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. XVI2,
De compensationibus
Liber sextus decimus
II.

De compensationibus

(Concerning Set-Off.)

1Mo­des­ti­nus li­bro sex­to pan­dec­ta­rum. Com­pen­sa­tio est de­bi­ti et cre­di­ti in­ter se con­tri­bu­tio.

1Ad Dig. 16,2,1ROHGE, Bd. 8 (1873), S. 43: Zulässigkeit der Compensation von Gegenforderungen, obschon über letztere bereits quittirt ist, sofern die Quittung die Art der Tilgung nicht ergibt und behauptet wird, daß dieselbe nicht durch Zahlung, sondern durch Aufrechnung geschehen ist.Modestinus, Pandects, Book VI. Set-off is a contribution made between a debt and a credit.

2Iu­lia­nus li­bro no­na­gen­si­mo di­ges­to­rum. Unus­quis­que cre­di­to­rem suum eun­dem­que de­bi­to­rem pe­ten­tem sum­mo­vet, si pa­ra­tus est com­pen­sa­re.

2Ad Dig. 16,2,2ROHGE, Bd. 8 (1873), S. 43: Zulässigkeit der Compensation von Gegenforderungen, obschon über letztere bereits quittirt ist, sofern die Quittung die Art der Tilgung nicht ergibt und behauptet wird, daß dieselbe nicht durch Zahlung, sondern durch Aufrechnung geschehen ist.Julianus, Digest, Book XC. Any one can bar his creditor, who is also his debtor, when he brings an action against him if he is prepared to set off his claim.

3Pom­po­nius li­bro vi­cen­si­mo quin­to ad Sa­binum. Id­eo com­pen­sa­tio ne­ces­sa­ria est, quia in­ter­est nos­tra po­tius non sol­ve­re quam so­lu­tum re­pe­te­re.

3Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XXV. Set-off is therefore necessary, because it is more to our interest not to pay, than to bring an action to recover what has been paid.

4Pau­lus li­bro ter­tio ad Sa­binum. Ve­rum est, quod et Ne­ra­tio pla­ce­bat et Pom­po­nius ait, ip­so iu­re eo mi­nus fi­de­ius­so­rem ex om­ni con­trac­tu de­be­re, quod ex com­pen­sa­tio­ne reus re­ti­ne­re pot­est: sic­ut enim, cum to­tum pe­to a reo, ma­le pe­to, ita et fi­de­ius­sor non te­ne­tur ip­so iu­re in ma­io­rem quan­ti­ta­tem quam reus con­dem­na­ri pot­est.

4Ad Dig. 16,2,4Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 349, Note 10.Paulus, On Sabinus, Book III. The opinion of Neratius, which is also held by Pomponius, is correct, namely: that what the principal debtor can retain as set-off the surety is released from liability for, by operation of law, in every contract; just as if when I bring suit for the entire amount against a debtor I do not proceed properly, and thus the security is not liable in strict law for a larger amount than the principal debtor can be compelled to pay as a judgment.

5Gaius li­bro no­no ad edic­tum pro­vin­cia­le. Si quid a fi­de­ius­so­re pe­te­tur, ae­quis­si­mum est eli­ge­re fi­de­ius­so­rem, quod ip­si an quod reo de­be­tur, com­pen­sa­re ma­lit: sed et si utrum­que ve­lit com­pen­sa­re, au­dien­dus est.

5Ad Dig. 16,2,5Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 349, Note 20.Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book IX. Where a claim is demanded from a surety, it is perfectly just for the latter to choose whether he prefers to set off what is due to himself or what is due to the principal debtor. He should also be heard if he wishes to make a set-off against the claims of both,

6Ul­pia­nus li­bro tri­gen­si­mo ad Sa­binum. Et­iam quod na­tu­ra de­be­tur, venit in com­pen­sa­tio­nem.

6Ad Dig. 16,2,6Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 288, Note 12.Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXX. Whatever is due in consequence of a natural obligation can also become the subject of set-off.

7Idem li­bro vi­cen­si­mo oc­ta­vo ad edic­tum. Quod in diem de­be­tur, non com­pen­sa­bi­tur, an­te­quam dies venit, quam­quam da­ri opor­teat. 1Si ra­tio­nem com­pen­sa­tio­nis iu­dex non ha­bue­rit, sal­va ma­net pe­ti­tio: nec enim rei iu­di­ca­tae ex­cep­tio ob­ici pot­est. aliud di­cam, si re­pro­ba­vit pen­sa­tio­nem qua­si non ex­is­ten­te de­bi­to: tunc enim rei iu­di­ca­tae mi­hi no­ce­bit ex­cep­tio.

7The Same, On the Edict, Book XXVIII. What is due at a certain time cannot be set off before the time arrives, even though it may be necessary for it to be paid. 1Where the judge does not consider the set-off, the right of action is saved to the creditor, for an exception based on the ground of a decision rendered cannot be interposed. I hold that the case is different if the judge has refused to consider the set-off on the ground that no debt existed; for then an exception based on a decision rendered will prejudice my case.

8Gaius li­bro no­no ad edic­tum pro­vin­cia­le. In com­pen­sa­tio­nem et­iam id de­du­ci­tur, quo no­mi­ne cum ac­to­re lis con­tes­ta­ta est, ne di­li­gen­tior quis­que de­te­rio­ris con­di­cio­nis ha­bea­tur, si com­pen­sa­tio ei de­ne­ge­tur.

8Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book IX. That also is included in a set-off for the recovery of which suit has already been brought against the plaintiff, in order to prevent the condition of the more diligent party from becoming worse if the set-off should be refused him.

9Pau­lus li­bro tri­gen­si­mo se­cun­do ad edic­tum. Si cum fi­lio fa­mi­lias aut ser­vo con­trac­ta sit so­cie­tas et agat do­mi­nus vel pa­ter, so­li­dum per com­pen­sa­tio­nem ser­va­mus, quam­vis, si age­re­mus, dum­ta­xat de pe­cu­lio prae­sta­re­tur. 1Sed si cum fi­lio fa­mi­lias aga­tur, an quae pa­tri de­bean­tur fi­lius com­pen­sa­re pos­sit, quae­ri­tur: et ma­gis est ad­mit­ten­dum, quia unus con­trac­tus est, sed cum con­di­cio­ne, ut ca­veat pa­trem suum ra­tum ha­bi­tu­rum, id est non ex­ac­tu­rum quod is com­pen­sa­ve­rit.

9Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXXII. Where a partnership has been contracted with a son under paternal control or a slave, and the father or the master brings suit, we include the whole amount in a set-off; although if we should bring suit, only that which has reference to the peculium must be made good. 1But where suit is brought against a son under paternal control, the question arises whether the son can, by way of set-off, claim, what is owing to the father? It is better to hold that he can, because there is only one contract, but this should be done under the condition that he gives security that his father will ratify his act, that is to say, that he will not, in the future demand what his son has set off.

10Ul­pia­nus li­bro se­xa­gen­si­mo ter­tio ad edic­tum. Si am­bo so­cii pa­rem neg­le­gen­tiam so­cie­ta­ti ad­hi­bui­mus, di­cen­dum est de­si­ne­re nos in­vi­cem es­se ob­li­ga­tos ip­so iu­re com­pen­sa­tio­ne neg­le­gen­tiae fac­ta. si­mi­li mo­do pro­ba­tur, si al­ter ex re com­mu­ni ali­quid per­ce­pe­rit, al­ter tan­tam neg­le­gen­tiam ex­hi­bue­rit, quae ea­dem quan­ti­ta­te aes­ti­ma­tur, com­pen­sa­tio­nem fac­tam vi­de­ri et ip­so iu­re in­vi­cem li­be­ra­tio­nem. 1Si quis igi­tur com­pen­sa­re po­tens sol­ve­rit, con­di­ce­re pot­erit qua­si in­de­bi­to so­lu­to. 2Quo­tiens ex ma­le­fi­cio ori­tur ac­tio, ut pu­ta ex cau­sa fur­ti­va ce­te­ro­rum­que ma­le­fi­cio­rum, si de ea pe­cu­nia­rie agi­tur, com­pen­sa­tio lo­cum ha­bet: idem est et si con­di­ca­tur ex cau­sa fur­ti­va. sed et qui noxa­li iu­di­cio con­ve­ni­tur, com­pen­sa­tio­nem op­po­ne­re pot­est. 3In sti­pu­la­tio­ni­bus quo­que quae in­star ac­tio­num ha­bent, id est prae­to­riis, com­pen­sa­tio lo­cum ha­bet, et se­cun­dum Iu­lia­num tam in ip­sa sti­pu­la­tio­ne quam in ex sti­pu­la­tu ac­tio­ne pot­erit ob­ici com­pen­sa­tio.

10Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXIII. Ad Dig. 16,2,10 pr.Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 349, Note 10.Where two of us, being partners, have been guilty of the same negligence in matters affecting the partnership, it must be said that we cease to be bound to one another, set-off for the negligence in this instance, taking place by operation of law. In like manner, it is held that, where one partner has appropriated something which belongs to the common property and the other has been guilty of such negligence that it may be estimated at the same amount, set-off is held to have taken place, as well as the release of liability of both parties to one another by operation of law. 1Ad Dig. 16,2,10,1Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 349, Note 5.Therefore, where anyone, being able to make a set-off pays, he can bring suit to recover the money as having been paid when it was not due. 2Whenever a right of action arises from a breach of the law, as, for instance, from theft and other offences, if only a suit involving money is brought, a set-off can be admitted. The same rule applies where an action is brought for the recovery of stolen property. But if a party is sued in a noxal action, he can claim a set-off. 3Set-off can also take place in stipulations which resemble certain forms of action, that is to say, prætorian ones; and, according to Julianus, set-off can be claimed as well with reference to a stipulation itself, as in the action based upon it.

11Idem li­bro tri­gen­si­mo se­cun­do ad edic­tum. Cum al­ter al­te­ri pe­cu­niam si­ne usu­ris, al­ter usu­ra­riam de­bet, con­sti­tu­tum est a di­vo Se­ve­ro con­cur­ren­tis apud utrum­que quan­ti­ta­tis usu­ras non es­se prae­stan­das.

11Ad Dig. 16,2,11ROHGE, Bd. 25 (1880), Nr. 9, S. 38: Kompensation verzinslicher Forderungen.The Same, On the Edict, Book XXXII. When one party owes another a sum of money without interest, and the latter owes the other a sum bearing interest; it was decreed by the Divine Severus that interest was not due on the sums owed to one another by the two parties respectively.

12Idem li­bro se­xa­gen­si­mo quar­to ad edic­tum. Idem iu­ris est non so­lum in pri­va­tis, ve­rum et­iam in cau­sa fis­ci con­sti­tu­tum. sed et si in­vi­cem sit usu­ra­ria pe­cu­nia, di­ver­sae ta­men sint usu­rae, com­pen­sa­tio ni­hi­lo mi­nus lo­cum ha­bet eius quod in­vi­cem de­be­tur.

12Ad Dig. 16,2,12ROHGE, Bd. 25 (1880), Nr. 9, S. 38: Kompensation verzinslicher Forderungen.The Same, On the Edict, Book LXIV. This law is applicable not only to the affairs of private individuals, but also those connected with the Treasury. Where, however, the money borrowed by the parties from one another bears interest, but the interest is at different rates, a set-off can, nevertheless, take place with reference to the sums due to the parties respectively.

13Idem li­bro se­xa­gen­si­mo sex­to ad edic­tum. Quod La­beo ait, non est si­ne ra­tio­ne, ut, si cui pe­ti­tio­ni spe­cia­li­ter de­sti­na­ta est com­pen­sa­tio, in ce­te­ris non ob­icia­tur.

13The Same, On the Edict, Book LXVI. Labeo says, and not without reason, that where a set-off is expressly intended to be made against a certain claim, opposition should not be made to its application to other claims.

14Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro quin­to de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Quae­cum­que per ex­cep­tio­nem per­emi pos­sunt, in com­pen­sa­tio­nem non ve­niunt.

14Javolenus, On Cassius, Book XV. Any claim that can be destroyed by an exception cannot be included in a set-off.

15Idem li­bro se­cun­do epis­tu­la­rum. Pe­cu­niam cer­to lo­co Ti­tio da­ri sti­pu­la­tus sum: is pe­tit a me quam ei de­beo pe­cu­niam: quae­ro, an hoc quo­que pen­san­dum sit, quan­ti mea in­ter­fuit cer­to lo­co da­ri. re­spon­dit: si Ti­tius pe­tit, eam quo­que pe­cu­niam, quam cer­to lo­co pro­mi­sit, in com­pen­sa­tio­nem de­du­ci opor­tet, sed cum sua cau­sa, id est ut ra­tio ha­bea­tur, quan­ti Ti­tii in­ter­fue­rit eo lo­co quo con­ve­ne­rit pe­cu­niam da­ri.

15The Same, Epistles, Book II. I stipulated for a certain sum of money to be paid by Titius at a certain place, he demands of me a sum of money which I owe him; I ask whether the interest I had in having the amount paid to me in a certain place, as aforesaid, should be included in the set-off? The answer was, that if Titius makes the demand, the sum also which he promised to pay in a certain place must be included in the set-off; but this must be done with reference to his case also, that is to say, the interest Titius had in having the sum of money owing to him paid in a place agreed upon must be taken into consideration.

16Pa­pi­nia­nus li­bro ter­tio quaes­tio­num. Cum mi­li­ti cas­tren­sium bo­no­rum alius, ce­te­ro­rum alius he­res ex­sti­tit et de­bi­tor al­te­ri he­redum ob­li­ga­tus vult com­pen­sa­re quod ab alio de­be­tur, non au­die­tur. 1Cum in­tra diem ad iu­di­ca­ti ex­se­cu­tio­nem da­tum iu­di­ca­tus Ti­tio agit cum eo­dem Ti­tio, qui et ip­se pri­dem il­li iu­di­ca­tus est, com­pen­sa­tio ad­mit­te­tur: aliud est enim diem ob­li­ga­tio­nis non venis­se, aliud hu­ma­ni­ta­tis gra­tia tem­pus in­dul­ge­ri so­lu­tio­nis.

16Papinianus, Questions, Book III. Ad Dig. 16,2,16 pr.Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 350, Note 17.Where a soldier has two heirs, one of whom inherits his peculium castrense, and the other the remainder of his property, a party who is indebted to one of the heirs, who wishes to set off what is due to him from the other, shall not be heard. 1Where a party against whom judgment has been rendered in favor of Titius, brings an action against the same Titius within the time granted for the execution of the judgment, who, himself, had previously had judgment rendered against him in favor of the other party, set-off will be admitted; for it is one thing for the day of the obligation not to arrive, and another to grant time for payment through motives of humanity.

17Idem li­bro pri­mo re­spon­so­rum. Id­eo con­dem­na­tus, quod ar­tio­rem an­no­nam ae­di­li­ta­tis tem­po­re prae­buit, fru­men­ta­riae pe­cu­niae de­bi­tor non vi­de­bi­tur, et id­eo com­pen­sa­tio­nem ha­be­bit.

17The Same, Opinions, Book I. An ædile, who has had judgment rendered against him because he distributed a smaller supply of provisions during his term of office than he should have done, cannot be held to be a debtor for money spent for grain; he will therefore be entitled to set-off.

18Idem li­bro ter­tio re­spon­so­rum. In rem suam pro­cu­ra­tor da­tus post li­tis con­tes­ta­tio­nem, si vi­ce mu­tua con­ve­nia­tur, ae­qui­ta­te com­pen­sa­tio­nis ute­tur. 1Cre­di­tor com­pen­sa­re non co­gi­tur quod alii quam de­bi­to­ri suo de­bet, quam­vis cre­di­tor eius pro eo, qui con­ve­ni­tur ob de­bi­tum pro­prium, ve­lit com­pen­sa­re.

18The Same, Opinions, Book III. Where an agent is appointed to conduct his own case in court, and, after issue has been joined, suit is brought against him for a loan, he will justly be entitled to a set-off. 1A creditor is not obliged to set off what he owes to anyone else than his debtor, even though the creditor of him in whose behalf the party is sued for his own debt may desire to make use of a set-off.

19Idem li­bro un­de­ci­mo re­spon­so­rum. De­bi­tor pe­cu­niam pu­bli­cam ser­vo pu­bli­co ci­tra vo­lun­ta­tem eo­rum sol­vit, qui­bus de­bi­tum rec­te sol­vi po­tuit: ob­li­ga­tio pris­ti­na ma­ne­bit, sed da­bi­tur ei com­pen­sa­tio pe­cu­lii fi­ni, quod ser­vus pu­bli­cus ha­be­bit.

19The Same, Opinions, Book XI. Where a debtor who has paid a tax to a public slave, but without the consent of those to whom he should properly have paid the debt, the former obligation will continue to be in force; but a set-off will be granted to the extent of the peculium which the public slave has in his possession.

20Idem li­bro ter­tio de­ci­mo re­spon­so­rum. Ob neg­otium co­pia­rum ex­pe­di­tio­nis tem­po­re man­da­tum cu­ra­to­rem con­dem­na­tum pe­cu­niam iu­re com­pen­sa­tio­nis re­ti­ne­re non pla­cuit, quon­iam ea non com­pen­san­tur.

20The Same, Opinions, Book XIII. Where a person having charge of furnishing supplies to troops in an expedition, has judgment rendered against him on this account, it is held that he cannot retain the money by the right of set-off, as it is not subject to it.

21Pau­lus li­bro pri­mo quaes­tio­num. Post­ea­quam pla­cuit in­ter om­nes id quod in­vi­cem de­be­tur ip­so iu­re com­pen­sa­ri, si pro­cu­ra­tor ab­sen­tis con­ve­nia­tur, non de­be­bit de ra­to ca­ve­re, quia ni­hil com­pen­sat, sed ab in­itio mi­nus ab eo pe­ti­tur.

21Ad Dig. 16,2,21Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 349, Noten 9, 10.Paulus, Questions, Book I. Since it has generally been held that what persons owe one another is set off by mere operation of law, if the agent of a person who is absent is sued, he need not give security that his act will be ratified, because nothing can be set off, but a smaller sum can be demanded from him in the beginning.

22Scae­vo­la li­bro se­cun­do quaes­tio­num. Si de­beas de­cem aut ho­mi­nem, utrum ad­ver­sa­rius vo­let, ita com­pen­sa­tio hu­ius de­bi­ti ad­mit­ti­tur, si ad­ver­sa­rius pa­lam di­xis­set, utrum vo­luis­set.

22Scævola, Questions, Book II. If you owe anyone ten thousand sesterces or a slave, whichever he may choose, set-off of the debt will be admitted, if he states openly which he prefers.

23Pau­lus li­bro no­no re­spon­so­rum. Id quod pu­pil­lo­rum no­mi­ne de­be­tur si tu­tor pe­tat, non pos­se com­pen­sa­tio­nem ob­ici eius pe­cu­niae, quam ip­se tu­tor suo no­mi­ne ad­ver­sa­rio de­bet.

23Paulus, Opinions, Book IX. Where a guardian makes a demand in the name of his wards for what is due to them, the debtor cannot ask that his debt be set-off against one that the guardian himself owes him.

24Idem li­bro ter­tio de­cre­to­rum. Ius­sit im­pe­ra­tor au­di­ri ad­pro­ban­tem si­bi a fis­co de­be­ri, quod ip­se con­ve­ni­tur.

24The Same, Decrees, Book III. The Emperor ordered that a party should be heard who desired to prove that an amount was owing to him from the Treasury equal to that for which he himself was sued.