[IDEM libro primo responsorum. ] §50.1.36.prTitio, cum esset Romae studiorum gratia, epistula missa est a magistratibus patriae suae, ut porrigeret imperatori decretum eiusdem ciuitatis, quod erat cum ipsa epistula missum.
[THE SAME, In the First Book of Responses] When Titius was in Rome for the sake of his studies, a letter was sent to him by the magistrates of his home city, in order that he might present to the emperor a decree of the same city, which had been sent with the letter itself.
is autem, qui suscepisset litteras restituendas, collusione facta dedit Lucio Titio, qui et ipse Romae morabatur suae rei gratia: sublato Titi nomine, cui erat decretum missum, uti per ipsum daretur, suum nomen scripsit et sic imperatori decretum secundum mandata rei publicae dedit.
However, the person who had undertaken to deliver the letter, having entered into a collusion, gave it to Lucius Titius, who himself was also staying in Rome for his own business; having erased the name of Titius, to whom the decree had been sent so that it might be presented through him, Lucius Titius wrote his own name and thus presented the decree to the emperor in accordance with the mandates of the municipality.
quaero, qui uiaticum petere ab ea potuisset? et quid commisisse uidetur is, qui non restituit litteras ei, cui restituere mandatum susceperat, et is, qui sublato alieno nomine inscriptoque suo, quasi ipse iussus a patria, decretum imperatori porrexit? Herennius Modestinus respondit Titium quidem uiaticum petere non posse: sed eum qui nomen incidisset.
I ask: who could have claimed traveling expenses from the city? And what offense does he seem to have committed, who did not deliver the letter to the person to whom he had undertaken to deliver it, and he, who having erased another's name and inscribed his own, as if he himself had been ordered by his home city, presented the decree to the emperor? Herennius Modestinus answered that Titius indeed could not claim traveling expenses, nor could he who had inscribed the name.
§50.1.36.1Titius pro pecunia publica, quam ipse credidit, pignus accepit pacto facto cum debitore, ut non soluto debito sine ulla repromissione distrahatur pignus.
Titius, in respect of the public money which he himself lent, received a pledge, an agreement having been made with the debtor that, if the debt were not paid, the pledge should be sold without any warranty.
succedentes gradus in locum Titii nomen et pignus probauerunt usque ad Maeuium: ex uenditione pignoris propter repromissionem a magistratu uendentibus factam de modo fundi demonstrato satis debito factum non est.
The successive successors in the place of Titius approved the debt and the pledge down to Maevius; owing to a warranty made by the selling magistrate concerning the declared measurement of the land, the debt was not fully satisfied from the sale of the pledge.
quaerebatur, quis rei publicae tenetur.
It was asked who is liable to the municipality.
Herennius Modestinus: Titium, cum successores eius periculum nominis agnouerint, eo nomine obstrictum non esse respondi: sed nec post magistratus qui uendidisse proponuntur, cum uidelicet pluris uendiderunt propter mensurae agri demonstrationem et hoc, qua pluris uendiderunt, restituere minore modo deprehenso iussi sunt.
Herennius Modestinus: I answered that Titius is not bound on that account, since his successors acknowledged the risk of the debt; but neither are the subsequent magistrates who are proposed to have sold it, since they obviously sold it for more on account of the declaration of the measurement of the land, and, a smaller measurement having been discovered, they were ordered to restore only that by which they had sold it for more.
eum igitur, qui nouissimus nomen probauit, indemnitati rei publicae satisfacere debere, si nomen ad successorem idoneum transmisisse non doceatur.
Therefore, the one who last approved the debt must satisfy the indemnity of the municipality, if it is not shown that he transmitted the debt to a solvent successor.