1Ulpianus, Rules, Book I. The duties of him who has the right of dispensing justice are very extensive; for he can grant the possession of estates, place the parties in possession, appoint guardians for minors who have none, and designate judges for litigants.

2Javolenus, On Cassius, Book VI. He to whom legal jurisdiction is given is also held to be invested with all the powers necessary for its exercise.

3Ulpianus, On the Duties of Quæstor, Book II. Official authority is either simple or mixed. Simple authority invests the magistrate with the right of inflicting the death penalty upon persons who are violators of the law, which is also designated “power”. Mixed authority, which embraces legal jurisdiction, consists of the right of granting possession of property. Jurisdiction includes the power of appointing a judge.

4The Same, On the Edict, Book I. The right to order a bond to be executed by a prætorian stipulation, and to place a party in possession, rather belong to authority than to jurisdiction.

5Julianus, Digest, Book I. It was established by the custom of our ancestors that he only can delegate jurisdiction who possesses it in his own right, and not through delegation by another.

6Paulus, On the Edict, Book II. And this is because jurisdiction is not given to him in the first place, and has not been conferred upon him by law, which only confirms that which has already been delegated; and therefore, if anyone who has delegated his jurisdiction should die before the business over which jurisdiction has been delegated to him had begun to be transacted; Labeo says that the delegated authority is abrogated, just as it is in other cases.

7Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book III. “If a person maliciously destroys a notice which has been entered in the register of an official, or written on papyrus, or any other substance, and which has reference to the general jurisdiction of the said official and not to any special matter; judgment should be rendered against him for fifty aurei, and anyone may bring suit for the same.” 1Slaves and sons of families also are affected by the terms of this edict; and the Prætor includes both sexes. 2If anyone should cause this damage before the notice has been published or while it is being published, the words of the Edict will be without effect; but Pomponius holds that the principle of the Edict is applicable to such a case. 3If the offence has been committed by slaves who are not defended by their masters, or by persons who are in poverty, corporeal punishment shall be inflicted. 4Malice is mentioned in the words of the Edict, because if anyone should commit such an act through ignorance or stupidity, or by the order of the Prætor himself, or through accident, he will not be liable. 5He who removes the document, even though he may not destroy it, is also liable under this Edict which includes both him who performs the act himself and him who orders another to perform it; but if anyone performs it without malice by the direction of another who was actuated by malice, the latter will be liable; and if both of them act maliciously both will be liable; and if several persons commit the act, whether they destroy documents, or order this to be done, all will be liable.

8Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book I. And this applies to such an extent that it will not be sufficient for only one of them to pay the penalty.

9Paulus, On the Edict, Book III. If the entire body of slaves belonging to anyone should deface a register, the Edict does not treat this offence as it would a case of theft, where the master who wishes to defend the action pays as much in the name of one slave as a freeman would be compelled to pay, for then no action will lie against the others; the reason for which is perhaps that, in this instance, the offended dignity of the Prætor must be vindicated, and several acts are understood to have been committed; in the same manner as when several slaves have perpetrated a wrong, or have caused damage, because several acts have taken place, and not merely one, as in the case of theft. Octavenus says that in this instance relief ought to be granted to the master, but this can only be maintained where the slave maliciously brings it about that the register shall be destroyed by another, because then there is only one conspiracy, and not several acts. Pomponius states the same thing in the Tenth Book.

10Ad Dig. 2,1,10ROHGE, Bd. 21 (1877), Nr. 31, S. 86: Rechtsweg gegen einen Beschluß der Gesellschafter über Ausschließung eines Socius.Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book III. He who presides over the administration of justice ought not to render judgment in his own case, or in that of his wife or children, or of his freedmen, or of any others whom he has with him.

11Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book I. Where one person brings several actions against another and the amounts of the different claims demanded therein, if taken separately, are within the jurisdiction of the judge, but the entire sum exceeds it, it was the opinion of Sabinus, Cassius, and Proculus that the actions could be tried before him; and this opinion was confirmed by a Rescript of the Emperor Antoninus. 1Where, however, the rights of actions are reciprocal in their character, and one party claims an amount under the limit, and another one over it, he who claims the smaller sum can proceed before the same judge; so that it may not be in the power of my adversary, if he wishes to annoy me, to prevent me from trying the case before the same judge. 2Where an action is brought by a number of persons at the same time, as for instance for the partition of an estate, the division of common property, or the establishment of boundaries, should we in order to ascertain the jurisdiction of the judge who has cognizance of the case, consider the value of the separate shares, which is the opinion of Ofilius and Proculus for the reason that each party is bringing suit for his own share; or should the entire value of the property rather be considered because the whole of it is in court and may perhaps be adjudged to one person? This is the opinion of both Cassius and Pegasus, and in fact it seems the more reasonable one.

12Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XVIII. Municipal magistrates have no authority to inflict severe punishment upon a slave; the right of moderate castigation cannot, however, be denied them.

13The Same, On Sabinus, Book LI. He who orders anyone to act as judge must be a magistrate. 1A magistrate, or he who is invested with any authority, (as for instance, a Proconsul, a Prætor, or any other official who governs a province) cannot appoint a judge on the day on which he becomes a private person.

14The Same, On the Edict, Book XXXIX. It is an accepted rule which we make use of in law, that if anyone of higher, or of equal rank, submits himself to the jurisdiction of another, the latter can administer justice for and against him.

15Ad Dig. 2,1,15ROHGE, Bd. 10 (1874), S. 328: Voraussetzung der stillschweigenden Prorogation des Gerichtsstandes.The Same, On All Tribunals, Book II. If, through error, anyone appears before one Prætor while intending to appear before another, none of the proceedings which have been instituted will be valid, for no one is permitted to say that they agreed upon the judge; since, as Julianus stated, those who are in error do not agree. For what is so contrary to agreement as error, which always reveals ignorance?

16The Same, On All Tribunals, Book III. The Prætor is accustomed to delegate his jurisdiction, and either delegate all or a portion of the same; while he to whom the right of dispensing justice has been delegated, exercises it in the name of him who appointed him, and not in his own.

17The Same, Opinions, Book I. As the Prætor can delegate his entire jurisdiction to one person, he can also delegate it to several, or he can do this with reference to a particular case; and especially where he has a good reason, for example, because he appeared as the advocate of one of the parties before becoming a magistrate.

18Africanus, Questions, Book VII. If it is agreed upon by the parties that another Prætor than the one who had jurisdiction of the case should hear it, and before applying to him one of them should change his mind, there is no doubt that he cannot be compelled to abide by an agreement of this kind.

19Ulpianus, Trusts, Book VI. In a case where an unmarried woman had undertaken a defence before a competent judge and was defeated, and afterwards married a man who was subject to a different jurisdiction, the question arose whether the judgment of the former court could be executed? I have said that it could, because judgment had been rendered before her marriage; but if this had occurred after the judge had taken cognizance of the case, and before judgment, I hold the same opinion, namely that the decision of the first judge was properly rendered. This rule should be observed generally in all cases of this description. 1When the amount is made the subject of inquiry with reference to jurisdiction, the sum claimed must always be considered, and not that which is due.

20Paulus, On the Edict, Book I. A judge who administers justice beyond his jurisdiction may be disobeyed with impunity. The same rule applies if he wishes to dispense justice where the amount is beyond his jurisdiction.