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. XLIX8,
Quae sententiae sine appellatione rescindantur
Liber quadragesimus nonus
VIII.

Quae sententiae sine appellatione rescindantur

(What Decisions Can be Rescinded Without an Appeal.)

1Ma­cer li­bro se­cun­do de ap­pel­la­tio­ni­bus. Il­lud me­mi­ne­ri­mus: si quae­ra­tur, iu­di­ca­tum sit nec ne, et hu­ius quaes­tio­nis iu­dex non es­se iu­di­ca­tum pro­nun­tia­ve­rit: li­cet fue­rit iu­di­ca­tum, re­scin­di­tur, si pro­vo­ca­tum non fue­rit. 1Item si cal­cu­li er­ror in sen­ten­tia es­se di­ca­tur, ap­pel­la­re ne­ces­se non est: vel­uti si iu­dex ita pro­nun­tia­ve­rit: ‘Cum con­stet Ti­tium Se­io ex il­la spe­cie quin­qua­gin­ta, item ex il­la spe­cie vi­gin­ti quin­que de­be­re, id­cir­co Lu­cium Ti­tium Se­io cen­tum con­dem­no’: nam quon­iam er­ror com­pu­ta­tio­nis est, nec ap­pel­la­re ne­ces­se est et ci­tra pro­vo­ca­tio­nem cor­ri­gi­tur. sed et si hu­ius quaes­tio­nis iu­dex sen­ten­tiam cen­tum con­fir­ma­ve­rit, si qui­dem id­eo, quod quin­qua­gin­ta et vi­gin­ti quin­que fie­ri cen­tum pu­ta­ve­rit, ad­huc idem er­ror com­pu­ta­tio­nis est nec ap­pel­la­re ne­ces­se est: si ve­ro id­eo, quon­iam et alias spe­cies vi­gin­ti quin­que fuis­se di­xe­rit, ap­pel­la­tio­ni lo­cus est. 2Item cum con­tra sa­cras con­sti­tu­tio­nes iu­di­ca­tur, ap­pel­la­tio­nis ne­ces­si­tas re­mit­ti­tur. con­tra con­sti­tu­tio­nes au­tem iu­di­ca­tur, cum de iu­re con­sti­tu­tio­nis, non de iu­re li­ti­ga­to­ris pro­nun­tia­tur. nam si iu­dex vo­len­ti se ex cu­ra mu­ne­ris vel tu­te­lae be­ne­fi­cio li­be­ro­rum vel ae­ta­tis aut pri­vi­le­gii ex­cu­sa­re, di­xe­rit ne­que fi­lios ne­que ae­ta­tem aut ul­lum pri­vi­le­gium ad mu­ne­ris vel tu­te­lae ex­cu­sa­tio­nem prod­es­se, de iu­re con­sti­tu­to pro­nun­tias­se in­tel­le­gi­tur: quod si de iu­re suo pro­ban­tem ad­mi­se­rit, sed id­cir­co con­tra eum sen­ten­tiam di­xe­rit, quod ne­ga­ve­rit eum de ae­ta­te sua aut de nu­me­ro li­be­ro­rum pro­bas­se, de iu­re li­ti­ga­to­ris pro­nun­tias­se in­tel­le­gi­tur: quo ca­su ap­pel­la­tio ne­ces­sa­ria est. 3Item cum ex edic­to per­emp­to­rio, quod ne­que pro­pos­i­tum est ne­que in no­ti­tiam per­ve­nit ab­sen­tis, con­dem­na­tio fit, nul­lius mo­men­ti es­se sen­ten­tiam con­sti­tu­tio­nes de­mons­trant. 4Si apud eun­dem iu­di­cem in­vi­cem pe­ta­mus, si et mea et tua pe­ti­tio si­ne usu­ris fuit et iu­dex me prio­rem ti­bi con­dem­na­vit, quo ma­gis tu prior me con­dem­na­tum ha­beas: non est mi­hi ne­ces­se pro hac cau­sa ap­pel­la­re, quan­do se­cun­dum sa­cras con­sti­tu­tio­nes iu­di­ca­tum a me pe­te­re non pos­sis, prius­quam de mea quo­que pe­ti­tio­ne iu­di­ce­tur. sed ma­gis est, ut ap­pel­la­tio in­ter­po­na­tur.

1Macer, On Appeals, Book II. We must remember that when an inquiry is made whether a case has been decided or not, and the judge of this question declares that it has not been decided, even though it may have been, it is rescinded, even if no appeal has been taken. 1Ad Dig. 49,8,1,1ROHGE, Bd. 7 (1873), S. 59: Berichtigung von Rechnungsfehlern in einem Erkenntnisse.Likewise, if an error in the calculation is alleged to exist in the decision, it is not necessary to appeal, for instance, if the judge decides as follows: “As it is proved that Titius owes Seius fifty sesterces for such-and-such an article, and also twenty-five for another; therefore I hold that Lucius Titius shall pay Seius a hundred sesterces;” because, as the mistake is one of computation, it is not necessary to appeal, and it can be corrected without doing so. If, however, the judge of this question should render a decision for a hundred sesterces, for the reason that he thought that fifty and twenty-five made a hundred, still, the same mistake is one of computation, and it is not necessary to appeal. But when the judge decides that there is another sum of twenty-five sesterces due, there will be ground for appeal. 2Likewise, when the decision is contrary to the Imperial Constitutions, the necessity for appeal does not exist. A decision is rendered against the constitutions when it is pronounced in compliance with the law as laid down by them, and not with reference to the rights of the litigant; for if the judge, in the case of a person desiring to be excused from the charge of a public office, or of a guardianship, on account of having children, or through age, or by reason of some privilege, should hold that neither children, nor age, nor any privilege will avail to excuse anyone from office, or from guardianship, he is understood to have decided with reference to the law as set forth in the constitutions. If, however, he should permit a person to establish his right, and then renders a decision against him because he did not prove his age, or the number of his children; he is understood to have decided with reference to the rights of the litigant, in which case an appeal will be necessary. 3Likewise when, under a peremptory Edict which has not been published, and of which the party has not been notified, he is convicted while absent, the constitutions declare that a decision of this kind is of no effect. 4If you and I both apply to the same judge, and neither of our petitions asks for interest, and the judge renders a decision against me before doing so against you, in order that you may be the first to have a judgment in your favor; it is not necessary for me to appeal on this ground, as, according to the Sacred Constitutions, you cannot ask for an execution against me before judgment has been rendered with reference to my claim; but the better opinion is that an appeal should be taken.

2Pau­lus li­bro ter­tio re­spon­so­rum. Pau­lus re­spon­dit eum, qui in re­bus hu­ma­nis non fuit sen­ten­tiae dic­tae tem­po­re, in­ef­fi­ca­ci­ter con­dem­na­tum vi­de­ri. 1Idem re­spon­dit ad­ver­sus eum, qui in re­bus hu­ma­nis non es­set, cum iu­dex da­tus est, ne­que iu­di­cis da­tio­nem va­luis­se ne­que sen­ten­tiam ad­ver­sus eum dic­tam vi­res ha­be­re.

2Paulus, Opinions, Book III. Paulus held that he who was not alive at the time when judgment was rendered against him is understood to have been condemned to no purpose. 1He also held with reference to a person who was not alive at the time when the judge was appointed to decide his case that the appointment of the judge was void, and any decision rendered against him would be of no force or effect.

3Idem li­bro sex­to de­ci­mo re­spon­so­rum. Pau­lus re­spon­dit in­po­s­si­bi­le prae­cep­tum iu­di­cis nul­lius es­se mo­men­ti. 1Idem re­spon­dit ab ea sen­ten­tia, cui pa­re­ri re­rum na­tu­ra non po­tuit, si­ne cau­sa ap­pel­la­ri.

3The Same, Opinions, Book XVI. Paulus gave it as his opinion that a judicial order which is impossible was void. 1He also gave it as his opinion, that there was no ground for appeal where a decision had been rendered, which, in the nature of things, could not be complied with.