Corpus iurisprudentiae Romanae

Repertorium zu den Quellen des römischen Rechts

Digesta Iustiniani Augusti

Recognovit Mommsen (1870) et retractavit Krüger (1928)
Convertit in Anglica lingua Scott (1932)
Dig. XII7,
De condictione sine causa
Liber duodecimus
VII.

De condictione sine causa

(Concerning an Action for Recovery Without Ground.)

1Ul­pia­nus li­bro qua­dra­gen­si­mo ter­tio ad Sa­binum. Est et haec spe­cies con­dic­tio­nis, si quis si­ne cau­sa pro­mi­se­rit vel si sol­ve­rit quis in­de­bi­tum. qui au­tem pro­mi­sit si­ne cau­sa, con­di­ce­re quan­ti­ta­tem non pot­est quam non de­dit, sed ip­sam ob­li­ga­tio­nem. 1Sed et si ob cau­sam pro­mi­sit, cau­sa ta­men se­cu­ta non est, di­cen­dum est con­dic­tio­nem lo­cum ha­be­re. 2Si­ve ab in­itio si­ne cau­sa pro­mis­sum est, si­ve fuit cau­sa pro­mit­ten­di quae fi­ni­ta est vel se­cu­ta non est, di­cen­dum est con­dic­tio­ni lo­cum fo­re. 3Con­stat id de­mum pos­se con­di­ci ali­cui, quod vel non ex ius­ta cau­sa ad eum per­ve­nit vel red­it ad non ius­tam cau­sam.

1Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XLIII. There is also the following kind of a personal action for recovery where anyone makes a promise without consideration, or where he pays something that was not due. Where a party makes a promise without consideration, he cannot bring an action for an amount which he did not give, but only for the obligation itself. 1But even though he may have promised for a consideration but the consideration did not take effect, it must be held that there would be ground for an action for recovery. 2Whether the promise was made without consideration in the beginning, or in consideration of a promise which is terminated, or did not take effect, it must be said that there will be ground for an action for recovery. 3Ad Dig. 12,7,1,3ROHGE, Bd. 22 (1878), Nr. 66, S. 299: Cond. possessionis gegen den aus Irrthum Besitzenden. Besitz ein Vermögensobject.It is established that a suit for recovery can be brought against the party only where the property came into his possession without a valid consideration, or for some consideration which has ceased to be valid.

2Idem li­bro tri­gen­si­mo se­cun­do ad edic­tum. Si ful­lo ves­ti­men­ta la­van­da con­du­xe­rit, de­in­de amis­sis eis do­mi­no pre­tium ex lo­ca­to con­ven­tus prae­sti­te­rit post­ea­que do­mi­nus in­ve­ne­rit ves­ti­men­ta, qua ac­tio­ne de­beat con­se­qui pre­tium quod de­dit? et ait Cas­sius eum non so­lum ex con­duc­to age­re, ve­rum con­di­ce­re do­mi­no pos­se: ego pu­to ex con­duc­to om­ni­mo­do eum ha­be­re ac­tio­nem: an au­tem et con­di­ce­re pos­sit, quae­si­tum est, quia non in­de­bi­tum de­dit: ni­si for­te qua­si si­ne cau­sa da­tum sic pu­ta­mus con­di­ci pos­se: et­enim ves­ti­men­tis in­ven­tis qua­si si­ne cau­sa da­tum vi­de­tur.

2Ad Dig. 12,7,2ROHGE, Bd. 22 (1878), Nr. 77, S. 333: Condictio der dem Käufer vom Frachtführer gezahlten Entschädigung wegen Versäumung der Lieferfrist im Falle der Aufhebung des Kaufvertrags.The Same, On the Edict, Book XXXII. Where a fuller made a contract to clean some clothes, and the clothes being lost, he is sued on the contract and pays their value to the owner, and the owner afterwards finds the clothes; what kind of an action must the fuller bring to recover the amount which he paid? Cassius says that he not only can bring an action on contract, but also one for recovery against the owner. I think that he has, at all events, a right of action under a contract, but with respect to the suit for a recovery there is a question, because he did not pay what was not due; unless, indeed, we can hold that an action for recovery can be brought on the ground that the money was paid without any consideration, for the clothes having been found, this would seem to be the case.

3Iu­lia­nus li­bro oc­ta­vo di­ges­to­rum. Qui si­ne cau­sa ob­li­gan­tur, in­cer­ti con­dic­tio­ne con­se­qui pos­sunt ut li­be­ren­tur: nec re­fert, om­nem quis ob­li­ga­tio­nem si­ne cau­sa sus­ci­piat an ma­io­rem quam sus­ci­pe­re eum opor­tue­rit, ni­si quod alias con­dic­tio­ne id agi­tur, ut om­ni ob­li­ga­tio­ne li­be­re­tur, alias ut ex­one­re­tur: vel­uti qui de­cem pro­mi­sit, nam si qui­dem nul­lam cau­sam pro­mit­ten­di ha­buit, in­cer­ti con­dic­tio­ne con­se­qui­tur, ut to­ta sti­pu­la­tio ac­cep­to fiat, at si, cum quin­que pro­mit­te­re de­be­ret, de­cem pro­mi­sit, in­cer­ti con­se­que­tur, ut quin­que li­be­re­tur.

3Julianus, Digest, Book VIII. Where parties bind themselves without any reason for doing so, they can obtain a release by means of a suit brought for an uncertain amount, and it makes no difference whether the party contracted the entire obligation without any ground, or a greater one than there was any necessity for; unless, indeed, the proceedings brought to release him from every obligation whatsoever are different from those brought to discharge him from liability for part of the obligation; for example, where a party promised to pay ten aurei, for, if he had no reason to make the promise, he can, by means of an action for an uncertain amount obtain a release from the entire stipulation; but if he promised to pay ten aurei when he ought only to have promised five, he can, by means of an action for an uncertain amount, secure his release from the payment of five.

4Afri­ca­nus li­bro oc­ta­vo quaes­tio­num. Ni­hil re­fert, utrum­ne ab in­itio si­ne cau­sa quid da­tum sit an cau­sa, prop­ter quam da­tum sit, se­cu­ta non sit.

4Africanus, Questions, Book VIII. It is of no consequence whether something was given in the beginning without consideration, or whether it was given for a consideration which did not take place.

5Pa­pi­nia­nus li­bro un­de­ci­mo quaes­tio­num. Avun­cu­lo nup­tu­ra pe­cu­niam in do­tem de­dit ne­que nup­sit: an ean­dem re­pe­te­re pos­sit, quae­si­tum est. di­xi, cum ob tur­pem cau­sam dan­tis et ac­ci­pien­tis pe­cu­nia nu­me­re­tur, ces­sa­re con­dic­tio­nem et in de­lic­to pa­ri po­tio­rem es­se pos­ses­so­rem: quam ra­tio­nem for­tas­sis ali­quem se­cu­tum re­spon­de­re non ha­bi­tu­ram mu­lie­rem con­dic­tio­nem: sed rec­te de­fen­di non tur­pem cau­sam in pro­pos­i­to quam nul­lam fuis­se, cum pe­cu­nia quae da­re­tur in do­tem con­ver­ti ne­qui­ret: non enim stu­pri, sed ma­tri­mo­nii gra­tia da­tam es­se. 1No­ver­ca pri­vi­gno, nu­rus so­ce­ro pe­cu­niam do­tis no­mi­ne de­dit ne­que nup­sit. ces­sa­re con­dic­tio pri­ma fa­cie vi­de­tur, quon­iam iu­re gen­tium in­ces­tum com­mit­ti­tur: at­quin vel ma­gis in ea spe­cie nul­la cau­sa do­tis dan­dae fuit, con­dic­tio igi­tur com­pe­tit.

5Papinianus, Questions, Book XI. Where a woman who was about to be married to a maternal uncle, gave a sum of money as dowry, but did not marry him, the question arose whether she could bring an action for the recovery of the money? I said that where money was paid for some immoral consideration which affected both the giver and the receiver, an action for recovery would not lie, and where both of them are equally culpable, the possessor has the advantage; and that anyone who adopted this principle perhaps would answer that the woman could not bring an action for recovery; but, on the other hand, it could be justly maintained that the question to be considered was not so much that the consideration was immoral, as that there was no consideration at all; since the money which was paid could not be converted into a dowry, as it was paid not for the purpose of unlawful cohabitation but on account of matrimony. 1A stepmother paid a sum of money as dowry for her marriage to her stepson, and a daughter-in-law also did this for her marriage to her father-in-law, and neither marriage took place. It would seem at first view that an action for recovery of the money would not lie, since an union of this kind is incest by the Law of Nations; still, in such instances it is the better opinion that there was no consideration for giving the dowry, and therefore an action for its recovery will lie.