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. XXIII5,
De fundo dotali
Liber vicesimus tertius
V.

De fundo dotali

(Concerning Land Given by Way of Dowry.)

1Pau­lus li­bro tri­ge­si­mo sex­to ad edic­tum. In­ter­dum lex Iu­lia de fun­do do­ta­li ces­sat: si ob id, quod ma­ri­tus dam­ni in­fec­ti non ca­ve­bat, mis­sus sit vi­ci­nus in pos­ses­sio­nem do­ta­lis prae­dii, de­in­de ius­sus sit pos­si­de­re: hic enim do­mi­nus vi­ci­nus fit, quia haec alie­na­tio non est vo­lun­ta­ria. 1Sed et per uni­ver­si­ta­tem trans­it prae­dium, se­cun­dum quod pos­si­bi­le est, ad al­te­rum, vel­uti ad he­redem ma­ri­ti, cum suo ta­men iu­re, ut alie­na­ri non pos­sit.

1Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXXVI. The Lex Julia, having reference to land given by way of dowry, sometimes does not apply; for instance, where the husband fails to make provision against threatened injury, and the neighbor is placed in possession of the premises given as dowry, and is afterwards directed to return the same. In this case the neighbor becomes the owner, because the alienation is not a voluntary one. 1Ad Dig. 23,5,1,1Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. III, § 528, Note 7.But it is possible for the entire title to the land to pass to another, as, for instance, to the heir of the husband, but still, with the same condition that it cannot be alienated.

2Ul­pia­nus li­bro quin­to de ad­ul­te­riis. Si ma­ri­tus fue­rit in ser­vi­tu­tem red­ac­tus, an do­mi­nus alie­na­re hunc fun­dum non pos­sit? quod pu­to es­se ve­rius. qua­re et si ad fis­cum per­ve­ne­rit, ni­hi­lo mi­nus ven­di­tio fun­di im­pe­di­tur, quam­vis fis­cus sem­per ido­neus suc­ces­sor sit et sol­ven­do.

2Ulpianus, On Adultery, Book V. If a husband should be reduced to slavery, cannot his owner alienate his land? I think the better opinion is that he cannot. Wherefore, if the property of the husband should be confiscated, the sale of the land would, nevertheless, be prevented; even though the Treasury is always held to be a good and solvent successor.

3Pau­lus li­bro tri­ge­si­mo sex­to ad edic­tum. Fun­dus do­ta­li ser­vo le­ga­tus ad le­gem Iu­liam per­ti­net qua­si do­ta­lis. 1To­tiens au­tem non pot­est alie­na­ri fun­dus, quo­tiens mu­lie­ri ac­tio de do­te com­pe­tit aut om­ni­mo­do com­pe­ti­tu­ra est.

3Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXXVI. Where a tract of land is devised to slaves who form part of the dowry, according to the Lex Julia it also becomes dotal. 1Land given as dowry cannot be alienated whenever the wife is entitled to a dotal action, or where one should by all means be brought.

4Gaius li­bro un­de­ci­mo ad edic­tum pro­vin­cia­le. Lex Iu­lia, quae de do­ta­li prae­dio pro­spe­xit ne id ma­ri­to li­ceat ob­li­ga­re aut alie­na­re, ple­nius in­ter­pre­tan­da est, ut et­iam de spon­so idem iu­ris sit quod de ma­ri­to.

4Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XI. The Lex Julia, which has reference to land given by way of dowry, and provides that a husband cannot encumber or alienate it, ought to be more broadly interpreted, so as to apply as well to a betrothed person as to a husband.

5Ul­pia­nus li­bro se­cun­do de om­ni­bus tri­bu­na­li­bus. Iu­lia­nus li­bro sex­to de­ci­mo di­ges­to­rum scrip­sit ne­que ser­vi­tu­tes fun­do de­bi­tas pos­se ma­ri­tum re­mit­te­re ne­que ei alias im­po­ne­re.

5Ulpianus, On All Tribunals, Book II. Julianus states in the Sixteenth Book of the Digest that a husband cannot lose any servitude attaching to the land, or impose any new ones upon it.

6Idem li­bro quin­to de ad­ul­te­riis. Sed nec li­ber­tas ser­vi­tu­tis ur­ba­no prae­dio do­ta­li de­bi­tae com­pe­tit, ne per hoc de­te­rior con­di­cio prae­dii fiat.

6The Same, On Adultery, Book V. Freedom from a servitude due to an urban estate subject to dowry cannot be granted by the husband, for fear that by this the condition of the property may be deteriorated.

7Iu­lia­nus li­bro sex­to de­ci­mo di­ges­to­rum. Si ma­ri­tus fun­dum Ti­tii ser­vien­tem do­ta­li prae­dio ad­quisie­rit, ser­vi­tus con­fun­di­tur et hoc ca­su ma­ri­tus li­tis aes­ti­ma­tio­nem prae­sta­bit: quod si ma­ri­tus sol­ven­do non erit, uti­les ac­tio­nes ad­ver­sus Ti­tium mu­lie­ri ad re­stau­ran­dam ser­vi­tu­tem dan­tur. 1Sed cum uxor fun­dum cui prae­dia vi­ri ser­vi­tu­tem de­be­bant in do­tem dat, fun­dus ad ma­ri­tum per­ve­nit amis­sa ser­vi­tu­te et id­eo non pot­est vi­de­ri per ma­ri­tum ius fun­di de­te­rius fac­tum. quid er­go est? of­fi­cio de do­te iu­di­can­tis con­ti­ne­bi­tur, ut red­in­te­gra­ta ser­vi­tu­te iu­beat fun­dum mu­lie­ri vel he­redi eius red­di.

7Julianus, Digest, Book XVI. Where a husband acquires a tract of land that belongs to Titius, and which is subject to a servitude for the benefit of real estate subject to dowry, the servitude becomes confused. But if he returns the said land to Titius, without renewing the servitude, the husband will be to blame, and, in this instance, he must pay such damages as may be assessed by the court. Where, however, the husband is not solvent, prætorian actions will be granted against Titius in favor of the woman for the re-establishment of the servitude. 1When, however, a woman gives as her dowry land to which a tract belonging to her husband owes a servitude, it comes into the hands of the husband without the servitude; and therefore it cannot be held that the rights attaching to said land have become deteriorated through the act of the husband. What then should be done? It is the duty of the judge, who is to decide with reference to the dowry, to order the land to be returned to the woman, or to her heir, and the servitude to be re-established.

8Al­fe­nus li­bro ter­tio di­ges­to­rum a Pau­lo epi­to­ma­to­rum. Vir in fun­do do­ta­li uxo­ris ro­ga­tu oli­ve­tum suc­ci­de­rat ad hoc, ut no­vel­lum re­po­ne­ret: post­ea vir mor­tuus erat et uxo­ri do­tem rele­ga­ve­rat. lig­na, quae ex oli­ve­to ex­ci­sa es­sent, opor­te­re mu­lie­ri red­di re­spon­dit.

8Alfenus, Epitomes of the Digest by Paulus, Book III. A certain man requested his wife to cut down an olive plantation which was on the dotal land, in order to replace it with a new one. The man afterwards died after bequeathing the dowry to his wife, and it was decided that the wood which had been cut from the olive trees should be returned to her.

9Afri­ca­nus li­bro oc­ta­vo quaes­tio­num. Si ma­ri­to de­bi­to­ri fun­di id quod de­bet do­ti mu­lier pro­mi­se­rit, do­ta­lem fun­dum ef­fi­ci. 1Quod si ei pro­mit­tat, qui fun­dum aut de­cem de­buit, in ar­bi­trio es­se ma­ri­ti, quid in do­te sit. 2Quod si Sti­chum aut fun­dum de­buit ma­ri­tus et quod de­bet, do­ti ei pro­mis­sum sit, Sti­cho mor­tuo fun­dum in do­tem es­se. 3His con­se­quens es­se ait, ut, si Cor­ne­lia­num aut Sem­pro­nia­num fun­dum de­ben­ti id quod de­bet do­ti pro­mis­sum sit, utrum eo­rum do­ta­lem es­se ma­lit. pla­ne utrum ve­lit, alie­na­tu­rum: al­te­rum alie­na­ri non pos­se. si ta­men alie­num rur­sus red­imat, ad­huc in eius po­tes­ta­te est, an eum, quem re­ti­nuis­set, alie­na­ri ve­lit.

9Africanus, Questions, Book VIII. If a woman promises, by way of dowry, to her husband who is her debtor, land for which he owes her, the said land becomes dotal. 1Where she promises him, as dowry, either the land or ten aurei which he owes her, he will have the right to decide of which of these the dowry shall consist. 2But if the husband owed Stichus, a tract of land, and his indebtedness was promised to him as dowry, and Stichus should die, the dowry will then consist of the land. 3Julianus says that the result of all this would be that if either the Cornelian or the Sempronian estate for which he was indebted was promised to him as dowry, whichever of these he selected would constitute the dowry; and it is evident that if he wished to alienate either of them he could not alienate the other. If, however, he afterwards should purchase the one that he alienated, he would still have the power to alienate the one which he had retained, if he desired to do so.

10Pau­lus li­bro quin­to quaes­tio­num. Erit er­go po­tes­tas le­gis am­bu­la­to­ria, quia do­ta­lis fuit ob­li­ga­tio. num­quid er­go et­iam il­lo non­dum red­emp­to al­te­rum quo­que alie­na­re pos­sit, quia pot­est al­te­rum red­ime­re? an hoc non de­bet re­ci­pi, ut nul­lus in do­te sit? cer­te ex post fac­to vi­de­bi­tur rec­te alie­na­tus il­lo post­ea red­emp­to.

10Paulus, Questions, Book V. The application of this law is therefore indefinite, because the obligation was dotal. Hence where the husband was able to alienate one tract of land could he also alienate the other, because he had the right to repurchase the first, even if this had not yet been done? Or should this not be allowed, for fear either one of them might compose the dowry? It is certain that one of them would be held to have been lawfully alienated, if the other was afterwards redeemed.

11Afri­ca­nus li­bro oc­ta­vo quaes­tio­num. Quod si fun­dus in do­tem aes­ti­ma­tus da­tus sit, ut elec­tio es­set mu­lie­ris, ne­ga­vit alie­na­ri fun­dum pos­se: quod si ar­bi­trio ma­ri­ti sit, con­tra es­se.

11Africanus, Questions, Book VIII. Where a tract of land given as dowry is appraised in order that the woman may have the right of choice, it is held that the land cannot be alienated. The contrary rule, however, prevails, if this depends upon the will of the husband.

12Pa­pi­nia­nus li­bro pri­mo de ad­ul­te­riis. Et­iam si dir­emp­to ma­tri­mo­nio do­ta­le prae­dium es­se in­tel­le­gi­tur. 1So­ce­ri vo­lun­tas in dis­tra­hen­do do­ta­li prae­dio nul­la est.

12Papinianus, On Adultery, Book I. Even though the marriage should be dissolved, the land is still understood to be dotal. 1The consent of a father-in-law to the sale of land belonging to a dowry is of no force or effect.

13Ul­pia­nus li­bro quin­to de ad­ul­te­riis. Do­ta­le prae­dium ac­ci­pe­re de­be­mus tam ur­ba­num quam rus­ti­cum: ad om­ne enim ae­di­fi­cium lex Iu­lia per­ti­ne­bit. 1Prae­dii ap­pel­la­tio­ne et­iam pars con­ti­ne­tur. pro­in­de si­ve to­tum prae­dium in do­tem sit da­tum si­ve pars prae­dii, alie­na­ri non pot­erit: et hoc iu­re uti­mur. 2Do­ta­le prae­dium sic ac­ci­pi­mus, cum do­mi­nium ma­ri­to quae­si­tum est, ut tunc de­mum alie­na­tio pro­hi­bea­tur. 3He­redi quo­que mu­lie­ris idem au­xi­lium prae­sta­bi­tur, quod mu­lie­ri prae­sta­ba­tur. 4Si uxo­re he­rede in­sti­tu­ta fun­dus do­ta­lis fue­rit le­ga­tus, si qui­dem de­duc­tis le­ga­tis mu­lier quan­ti­ta­tem do­tis in he­redi­ta­tem ha­bi­tu­ra est, va­let le­ga­tum, si mi­nus, an non va­leat, quae­ri­tur. Scae­vo­la, et si non to­tus, sed vel ali­qua pars ex eo vin­di­ca­ri pos­sit, si mo­do ali­qua pars ad do­tem sup­plen­dam de­sit, id dum­ta­xat ex eo re­ma­ne­re apud mu­lie­rem ait, quod quan­ti­ta­ti do­tis de­est.

13Ulpianus, On Adultery, Book V. We should understand dotal land to include both that situated in town and country, for the Lex Julia had reference to every kind of buildings. 1The term “land” also applies to a portion of the tract, hence, whether the entire tract has been given as dowry, or only a part of the same, it cannot be alienated. This is the law at present. 2We understand the term “dotal land” to refer to that of which the ownership is acquired by the husband, so that then only is he forbidden to alienate it. 3The same relief is granted by the law to the heir of the wife, as is granted to the wife herself. 4Where a wife is appointed heir to her husband, and the land belonging to the dowry is bequeathed, if, after the deduction of the legacy, the woman should have an amount of interest in the estate equal in value to the dowry, the legacy will be valid. The question arises whether it will be valid if the amount should be less. Scævola says that a portion can be recovered, if not all of it, if a certain amount is lacking to make up the dowry; and that only that much will remain in the hands of the woman which is required to supply the deficiency.

14Pau­lus li­bro ter­tio de ad­ul­te­riis. Si nup­tu­ra Ti­tio vo­lun­ta­te eius fun­dum do­tis no­mi­ne Mae­vio tra­dit, dos eius con­di­cio­nis erit, cu­ius es­set, si ip­si Ti­tio fun­dum tra­di­dis­set. 1Si mu­lie­ris no­mi­ne quis fun­dum in do­tem de­de­rit, do­ta­lis fun­dus erit: prop­ter uxo­rem enim vi­de­tur is fun­dus ad ma­ri­tum per­ve­nis­se. 2Si fun­dum alie­num mu­lie­ri de­beat ma­ri­tus eum­que mu­lier ei do­tis no­mi­ne pro­mi­se­rit, in pen­den­ti erit et tunc fiet do­ta­lis, cum ad eum per­ve­ne­rit. 3Si fun­dum le­ga­tum si­bi do­tis cau­sa mu­lier re­pu­dia­ve­rit vel et­iam sub­sti­tu­to vi­ro omi­se­rit he­redi­ta­tem vel le­ga­tum, erit fun­dus do­ta­lis.

14Paulus, On Adultery, Book III. Where a woman, who was about to marry Titius, transferred to Mævius, with the consent of her husband, the land which she had given as dowry; the dowry will be in the same condition as if she had transferred it to Titius herself. 1If anyone should give a tract of land as dowry for a woman, it becomes dotal; for it is considered to have come into the hands of the husband on account of his wife. 2Where a husband owes his wife land belonging to another, and she promises it to him by way of dowry, it will be in suspense, and will become dotal when it comes into his hands. 3If a woman rejects land which has been devised to her by way of dowry, or even if she fails to accept an estate or a legacy, where her husband was substituted, the land will become dotal.

15Pa­pi­nia­nus li­bro ter­tio re­spon­so­rum. Do­ta­le prae­dium, cu­ius vir pos­ses­sio­nem re­ti­nuit post lit­te­ras ad uxo­rem emis­sas, qui­bus do­tis non fo­re prae­dium de­cla­ra­vit, in ma­tri­mo­nio de­func­ta mu­lie­re vi­rum re­ti­ne­re pla­cuit, quia mu­lier ac­tio­nem ex pac­to non ha­buit.

15Papinianus, Opinions, Book I. It has been decided that dotal land, the possession of which was retained by the husband after letters which he sent to his wife, in which he stated that the land would not become dotal, can be retained by the husband after the wife had died during marriage, for the reason that she would not be entitled to an action on contract.

16Try­fo­ni­nus li­bro un­de­ci­mo dis­pu­ta­tio­num. Si fun­dum, quem Ti­tius pos­si­de­bat bo­na fi­de lon­gi tem­po­ris pos­ses­sio­ne pot­erat si­bi quae­re­re, mu­lier ut suum ma­ri­to de­dit in do­tem eum­que pe­te­re neg­le­xe­rit vir, cum id fa­ce­re pos­set, rem pe­ri­cu­li sui fe­cit: nam li­cet lex Iu­lia, quae ve­tat fun­dum do­ta­lem alie­na­ri, per­ti­neat et­iam ad hu­ius­mo­di ad­quisi­tio­nem, non ta­men in­ter­pel­lat eam pos­ses­sio­nem, quae per lon­gum tem­pus fit, si an­te, quam con­sti­tue­re­tur do­ta­lis fun­dus, iam coe­pe­rat. pla­ne si pau­cis­si­mi dies ad per­fi­cien­dam lon­gi tem­po­ris pos­ses­sio­nem su­per­fue­runt, ni­hil erit, quod im­pu­ta­bi­tur ma­ri­to.

16Ad Dig. 23,5,16Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 171, Note 2.Tryphoninus, Disputations, Book XI. Where a woman gave her husband, by way of dowry, a tract of land of which Titius had possession in good faith, and had a right to claim for himself on the ground of prescription, and her husband neglected to bring suit for said land when he could have done so, he will be responsible. For although the Lex Julia, which forbids dotal land to be alienated, also has reference to an acquisition of this description, it does not, however, interrupt possession which has existed for a long time, if this had already begun before the land was rendered dotal. It is evident that if a very few days are lacking to establish the prescriptive right, the husband will not be at all to blame.

17Mar­cia­nus li­bro sep­ti­mo di­ges­to­rum. Fun­dum do­ta­lem ma­ri­tus ven­di­dit et tra­di­dit: si in ma­tri­mo­nio mu­lier de­ces­se­rit et dos lu­cro ma­ri­ti ces­sit, fun­dus emp­to­ri avel­li non pot­est.

17Marcianus, Digest, Book VII. A husband sold and delivered land forming part of a dowry. If his wife died during marriage, and the dowry was a source of profit to the husband, the purchaser cannot be deprived of the land.

18Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro sex­to ex pos­te­rio­ri­bus La­beo­nis. Vir in fun­do do­ta­li la­pi­di­ci­nas mar­mo­reas ape­rue­rat: di­vor­tio fac­to quae­ri­tur, mar­mor quod cae­sum ne­que ex­por­ta­tum es­set cu­ius es­set et im­pen­sam in la­pi­di­ci­nas fac­tam mu­lier an vir prae­sta­re de­be­ret. La­beo mar­mor vi­ri es­se ait: ce­te­rum vi­ro ne­gat quid­quam prae­stan­dum es­se a mu­lie­re, quia nec ne­ces­sa­ria ea im­pen­sa es­set et fun­dus de­te­rior es­set fac­tus. ego non tan­tum ne­ces­sa­rias, sed et­iam uti­les im­pen­sas prae­stan­das a mu­lie­re ex­is­ti­mo nec pu­to fun­dum de­te­rio­rem es­se, si ta­les sunt la­pi­di­ci­nae, in qui­bus la­pis cres­ce­re pos­sit. 1Si per mu­lie­rem mo­ra fie­ret, quo mi­nus aes­ti­ma­tio­nem par­tis fun­di vi­ro sol­ve­ret et fun­dum re­ci­pe­ret, cum hoc pac­tum erat: fruc­tus in­ter­im per­cep­tos ad vi­rum per­ti­ne­re ait La­beo. pu­to po­tius pro por­tio­ne fruc­tus vi­rum ha­bi­tu­rum, re­li­quos mu­lie­ri re­sti­tu­tu­rum: quo iu­re uti­mur.

18Javolenus, On the Last Works of Labeo, Book VI. A husband opened marble quarries on dotal land. A divorce having taken place, the question arose to whom the marble which had been taken out but which had not yet been removed, belonged; and whether the wife or the husband should bear the expense incurred in working the quarries. Labeo said the marble belonged to the husband, but he denied that anything should be paid to him by the wife, because the expense was not necessary, and the land had been rendered less valuable. I think that not only necessary expenses but also those that are useful should be paid by the wife, and I do not believe that the land was decreased in value, if the quarries were of such a kind that the quantity of stone in them would, in time, be increased. 1If the wife should be in default, where an agreement was made that she should receive the land after paying the appraised value of part of the same to her husband; Labeo says that any profits collected in the meantime belong to the latter. I think that the better opinion is that the husband should be entitled to a proportionate share of the profits, and that the remainder should be refunded to the woman; which is the law at present.