[PAULUS libro quinquagensimo nono ad edictum. ] §50.16.53.prSaepe ita comparatum est, ut coniuncta pro disiunctis accipiantur et disiuncta pro coniunctis, interdum soluta pro separatis.
[PAULUS on the Edict, book 59.] It has often been so arranged that conjunctive terms are understood as disjunctive, and disjunctive as conjunctive, and sometimes unconnected words as separate.
nam cum dicitur apud ueteres 'adgnatorum gentiliumque', pro separatione accipitur.
For when it is said among the ancients 'of agnates and gentiles', it is understood in a separate sense.
at cum dicitur 'super pecuniae tutelaeue suae', tutor separatim sine pecunia dari non potest: et cum dicimus 'quod dedi aut donaui', utraque continemus.
But when it is said 'over his property or guardianship', a tutor cannot be appointed separately without the property: and when we say 'what I gave or donated', we include both.
cum uero dicimus 'quod eum dare facere oportet', quoduis eorum sufficit probare.
On the other hand, when we say 'what he ought to give [or] to do', it suffices to prove any of them.
cum uero dicit praetor, 'si donum munus operas redemerit', si omnia imposita sunt, certum est omnia redimenda esse, ex re ergo pro coniunctis habentur: §50.16.53.1si quaedam imposita sunt, cetera non desiderabuntur.
But when the praetor says, 'if he has redeemed a gift, a present, [or] services', if all of them were imposed, it is certain that all must be redeemed, and therefore from the circumstances they are regarded as conjunctive: if only some were imposed, the others will not be required.
§50.16.53.2Item dubitatum, illa uerba 'ope consilio' quemadmodum accipienda sunt, sententiae coniungentium aut separantium.
Likewise, it has been doubted how those words 'by aid [and] counsel' are to be understood, whether according to the opinion of those who join them or of those who separate them.
sed uerius est, quod et Labeo ait, separatim accipienda, quia aliud factum est eius qui ope, aliud eius qui consilio furtum facit: sic enim alii condici potest, alii non potest.
But it is more correct, as Labeo also says, that they must be taken separately, because the act of one who commits theft by aid is one thing, and that of one who does so by counsel is another; for thus a condictio can be brought against one, but not against the other.
sane post ueterum auctoritatem eo peruentum est, ut nemo ope uideatur fecisse, nisi et consilium malignum habuerit, nec consilium habuisse noceat, nisi et factum secutum fuerit.
Indeed, after the authority of the ancients, the point has been reached that no one is deemed to have acted by aid unless he also had malicious counsel, nor does it harm to have had counsel unless the deed also followed.