Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §6.1.58.pr

Concurrent Actions for Vindication and Theft of a Slave

Passage 1129 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Presents the actions for a defendant facing liability in both a recovery suit and a theft suit regarding a slave, explaining the judge's duties and the conditions for the defendant's discharge depending on the sequence of eviction and noxal surrender.

[PAULUS libro tertio epitomarum Alfeni digestorum. ] §6.1.58.prA quo seruus petebatur et eiusdem serui nomine cum eo furti agebatur, quaerebat, si utroque iudicio condemnatus esset, quid se facere oporteret.
[PAULUS in the third book of the Epitomes of Alfenus' Digests.]\n\nA person from whom a slave was claimed and against whom an action for theft was brought on account of the same slave, asked what he ought to do if he should be condemned in both trials.
si prius seruus ab eo euictus esset, respondit, non oportere iudicem cogere, ut eum traderet, nisi ei satisdatum esset, quod pro eo homine iudicium accepisset: si quid ob eam rem datum esset, id recte praestari.
He replied that if the slave was first evicted from him, the judge ought not to compel him to deliver him, unless security was given to him for having accepted the trial on behalf of that slave; and if anything should be paid on that account, it should be properly made good.
sed si prius de furto iudicium factum esset et hominem noxae dedisset, deinde de ipso homine secundum petitorem iudicium factum esset, non debere ob eam rem iudicem, quod hominem non traderet, litem aestimare, quoniam nihil eius culpa neque dolo contigisset, quo minus hominem traderet.
But if judgment was first given on the theft and he had surrendered the slave as noxa, and thereafter judgment was given concerning the slave himself in favor of the claimant, the judge ought not to assess the damages on the ground that he did not deliver the slave, since it was not due to any fault or fraud on his part that he did not deliver the slave.

Notes

  1. §6.1.58.priudicium accepisset — The phrase 'iudicium accipere' (to accept the trial/joinder of issue) refers to the defendant's agreement to enter into the formulary litigation during the litis contestatio. Here, it denotes the risk of being condemned to pay damages in the action for theft (actio furti) after restoring the slave to the true owner.
  2. §6.1.58.prid recte praestari — An infinitive in indirect speech (oratio obliqua), coordinate with non oportere and depending on respondit, forming the apodosis to the conditional clause si quid... datum esset.
  3. §6.1.58.prlitem aestimare — In Roman civil procedure (formulary system), as all condemnations were pecuniary even for claims of property restoration, this refers to the judge assessing the monetary value of the object and determining the damages when the defendant does not deliver it.
  4. §6.1.58.prquo minus — A conjunction used after expressions of preventing or hindering (here, nihil contigisset) to introduce a negative clause meaning 'from doing...' or 'so that... not'. The entire clause means 'nothing had happened through his fault or fraud to prevent him from delivering the slave'.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §6.1.58.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:6.1.58.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.