1Paulus, On the Edict, Book LVI. He who confesses in court is held to have had judgment rendered against him, for he himself is, as it were, condemned by his own sentence.

2Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LVIII. He who makes a mistake does not confess unless he is ignorant of the law.

3Paulus, On Plautius, Book IX. Julianus says that he who confesses that he owes a legacy should by all means be compelled to pay it, even if the property had never been in existence, or had ceased to exist. He, however, can be adjudged to pay the appraised value of the property for the reason that he who confesses is considered as having had judgment rendered against him.

4The Same, On Plautius, Book XV. If he against whom proceedings have been instituted under the Aquilian Law confesses that he has killed a slave, even though he may not have done so, and the slave is found to have been killed, he will be liable on account of his confession.

5Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXVII. Where anyone confesses that he owes Stichus, judgment should be rendered” against him; even if Stichus is already dead, or died after issue was joined in the case.

6The Same, On All Tribunals, Book V. He who confesses that he owes a specified sum of money is considered as having had judgment rendered against him; but this rule does not apply where the amount is uncertain. 1When anyone admits that he owes an uncertain amount of money, or something which is not specifically designated, as, for instance, if he says that he is obliged to deliver either Stichus or a tract of land, he must be urged to make his allegations more definite. The same rule applies to him who admits that he owes some property, to compel him to state the amount. 2If I bring an action to recover a tract of land which is mine, and you admit that it is mine, you will occtipy the same position as if a judgment had been rendered declaring the land to belong to me. And, in any other kind of civil or honorary actions, and in all interdicts for the production of property, or its restitution, including prohibitory interdicts, if the party who is sued admits the indebtedness, it may be said that the Prætor must follow the provision of the Rescript of the Divine Marcus, and everything which he confesses to be due is held to have been judicially decided. Therefore, in actions in which time is granted for the restitution of property, it will also be granted for restitution to the party who confesses judgment; and if restitution should not be made, the value of the property shall be appraised in court. 3If anyone admits that a claim is valid in the absence of his adversary, let us see whether he should not be considered to have had judgment rendered against him; because he who makes oath with reference to his services is not liable, and it is not customary to condemn anyone in his absence. It is certain that it is sufficient for the confession to be made in the presence of an agent, a guardian, or a curator. 4Let us see whether it will be sufficient for an agent, a guardian, or a curator, to make the confession. I do not think that it will be sufficient. 5In the case of a confession by a ward, we require the authority of his guardian, 6we grant complete restitution to a minor against his confession. 7Those who have confessed judgment are entitled to time for payment after making their confession, just as parties are after judgment has been rendered.

7Africanus, Questions, Book V. Where suit was brought to compel the execution of a trust, the heir having admitted that he owed it, an arbiter was appointed to see that the property was delivered, who ascertained that nothing was due. The question arose whether the heir could be released from liability. I answered that it was important to learn why nothing was due, for if the reason was that the trust was void, the heir would not be released. But if it was because the testator was not solvent, or the heir had alleged before the Prætor that everything was paid, and as a controversy had arisen, and a computation was difficult, a condition of affairs had caused the appointment of an arbiter, he could release the heir without exceeding his authority. For it is duty to discharge the heir, if, after the computation has been made, nothing is found with which to execute the trust; but, in the first instance, he should send the heir before the Prætor in order that he may be discharged.

8Paulus, On Sabinus, Book IV. A party who confesses judgment should not have a decision absolutely rendered against him, when he acknowledged that he owes property the existence of which is uncertain.