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. II10,
De eo per quem factum erit quominus quis in iudicio sistat
Liber secundus
X.

De eo per quem factum erit quominus quis in iudicio sistat

(Concerning One Who Prevents a Person From Appearing in Court.)

1Ul­pia­nus li­bro sep­ti­mo ad edic­tum. Ae­quis­si­mum pu­ta­vit prae­tor do­lum eius co­er­ce­re, qui im­pe­dit ali­quem iu­di­cio sis­ti. 1Fe­cis­se au­tem do­lo ma­lo non tan­tum is pu­ta­tur, qui suis ma­ni­bus vel per suos re­ti­nuit11Die Großausgabe liest re­ti­nue­rit statt re­ti­nuit., ve­rum qui alios quo­que ro­ga­vit ut eum de­ti­ne­rent vel ab­du­ce­rent, ne iu­di­cio sis­tat, si­ve scien­tes si­ve igno­ran­tes quid es­set quod com­mi­nis­ce­re­tur. 2Do­lum au­tem ma­lum sic ac­ci­pi­mus, ut si quis ve­nien­ti ad iu­di­cium ali­quid pro­nun­tia­ve­rit tris­te, prop­ter quod is ne­ces­se ha­bue­rit ad iu­di­cium non venire, te­n­ea­tur ex hoc edic­to: quam­vis qui­dam pu­tent si­bi eum im­pu­ta­re, qui cre­du­lus fuit. 3Si reus do­lo ac­to­ris non ste­te­rit, non ha­be­bit reus ad­ver­sus eum ac­tio­nem ex hoc edic­to, cum con­ten­tus es­se pos­sit ex­cep­tio­ne, si ex sti­pu­la­tu con­ve­nia­tur de poe­na, quod ad iu­di­cium non ve­ne­rit. ali­ter at­que si ab alio sit im­pe­di­tus: nam ac­tio­nem pro­pos­i­tam ad­ver­sus eum ex­er­ce­bit. 4Si plu­res do­lo fe­ce­rint, om­nes te­nen­tur: sed si unus prae­sti­te­rit poe­nam, ce­te­ri li­be­ran­tur, cum ni­hil in­ter­sit. 5Ser­vi no­mi­ne ex hac cau­sa noxa­li iu­di­cio agen­dum om­nes con­sen­tiunt. 6Et he­redi da­tur, sed non ul­tra an­num. ad­ver­sus he­redem au­tem hac­te­nus pu­to dan­dam ac­tio­nem, ut ex do­lo de­func­ti he­res non lu­cre­tur.

1Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book VII. The Prætor has considered it most just to punish the malice of one who prevents the appearance of another in court. 1He not only is held to be guilty of malice who detains a party either with his own hands, or through the agency of those in his service, but also he who requests others to detain him or abduct him to prevent his appearing in court, whether they knew, or were ignorant of what he intended to do. 2Where any person communicates evil tidings to another on his way to court by means of which he prevents him from appearing, we consider it to be malicious, and he is liable under the Edict; although some authorities are of the opinion that the party who was so credulous would only have himself to blame. 3Where a defendant is prevented from appearing through the malice of the plaintiff, he will not have a right of action against the latter under this Edict, since he must be contented with an exception in case he should be sued for the penalty of his bond because he did not appear in court, but the case is different if he was prevented by another, for then he could bring an action against him. 4Where several persons have acted fraudulently, all are liable; but if one of them pays the penalty, the others are released from liability, as the plaintiff has no further interest in the matter. 5All authorities are of the opinion that in an instance of this kind, where a slave is concerned, a noxal action must be brought. 6The right of action passes to the heir, but not for a longer time than a year; and I think that an action will lie against the heir only to the extent of preventing him from profiting by the fraud of the deceased.

2Pau­lus li­bro sex­to ad edic­tum. Si ac­to­ris ser­vus do­mi­no scien­te et cum pos­sit non pro­hi­ben­te do­lo fe­ce­rit, quo mi­nus in iu­di­cio sis­tam, Ofi­lius dan­dam mi­hi ex­cep­tio­nem ad­ver­sus do­mi­num ait, ne ex do­lo ser­vi do­mi­nus lu­cre­tur. si ve­ro si­ne vo­lun­ta­te do­mi­ni ser­vus hoc fe­ce­rit, Sa­b­inus noxa­le iu­di­cium dan­dum ait nec fac­tum ser­vi do­mi­no ob­es­se de­be­re ni­si hac­te­nus, ut ip­so ca­reat: quan­do ip­se ni­hil de­li­quit.

2Paulus, On the Edict, Book VI. Where the slave of the plaintiff, with the knowledge of his master, commits a fraud to hinder me from appearing in court, and his master does not prevent him when he could do so, Ofilius says that an exception should be granted against his master to prevent him from profiting by the fraud of the slave. But if, in fact, the slave committed the act without the consent of his master; Sabinus says that a noxal action will lie, and that the act of the slave ought not to prejudice his master, except to the extent that he shall lose him when he himself has committed no wrong.

3Iu­lia­nus li­bro se­cun­do di­ges­to­rum. Ex hoc edic­to ad­ver­sus eum, qui do­lo fe­cit, quo mi­nus quis in iu­di­cium vo­ca­tus sis­tat, in fac­tum ac­tio com­pe­tit quan­ti ac­to­ris in­ter­fuit eum sis­ti. in quo iu­di­cio de­du­ci­tur si quid amis­e­rit ac­tor ob eam rem: vel­uti si reus tem­po­re do­mi­nium rei in­ter­im si­bi ad­quirat aut ac­tio­ne li­be­ra­tus fue­rit. 1Pla­ne si is, qui do­lo fe­ce­rit, quo mi­nus in iu­di­cio sis­ta­tur, sol­ven­do non fue­rit, ae­quum erit ad­ver­sus ip­sum reum re­sti­tu­to­riam ac­tio­nem com­pe­te­re, ne prop­ter do­lum alie­num reus lu­crum fa­ciat et ac­tor dam­no ad­fi­cia­tur. 2Si et sti­pu­la­tor do­lo Ti­tii et pro­mis­sor do­lo Mae­vi im­pe­di­tus fue­rit, quo mi­nus in iu­di­cio sis­ta­tur: uter­que ad­ver­sus eum, cu­ius do­lo im­pe­di­tus fue­rit, ac­tio­ne in fac­tum ex­pe­rie­tur. 3Si et sti­pu­la­tor do­lo pro­mis­so­ris et pro­mis­sor do­lo sti­pu­la­to­ris im­pe­di­tus fue­rit quo mi­nus ad iu­di­cium veniret: ne­utri eo­rum prae­tor suc­cur­re­re de­be­bit, ab utra­que par­te do­lo com­pen­san­do. 4Si a fi­de­ius­so­re quin­qua­gin­ta sti­pu­la­tus fue­ro, si in iu­di­cium reus non ve­ne­rit, pe­ti­tu­rus a reo cen­tum, et do­lo ma­lo Sem­pro­nii fac­tum fue­rit, ne in iu­di­cium reus ve­niat: cen­tum a Sem­pro­nio con­se­quar. tan­ti enim mea in­ter­fuis­se vi­de­tur, quia, si venis­set in iu­di­cium, ac­tio mi­hi cen­tum ad­ver­sus reum vel ad­ver­sus he­redem eius com­pe­te­bat, li­cet fi­de­ius­sor mi­no­rem sum­mam mi­hi pro­mi­se­rit.

3Julianus, Digest, Book II. An action will lie under this Edict against a party who, by means of fraud, prevented anyone from appearing in court, for a sum equal to the interest the plaintiff had in his appearance. In a suit of this kind it is ascertained if the plaintiff lost anything on account of this; as, for example, whether the defendant obtained ownership of the property in question by lapse of time, or was freed from liability to be sued. 1Ad Dig. 2,10,3,1Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 118, Note 6.It is evident that if the party who acted maliciously to prevent the other from appearing in court is not solvent, it will be just to grant a restitutory action against the defendant, lest he may profit and the plaintiff suffer loss on account of the fraud of another. 2If the stipulator has been prevented from appearing in court through the fraudulent act of Titius, and the promisor has been prevented by that of Mævius; each of them has a right of action in factum against the party by whose fraudulent act he was prevented. 3If both the stipulator and the promisor were each prevented from appearing in court by the fraudulent act of the other, the Prætor shall come to the relief of neither of them, for the fraud committed by each is mutually set off. 4If I stipulate with a surety for fifty aurei in case the defendant should not appear, and I am suing the defendant for a hundred aurei, and, through the wrongful act of Sempronius, the defendant fails to appear in court, I can recover a hundred aurei from Sempronius, for that amount seems to have been my interest in the matter; because if the party had appeared I would have had an action against him for a hundred aurei, or one against his heir for the same amount, although the surety had bound himself to me for a smaller sum.