defend himself there.
§5.1.19.4Illud sciendum est eum, qui ita fuit obligatus ut in Italia solueret, si in prouincia habuit domicilium, utrubique posse conueniri et hic et ibi: et ita et Iuliano et multis aliis uidetur.
It must be known that he who was bound in such a way as to pay in Italy, if he had his domicile in a province, can be sued in both places, both here and there; and this is the opinion of both Julian and many others.