Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §5.1.80.pr

Error in a Judge's Name and the Intent of Litigants

Passage 961 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Presents the opinion of Servius that if there is an error in the judge's name, the person whom the litigants actually intended is the judge, provided the designation was based on their agreement.

[POMPONIUS libro secundo ad Sabinum. ] §5.1.80.prSi in iudicis nomine praenomine erratum est, Seruius respondit, si ex conuentione litigatorum is iudex addictus esset, eum esse iudicem, de quo litigatores sensissent.
[POMPONIUS, in the Second Book on Sabinus.] If an error was made in the name or first name of the judge, Servius gave the opinion that, if that judge had been assigned based on the agreement of the litigants, the person whom the litigants had in mind was the judge.

Notes

  1. §5.1.80.prnomine praenomine — An asyndetic collocation referring to the 'nomen' (family name) and 'praenomen' (first name) in Roman naming conventions, collectively meaning 'the name' of the judge.
  2. §5.1.80.preum esse iudicem — The apodosis of the indirect discourse (accusative with infinitive construction) governed by the main verb `respondit`. `eum` is modified by the relative clause `de quo...`, meaning 'that person whom the litigants intended is the judge.'
  3. §5.1.80.prsensissent — Subjunctive pluperfect in the relative clause. Because the governing verb `respondit` is in the past (historical perfect), the verb in the dependent clause within indirect speech is put in the pluperfect subjunctive under the rule of sequence of tenses (consecutio temporum) to denote action prior to the main past event.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §5.1.80.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:5.1.80.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.