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)
Gai.ed. aed. cur.
Ad edictum aedilium curulium lib.Gaii Ad edictum aedilium curulium libri

Ad edictum aedilium curulium libri

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Ex libro I

Dig. 21,1,3Gaius li­bro pri­mo ad edic­tum ae­di­lium cu­ru­lium. vel pro­ter­vi vel gib­be­ro­si vel cur­vi vel pruri­gi­no­si vel sca­biosi, item mu­ti et sur­di:

Gaius, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book I. Or insolent, humpbacked, crooked, or affected with some skin disease, or with the itch, or dumb or deaf:

Dig. 21,1,13Gaius li­bro pri­mo ad edic­tum ae­di­lium cu­ru­lium. Item clo­dus mor­bosus est.

Gaius, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book I. A slave who is lame is also considered diseased.

Dig. 21,1,18Gaius li­bro pri­mo ad edic­tum ae­di­lium cu­ru­lium. Si quid ven­di­tor de man­ci­pio ad­fir­ma­ve­rit id­que non ita es­se emp­tor que­ra­tur, aut red­hi­bi­to­rio aut aes­ti­ma­to­rio (id est quan­to mi­no­ris) iu­di­cio age­re pot­est: ver­bi gra­tia si con­stan­tem aut la­borio­sum aut cur­ra­cem vi­gi­la­cem es­se, aut ex fru­ga­li­ta­te sua pe­cu­lium ad­quiren­tem ad­fir­ma­ve­rit, et is ex di­ver­so le­vis pro­ter­vus de­si­dio­sus som­ni­cu­lo­sus pi­ger tar­dus com­esor in­ve­nia­tur. haec om­nia vi­den­tur eo per­ti­ne­re, ne id quod ad­fir­ma­ve­rit ven­di­tor ama­re ab eo ex­iga­tur, sed cum quo­dam tem­pe­ra­men­to, ut si for­te con­stan­tem es­se ad­fir­ma­ve­rit, non ex­ac­ta gra­vi­tas et con­stan­tia qua­si a phi­lo­so­pho de­si­de­re­tur, et si la­borio­sum et vi­gi­la­cem ad­fir­ma­ve­rit es­se, non con­ti­nuus la­bor per dies noc­tes­que ab eo ex­iga­tur, sed haec om­nia ex bo­no et ae­quo mo­di­ce de­si­de­ren­tur. idem et in ce­te­ris quae ven­di­tor ad­fir­ma­ve­rit in­tel­le­ge­mus. 1Ven­di­tor, qui op­ti­mum co­cum es­se di­xe­rit, op­ti­mum in eo ar­ti­fi­cio prae­sta­re de­bet: qui ve­ro sim­pli­ci­ter co­cum es­se di­xe­rit, sa­tis fa­ce­re vi­de­tur, et­iam­si me­dio­crem co­cum prae­stet. idem et in ce­te­ris ge­ne­ri­bus ar­ti­fi­cio­rum. 2Ae­que si quis sim­pli­ci­ter di­xe­rit pe­cu­lia­tum es­se ser­vum, suf­fi­cit, si is vel mi­ni­mum ha­beat pe­cu­lium.

Gaius, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book I. Where a vendor asserts that a slave has some good quality, and the purchaser complains that this is not true, he will be entitled to an action for the return or the appraisement of the slave, in order to recover the deficiency in his value; for example, if he should say that the slave is steady and industrious, swift of foot, or vigilant, or that he had increased his peculium on account of his frugality; and he, on the contrary, is ascertained to be changeable, insolent, lazy, given to sleep, and a glutton. All these things are considered to signify that what the vendor had asserted cannot be rigorously exacted from him, but that he must be treated with some degree of moderation; so that, for instance, if he declared that the slave was steady, such gravity and constancy as would be shown by a philosopher ought not to be expected from him; and if he asserted that he was industrious and vigilant, constant labor by day and night should not be required of him; but all these qualities he should be expected to possess to a certain extent, according to what is proper and just. We understand the same rule to apply to any other statements which the vendor may make. 1Where the vendor says that the slave is an excellent cook, he must furnish one of the very best belonging to that calling. If, however, he should merely say that he was a cook, he is held to have complied with his statement if he furnishes a cook of moderate ability. The same rule applies to other skilled laborers. 2Again, if anyone should merely assert that the slave has a peculium, it is sufficient if he has only a very small peculium.

Dig. 21,1,20Gaius li­bro pri­mo ad edic­tum ae­di­lium cu­ru­lium. Si ve­ro an­te ven­di­tio­nis tem­pus dic­tum in­ter­ces­se­rit, de­in­de post ali­quot dies in­ter­po­si­ta fue­rit sti­pu­la­tio, Cae­lius Sa­b­inus scri­bit ex prio­re cau­sa, quae sta­tim, in­quit, ut ven­iit id man­ci­pium, eo no­mi­ne pos­se age­re coe­pit.

Gaius, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book I. If, however, the statement was made some time before the sale, and then a stipulation was entered into several days afterwards, Cælius Sabinus says that the purchaser can institute proceedings on this ground from the day when the slave was sold.

Dig. 21,1,22Gaius li­bro pri­mo ad edic­tum ae­di­lium cu­ru­lium. et ne­que per se ne­que per he­redem suum fu­tu­rum, quo mi­nus eum ho­mi­nem ven­di­tor ha­beat.

Gaius, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book I. And that neither he nor his heir will do anything to prevent the vendor from recovering his slave.

Dig. 21,1,24Gaius li­bro pri­mo ad edic­tum ae­di­lium cu­ru­lium. Et ge­ne­ra­li­ter di­cen­dum est, quid­quid ex­tra rem emp­to­ris per eum ser­vum ad­quisi­tum est, id ius­tum vi­de­ri red­di opor­te­re.

Gaius, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book I. Generally speaking, it must be held that whatever the slave has acquired from the purchaser otherwise than in managing his property, it seems to be just should be returned.

Dig. 21,1,26Gaius li­bro pri­mo ad edic­tum ae­di­lium cu­ru­lium. Vi­dea­mus ta­men, ne in­iquum sit emp­to­rem com­pel­li di­mit­te­re cor­pus et ad ac­tio­nem iu­di­ca­ti mit­ti, si in­ter­dum ni­hil prae­sta­tur prop­ter in­opiam ven­di­to­ris, po­tius­que res ita or­di­nan­da sit, ut emp­tor ca­veat, si in­tra cer­tum tem­pus pe­cu­nia si­bi so­lu­ta sit, se man­ci­pium re­sti­tu­tu­rum.

Gaius, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book I. Let us see whether it is not unjust for the purchaser to be compelled to surrender the property, and have recourse to the action on judgment, if he could not recover anything on account of the property of the vendor; and should not matters be so arranged that the purchaser can give security to restore the slave if the purchase-money is refunded to him within a certain time?

Dig. 21,1,28Gaius li­bro pri­mo ad edic­tum ae­di­lium cu­ru­lium. Si ven­di­tor de his quae edic­to ae­di­lium con­ti­nen­tur non ca­veat, pol­li­cen­tur ad­ver­sus eum red­hi­ben­di iu­di­cium in­tra duos men­ses vel quan­ti emp­to­ris in­ter­sit in­tra sex men­ses.

Gaius, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book I. Where a vendor does not furnish security with reference to the matters mentioned in the Edict of the Ædiles, they promise an action against him for the return of the property within two months; or one to the extent of the interest of the purchaser, within six months.

Dig. 21,1,45Gaius li­bro pri­mo ad edic­tum ae­di­lium cu­ru­lium. Red­hi­bi­to­ria ac­tio du­pli­cem ha­bet con­dem­na­tio­nem: mo­do enim in du­plum, mo­do in sim­plum con­dem­na­tur ven­di­tor. nam si ne­que pre­tium ne­que ac­ces­sio­nem sol­vat ne­que eum qui eo no­mi­ne ob­li­ga­tus erit li­be­ret, du­pli pre­tii et ac­ces­sio­nis con­dem­na­ri iu­be­tur: si ve­ro red­dat pre­tium et ac­ces­sio­nem vel eum qui eo no­mi­ne ob­li­ga­tus est li­be­ret, sim­pli vi­de­tur con­dem­na­ri.

Ad Dig. 21,1,45Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 394, Note 2.Gaius, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book I. An action for the return of a slave has a twofold effect, for sometimes the vendor will have judgment rendered against him for double damages, and sometimes merely for simple damages. For if he refuses to refund either the price of the slave or any accessories attaching to him, and will not release him from the liability incurred on his account, he will be ordered to pay double the amount of the price and the accessories. Where, however, he returns the price and the accessories or releases the slave from the obligation incurred for his benefit, judgment for simple damages should be rendered against him.

Ex libro II

Dig. 21,1,32Gaius li­bro se­cun­do ad edic­tum ae­di­lium cu­ru­lium. Ita­que sic­ut su­pe­rius ven­di­tor de mor­bo vi­tio­ve et ce­te­ris quae ibi com­pre­hen­sa sunt prae­di­ce­re iu­be­tur, et prae­ter­ea in his cau­sis non es­se man­ci­pium ut pro­mit­tat prae­ci­pi­tur: ita et cum ac­ce­dat alii rei ho­mo, ea­dem et prae­di­ce­re et pro­mit­te­re com­pel­li­tur. quod non so­lum hoc ca­su in­tel­le­gen­dum est, quo no­mi­na­tim ad­ici­tur ac­ces­su­rum fun­do ho­mi­nem Sti­chum, sed et­iam si ge­ne­ra­li­ter om­nia man­ci­pia quae in fun­do sint ac­ce­dant ven­di­tio­ni.

Gaius, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book II. Therefore, as has been stated above, the vendor is required to notify the purchaser of any disease, defect, or other fault, included in the Edict; and as it is therein set forth that he must guarantee that the slave has none of these defects, so also, when a slave is transferred to another party as an accessory to property, the vendor is compelled to make the same declaration and guarantee. This should be understood to be necessary, not only where it has been expressly stated that the slave Stichus is an accessory to the land conveyed, but also where, in general terms, all the slaves on the land constitute an accessory to the sale.

Dig. 21,2,57Gaius li­bro se­cun­do ad edic­tum ae­di­lium cu­ru­lium. Ha­be­re li­ce­re rem vi­de­tur emp­tor et si is, qui emp­to­rem in evic­tio­ne rei vi­ce­rit, an­te ab­la­tam vel ab­duc­tam rem si­ne suc­ces­so­re de­ces­se­rit, ita ut ne­que ad fis­cum bo­na per­ve­ni­re pos­sint ne­que pri­va­tim a cre­di­to­ri­bus dis­tra­hi: tunc enim nul­la com­pe­tit emp­to­ri ex sti­pu­la­tu ac­tio, quia rem ha­be­re ei li­cet. 1Quod cum ita est, vi­dea­mus, num et si ab eo qui vi­ce­rit do­na­ta le­ga­ta­ve res fue­rit emp­to­ri, ae­que di­cen­dum sit ex sti­pu­la­tu ac­tio­nem non nas­ci, sci­li­cet si an­te­quam ab­du­ce­ret vel au­fer­ret do­na­ve­rit aut le­ga­ve­rit: alio­quin se­mel com­mis­sa sti­pu­la­tio resol­vi non pot­est.

Gaius, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book II. A purchaser is held to have a right to possession of the property where the party who deprived him of the same by eviction dies without leaving a successor, before the property is taken away or removed, provided it does not belong to the Treasury, or is not liable to be sold by private creditors; for then the purchaser would not be entitled to any action under the stipulation, because he has a right to hold the property. 1Since this is the case, let us see whether it must also be held that an action does not arise on account of the stipulation, where the property was donated or bequeathed to the purchaser by the party who defeated him. This is certainly the case where he donated or bequeathed the property before he removed it; otherwise, when the stipulation has once become operative it cannot be annulled.