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. II9,
Si ex noxali causa agatur, quemadmodum caveatur
Liber secundus
IX.

Si ex noxali causa agatur, quemadmodum caveatur

(In What Way Security Must Be Given in a Noxal Action.)

1Ul­pia­nus li­bro sep­ti­mo ad edic­tum. Si quis eum, de quo noxa­lis ac­tio est, iu­di­cio sis­ti pro­mi­sit, prae­tor ait in ea­dem cau­sa eum ex­hi­be­re, in qua tunc est, do­nec iu­di­cium ac­ci­pia­tur. 1‘In ea­dem cau­sa’ quid sit, vi­dea­mus: et pu­to ve­rius eum vi­de­ri in ea­dem cau­sa sis­te­re, qui ad ex­pe­rien­dum non fa­cit ius ac­to­ris de­te­rius. si de­si­nat ser­vus es­se pro­mis­so­ris vel ac­tio amis­sa sit, non vi­de­ri in ea­dem cau­sa sta­tum La­beo ait: vel si qui pa­ri lo­co erat in li­ti­gan­do, coe­pit es­se in du­rio­re, vel lo­co vel per­so­na mu­ta­ta: ita­que si quis ei qui in fo­ro pro­mis­so­ris con­ve­ni­ri non pot­est ven­di­tus aut po­ten­tio­ri da­tus sit, ma­gis es­se pu­tat, ut non vi­dea­tur in ea­dem cau­sa sis­ti. sed et si no­xae de­di­tus sit, Ofi­lius non pu­tat in ea­dem cau­sa sis­ti, cum no­xae de­di­tio­ne ce­te­ris noxa­lem ac­tio­nem per­emi pu­tat.

1Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book VII. Where anyone has promised that a slave on whose account a noxal action is brought, shall be produced in court, the Prætor says “that he must produce him in the same condition in which he was at the time when legal proceedings were instituted”. 1Let us consider what the words “in the same condition” mean. I think, in fact, that he is in the same condition who does not do anything to prejudice the case of the party who brings the suit. Labeo states that if the slave should cease to belong to the party who makes the promise, or the right of action should be lost, he would not be in the same condition; just as where a party was in as good a condition as his adversary, so far as litigation is concerned, is placed; in a word, one on account of either the place, or the party being changed. Therefore, where a slave is sold to someone who cannot be sued in the same court as the party making the promise, or is delivered to someone who is more powerful, he thinks that he cannot be produced in court in the same condition. Where, however, he is surrendered in satisfaction for damage which he has committed, Ofilius thinks that he cannot be produced in the same condition; as, by his surrender for this purpose, he is of the opinion that all noxal actions instituted by others are barred.

2Pau­lus li­bro sex­to ad edic­tum. Sed alio iu­re uti­mur. nam ex prae­ce­den­ti­bus cau­sis non li­be­ra­tur no­xae de­di­tus: per­in­de enim no­xa ca­put se­qui­tur, ac si venis­set. 1Si ab­sens sit ser­vus, pro quo noxa­lis ac­tio ali­cui com­pe­tit: si qui­dem do­mi­nus non ne­gat in sua po­tes­ta­te es­se, com­pel­len­dum pu­tat Vin­dius vel iu­di­cio eum sis­ti pro­mit­te­re vel iu­di­cium ac­ci­pe­re, aut, si no­lit de­fen­de­re, cau­tu­rum, cum pri­mum po­tue­rit, se ex­hi­bi­tu­rum: sin ve­ro fal­so ne­get in sua po­tes­ta­te es­se, sus­cep­tu­rum iu­di­cium si­ne no­xae de­di­tio­ne. id­que Iu­lia­nus scri­bit et si do­lo fe­ce­rit, quo­mi­nus in eius es­set po­tes­ta­te. sed si ser­vus prae­sens est, do­mi­nus ab­est nec quis­quam ser­vum de­fen­dit, du­cen­dus erit ius­su prae­to­ris: sed cau­sa co­gni­ta do­mi­no post­ea da­bi­tur de­fen­sio, ut Pom­po­nius et Vin­dius scri­bunt, ne ei ab­sen­tia sua no­ceat: er­go et ac­to­ri ac­tio re­sti­tuen­da est, per­emp­ta eo quod duc­tus ser­vus in bo­nis eius es­se coe­pit.

2Paulus, On the Edict, Book VI. We, however, adopt a different rule; for when a slave is surrendered in satisfaction of damages, the right of action is not extinguished on account of any of the reasons previously stated; for the action always follows the slave, just as if he had put in an appearance in the first place. 1Where the slave, on account of whom a noxal action can be instituted by anyone, is absent, and where his master does not deny that he is under his control, Vindius holds that he can be compelled to promise to produce him in court, or to defend him, and if he is unwilling to do this, he must give security to produce him as soon as possible; but if he falsely denies that he is under his control, he will be compelled to defend the suit without the surrender of the slave; and Julianus stated this also, even where the master contrived by fraud that the slave should not be under his control. If the slave is present, and the master is absent, and there is no one to defend the slave, he should be removed by the order of the Prætor, but if proper cause be shown, his defense can afterwards be conceded to his master, as Pomponius and Vindius state; nor will the master be prejudiced by his absence. Therefore, the right of action which the plaintiff lost because when the slave was taken away he became his property, can be restored to him.

3Ul­pia­nus li­bro sep­ti­mo ad edic­tum. Si cum usu­fruc­tua­rio noxa­li iu­di­cio age­tur is­que ser­vum non de­fen­de­rit, de­ne­ga­tur ei per prae­to­rem usus fruc­tus per­se­cu­tio.

3Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book VII. Where a noxal action is brought against a person who has only the usufruct in a slave, and he refuses to defend him, the right to bring suit for the recovery of the usufruct shall be denied him by the Prætor.

4Gaius li­bro sex­to ad edic­tum pro­vin­cia­le. Si cum uno ex do­mi­nis noxa­lis age­tur, an pro par­te so­cii sa­tis­da­re de­be­ret? Sa­b­inus ait non de­be­re: quia quo­dam­mo­do to­tum suum ho­mi­nem de­fen­de­ret, cui in so­li­dum de­fen­den­di ne­ces­si­tas es­set, nec au­di­tur, si pro par­te pa­ra­tus sit de­fen­de­re.

4Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book VI. Where anyone brings a noxal action against one of two owners of a slave, the question arose whether he shall be obliged to give security with respect to the share of his fellow owner? Sabinus says that he is not obliged to do so because he is defending his own slave, just as if he was wholly his own property; since he is obliged to defend the entire interest, and he shall not be heard if he is prepared to defend only his own share.

5Ul­pia­nus li­bro qua­dra­gen­si­mo sep­ti­mo ad Sa­binum. Si ser­vum in ea­dem cau­sa sis­te­re qui­dam pro­mi­se­rit et li­ber fac­tus sis­ta­tur: si de ip­so con­tro­ver­sia est ca­pi­ta­lium ac­tio­num in­iu­ria­rum­que no­mi­ne, non rec­te sis­ti­tur: quia ali­ter de ser­vo sup­pli­cium et ver­be­ri­bus de in­iu­ria sa­tis­fit, ali­ter de li­be­ro vin­dic­ta su­mi­tur vel con­dem­na­tio pe­cu­nia­ria. quod au­tem ad ce­te­ras noxa­les cau­sas per­ti­net, et­iam in me­lio­rem cau­sam vi­de­tur per­ve­nis­se.

5Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XLVII. Where a party has promised to produce a slave in court in the same condition, and he is produced after having been set free; if a capital offence, or one implying the commission of injury is involved, he is not properly produced; because one kind of punishment is inflicted on slaves by lashes in the case of injury, and another is inflicted upon a freeman, as, for instance, a pecuniary fine. So far, however, as other noxal actions are concerned, he is held to be in a better condition.

6Pau­lus li­bro un­de­ci­mo ad Sa­binum. Sed si sta­tu li­be­rum sis­ti pro­mis­sum sit, in ea­dem cau­sa sis­ti vi­de­tur, quam­vis li­ber sis­ta­tur, quod im­pli­ci­tus ei ca­sus li­ber­ta­tis fue­rit.

6Paulus, On Sabinus, Book XI. Where, however, it was promised to produce a slave who is about to become free, he is held to be in the same condition, even though he may be free when he appears; because the attainment of his freedom was tacitly understood.