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. XXII4,
De fide instrumentorum et amissione eorum
Liber vicesimus secundus
IV.

De fide instrumentorum et amissione eorum

(Concerning the Authenticity of Instruments and Their Loss.)

1Pau­lus li­bro se­cun­do sen­ten­tia­rum. In­stru­men­to­rum no­mi­ne ea om­nia ac­ci­pien­da sunt, qui­bus cau­sa in­strui pot­est: et id­eo tam tes­ti­mo­nia quam per­so­nae in­stru­men­to­rum lo­co ha­ben­tur.

1Paulus, Sentences, Book IV. All those things by means of which legal proceedings can be instituted should be classed under the head of instruments, and therefore evidence, as well as persons, are placed in that category.

2Idem li­bro quin­to sen­ten­tia­rum. Qui­cum­que a fis­co con­ve­ni­tur, non ex in­di­ce et ex­em­plo ali­cu­ius scrip­tu­rae, sed ex au­then­ti­co con­ve­nien­dus est et ita, si con­trac­tus fi­des pos­sit os­ten­di: ce­te­rum ca­lum­nio­sam scrip­tu­ram vim in iu­di­cio op­ti­ne­re non con­ve­nit.

2The Same, Opinions, Book V. Where anyone is sued by the Treasury, this must be done, not by means of an extract or the copy of any written document, but on the original itself, so that the truth of the contract may be established. It is not proper that a forged document should have any force or effect in court.

3Idem li­bro ter­tio re­spon­so­rum. Re­spon­dit re­pe­ti­ta qui­dem die cau­tio­nem in­ter­po­ni non de­buis­se, sed fal­si cri­men quan­tum ad eos, qui in hoc con­sen­se­runt, con­trac­tum non vi­de­ri, cum in­ter prae­sen­tes et con­ve­nien­tes res ac­ti­ta­ta sit ma­gis­que de­bi­tor quam cre­di­tor de­li­que­rit.

3The Same, Opinions, Book III. Paulus stated that: “An obligation should not be antedated, but the parties who have agreed to this are not considered to be guilty of forgery, since the act was performed in the presence and with the consent of the parties, and the debtor is guilty of a greater offence than the creditor.”

4Gaius li­bro sin­gu­la­ri de for­mu­la hy­po­the­ca­ria. In re hy­po­the­cae no­mi­ne ob­li­ga­ta ad rem non per­ti­net, qui­bus fit ver­bis, sic­uti est et in his ob­li­ga­tio­ni­bus, quae con­sen­su con­tra­hun­tur: et id­eo et si­ne scrip­tu­ra si con­ve­nit, ut hy­po­the­cae sit, et pro­ba­ri pot­erit, res ob­li­ga­ta erit de qua con­ve­niunt. fiunt enim de his scrip­tu­rae, ut quod ac­tum est per eas fa­ci­lius pro­ba­ri pos­sit: et si­ne his au­tem va­let quod ac­tum est, si ha­beat pro­ba­tio­nem, sic­ut et nup­tiae sunt, li­cet tes­ta­tio si­ne scrip­tis ha­bi­ta est.

4Gaius, On the Hypothecary Formula. Where property is hypothecated, it does not matter in what terms this may be effected, as in the case in those obligations which are contracted by consent. Therefore, if it is agreed that property shall be hypothecated without this being done in writing, and this can be proved, the property with reference to which the agreement was made will be encumbered; for written instruments are drawn up in these matters in order that what has been agreed upon may be more easily established. The transaction will be valid, however, without them, if the evidence is forthcoming; just as marriage is valid where testimony exists without any written instruments having been executed.

5Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro se­cun­do quaes­tio­num. Si res ges­ta si­ne lit­te­ra­rum quo­que con­sig­na­tio­ne ve­ri­ta­te fac­tum suum prae­beat, non id­eo mi­nus va­le­bit, quod in­stru­men­tum nul­lum de ea in­ter­ces­sit.

5Callistratus, Questions, Book II. Where a transaction shows that it has actually been concluded without any documentary evidence, it will be none the less valid because no written instrument with reference to it exists.

6Ul­pia­nus li­bro quin­qua­ge­si­mo ad edic­tum. Si de ta­bu­lis tes­ta­men­ti de­po­nen­dis aga­tur et du­bi­te­tur, cui eas de­po­ni opor­tet, sem­per se­nio­rem iu­nio­ri et am­plio­ris ho­no­ris in­fe­rio­ri et ma­rem fe­mi­nae et in­ge­nuum li­ber­ti­no prae­fe­re­mus.

6Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book L. Where a question arises with reference to the deposit of a will, and there is some doubt with whom this should be done, we prefer that it should always be left with an old, rather than with a young person, with one of high rather than with one of inferior rank, with a man rather than with a woman, and with a freeborn person rather than with a freedman.