Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §7.1.17.pr-7.1.17.3

Consecration and Limits on Disciplining Slaves by the Owner

Passage 1188 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

This section discusses the exceptions allowing an owner to make a place religious without the usufructuary's consent, the scope of the owner's right to discipline or surrender a slave, and the granting of a beneficial action to the usufructuary if the slave is killed.

[ULPIANUS libro octauo decimo ad Sabinum. ] §7.1.17.prLocum autem religiosum facere potest consentiente usufructuario: et hoc uerum est fauore religionis.
[ULPIAN in the eighteenth book on Sabinus.] Moreover, a person can make a place religious with the consent of the usufructuary; and this is true out of favor for religion.
sed interdum et solus proprietatis dominus locum religiosum facere potest: finge enim eum testatorem inferre, cum non esset tam oportune, ubi sepeliretur.
But sometimes even the sole owner of the property can make a place religious: for imagine that he is burying the testator when there was no other place so convenient where the testator might be buried.
§7.1.17.1Ex eo, ne deteriorem condicionem fructuarii faciat proprietarius, solet quaeri, an seruum dominus coercere possit.
From the rule that the owner must not make the condition of the usufructuary worse, it is commonly asked whether the owner can discipline a slave.
et Aristo apud Cassium notat plenissimam eum coercitionem habere, si modo sine dolo malo faciat: quamuis usufructuarius nec contrariis quidem ministeriis aut inusitatis artificium eius corrumpere possit nec seruum cicatricibus deformare.
And Aristo, in Cassius, notes that he has the fullest power of discipline, provided that he does so without malicious intent: although the usufructuary cannot corrupt the slave's skill even by contrary or unusual duties, nor disfigure the slave with scars.
§7.1.17.2Proprietarius autem et scruum noxae dedere poterit, si hoc sine dolo malo faciat, quoniam noxae deditio iure non peremit usum fructum, non magis quam usucapio proprietatis, quae post constitutum usum fructum contingit.
Furthermore, the owner will also be able to surrender the slave for damage, if he does this without malicious intent, since noxal surrender does not legally extinguish the usufruct, any more than does the usucapion of the property which occurs after the usufruct has been established.
debebit plane denegari usus fructus persecutio, si ei qui noxae accepit litis aestimatio non offeratur a fructuario.
Clearly, the pursuit of the usufruct must be denied if the valuation of the suit is not offered by the usufructuary to the person who accepted the slave in noxal surrender.
§7.1.17.3Si quis seruum occiderit, utilem actionem exemplo Aquiliae fructuario dandam numquam dubitaui.
If anyone kills a slave, I have never doubted that a beneficial action on the model of the Lex Aquilia should be granted to the usufructuary.

Notes

  1. §7.1.17.prfinge enim eum testatorem inferre — An accusative-and-infinitival construction after `finge` ("imagine"). `eum` (referring to the owner) is the subject accusative of `inferre` ("to bury"), and `testatorem` ("the testator") is its direct object.
  2. §7.1.17.1Ex eo, ne deteriorem — The prepositional phrase `Ex eo` points forward to the appositive clause introduced by `ne` (the rule "that [the owner] must not make... worse").
  3. §7.1.17.2qui noxae accepit — `noxae` is a dative referring to noxal surrender. The phrase `noxae accipere` is a technical legal expression meaning "to receive [a slave] in noxal surrender" as compensation for damage.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §7.1.17.pr-7.1.17.3. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:7.1.17.pr-7.1.17.3

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.