1Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXXVI. An oath taken in court has the same effect as a judgment, and this is not unreasonable, as where a party tenders an oath to his adversary, he appoints him judge in his own case. 1If a ward tenders an oath without the authority of his guardian, we hold that this exception will not operate as a bar, unless it was tendered in court by the authority of the guardian. 2If a litigant who claims a tract of land tenders the oath to his adversary, and says that if the person from whom he obtained the land is willing to swear that he delivered it to him, he will abandon the case, an exception will be granted to the party in possession of the land. 3If a surety should make oath in court only with reference to himself personally, that is to say, that he is not liable, this will be of no advantage to the principal debtor; and if he should take the oath with reference to the property, an exception will be granted to the principal debtor. 4If I manumit a slave who, while in servitude, was accustomed to transact my business, and I afterwards stipulate with him for the payment of all that he would have been obliged to pay me, if he had been free at the time when he transacted my business, and I bring suit under the stipulation, I will not be barred by an exception, for a freedman cannot complain that he is oppressed, because he was not allowed to profit pecuniarily through the use of the property of his patron. 5If I make a stipulation for the purpose of placing restrictions on freedom, I cannot enforce it against my freedman. Restrictions on freedom have very properly been defined to be such as are imposed in such a way that if a freedman should offend his patron, they can be exacted from him, so that he remains continually under the apprehension that they will be required, and, on account of this apprehension, he will submit to anything that his patron demands. 6In a word, if some obligation is imposed upon a freedman, to take effect the moment he obtains his liberty, it must be said that there will be ground for an exception. If, however, this is done after an interval, the question admits of doubt, for no one could force him to make such a promise. Still, in this instance, the same conclusion must be arrived at if, after an investigation has been made, it is apparent that the freedman subjected himself to his patron in such a manner as to be rendered liable to a penalty under the stipulation either through fear alone, or on account of excessive respect for him. 7If a freedman should form a partnership with his patron in consideration of obtaining his liberty, and his patron should bring an action on partnership against him, will this exception be necessary? I think that the freedman will be released from the exactions of his patron merely by operation of law. 8It must be remembered, that an exception allowed because of oppressive conditions imposed on freedom, just like other exceptions, should not be refused a surety, nor anyone who, at the request of a freedman, has rendered himself liable; nor will it be denied to the freedman himself if he should be appointed the attorney of the principal debtor in order to defend his case, or if he should become his heir. For, as the intention of the Prætor, in obligations of this kind, is to assist the principal debtor, his design would not be effected unless the freedman should defend the surety, or him who had become liable at the request of the freedman against his patron. For it makes little difference whether the freedman is obliged to pay the patron directly, or to do so through the intervention of the surety, or through someone who has become liable on his account. 9Whether the promise has been made for the benefit of the patron himself, or for that of another with the consent of the former, it will be considered to have been made with the design of placing restrictions upon freedom, and therefore there will be ground for this exception. 10If, however, a patron should delegate his freedman to his creditor, let us see whether the former can avail himself of this exception against the creditor to whom, having been delegated, he made a promise which had the effect of placing restrictions upon his freedom. Cassius says it was the opinion of Urseius that the creditor could, by no means, be barred by the exception, because he only received what he was entitled to; but that the freedman could recover from his patron what he had paid, if he had not done this for the purpose of settling the controversy which had arisen with reference to his manumission. 11Again, if a freedman should delegate his own debtor to his patron, the latter cannot be barred by an exception, but the freedman can recover the amount of the debt from his patron by means of a personal action. 12This exception should be granted not only to the freedman himself, but also to his successors; and, on the other hand, it should be noted that the heir of the patron can be barred if he attempts to collect the money.

2Paulus, On the Edict, Book LXXI. If the oath is tendered to a son under paternal control, and he swears that his father does not owe anything, the exception should be granted to the father. 1Ad Dig. 44,5,2,1Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 420, Note 7.If, where a game of chance is being conducted, I sell something in order that I may play, and the property having been evicted, suit is brought against me, the purchaser will be barred by an exception. 2If a slave promises a sum of money to his master in order that he may be manumitted, and his master would not otherwise have manumitted him, and, having become free, he renews his promise, it is held that his patron will not be barred by an exception if he sues to recover the money, for this sum was not promised for the purpose of placing restrictions upon freedom; otherwise it would be unjust for the master to be deprived of the slave as well as of his price. Therefore, money is promised for the purpose of imposing restrictions upon freedom whenever a master voluntarily manumits his slave, and afterwards wishes him to promise a sum of money, not with the intention of exacting it from him, but in order that his freedmen may fear and obey him.