Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §9.4.24.pr

Fraudulent Relinquishment of Slave and Choice of Defendant

Passage 1605 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Paulus discusses whether a noxal action lies only against a master who fraudulently parted with a slave to avoid liability, or if the plaintiff has a choice to sue him even when another person (like a transferee or the manumitted slave himself) can be sued, concluding that the plaintiff indeed has this choice, while noting Julian's and Labeo's views on the manumitter's exception if the manumitted slave defends himself.

[PAULUS libro octauo decimo ad edictum. ] §9.4.24.prDe illo uidendum, utrum aduersus eum tantum, qui dolo fecit, quo minus in potestate haberet, actio locum habeat noxalis, si ex dolo eius acciderit, ut cesset noxalis actio (forte si servo suo fugam mandauit) an et si possit nihilo minus cum alio agi (quod accidit, cum alienatus manumissusue est).
[PAULUS, Book 18 of the Commentary on the Edict] It must be considered whether a noxal action lies only against him who acted with dolo so as not to have the slave in his power, if by his dolo it happens that the noxal action ceases (for instance, if he ordered his slave to flee), or whether [it lies] also if it is nonetheless possible to bring an action against another (which happens when the slave has been alienated or manumitted).
quod est uerius: in quo casu electio est actoris, cum quo uelit agere.
The latter is more correct; in which case the choice is the plaintiff's, as to whom he wishes to sue.
Iulianus autem ait de eo qui manumissit, si paratus sit defendere se manumissus, exceptionem dandam ei qui manumisit.
However, Julian says concerning the person who manumitted, if the manumitted slave is prepared to defend himself, an exception must be given to the one who manumitted.
hoc et Labeo.
Labeo also holds this.

Notes

  1. §9.4.24.prDe illo uidendum — This is an impersonal gerundive construction with the verb `esse` (here `est`) omitted. The object of consideration is the entire indirect question introduced by `utrum`.
  2. §9.4.24.prfecit, quo minus in potestate haberet — The combination of the verb `facere` and the conjunction `quo minus` (or `quominus`) introducing the subjunctive expresses the prevention or hindrance of an action, meaning 'acted to prevent [himself] from having [the slave] in his power'.
  3. §9.4.24.prsi paratus sit defendere se manumissus — In legal terminology, `defendere` means 'to defend one's case' or 'to undertake defense in court'. The subject `manumissus` is a participle functioning substantively to mean 'the manumitted slave'.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §9.4.24.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:9.4.24.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.