[ULPIANUS libro uicensimo sexto ad edictum. ] §5.1.61.prSolemus quidem dicere id uenire in iudicium, de quo actum est inter litigantes: sed Celsus ait periculose esse ex persona rei hoc metiri, qui semper ne condemnetur hoc dicet non conuenisse.
[ULPIANUS, on the Edict, Book XXVI.] We are, indeed, accustomed to say that what has been agreed upon between the litigants comes into judgment; but Celsus says that it is dangerous to estimate this from the person of the defendant, who, in order not to be condemned, will always say that this was not agreed upon.
quid ergo? melius est dicere id uenire in iudicium non de quo actum est ut ueniret, sed id non uenire, de quo nominatim actum est ne ueniret.
What then? It is better to say, not that that comes into judgment about which it was agreed that it should come, but that that does not come into judgment about which it was specifically agreed that it should not come.
§5.1.61.1Latrunculator de re pecuniaria iudicare non potest.
A latrunculator cannot judge in a pecuniary matter.