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)
Iav.Cass.
Ex Cassio lib.Iavoleni Ex Cassio libri

Ex Cassio 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. 28,2,5Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro pri­mo ex Cas­sio. id­eo­que qui pos­tu­mum he­redem in­sti­tuit si post tes­ta­men­tum fac­tum mu­ta­vit ma­tri­mo­nium, is in­sti­tu­tus vi­de­tur, qui ex pos­te­rio­re ma­tri­mo­nio na­tus est.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book I. Therefore, where a man has appointed a posthumous heir, and, after the execution of the will, marries again, he is held to have been appointed who is the issue of the subsequent marriage.

Dig. 28,5,14Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro pri­mo ex Cas­sio. Si quis he­redes ita in­sti­tuit: ‘Ti­tius ex par­te pri­ma, Se­ius ex par­te se­cun­da, Mae­vius ex par­te ter­tia, Sul­pi­cius ex par­te quar­ta he­redes sun­to’: ae­quae par­tes he­redi­ta­tis ad in­sti­tu­tos per­ti­ne­bunt, quia tes­ta­tor ap­pel­la­tio­ne nu­me­ris scrip­tu­rae ma­gis or­di­nem, quam mo­dum par­ti­bus im­po­suis­se vi­de­tur.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book I. If anyone should appoint heirs as follows: “Let Titius be heir to the first share, Seius to the second, Mævius to the third, and Sulpicius to the fourth”, equal shares of the estate will belong to the parties appointed; for the reason that the testator is held to have named them rather to show the order of their designation, than to prescribe the method of dividing the estate into shares.

Dig. 28,5,64Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro pri­mo ex Cas­sio. He­redes si­ne par­ti­bus utrum con­iunc­tim an se­pa­ra­tim scri­ban­tur, hoc in­ter­est, quod, si quis ex con­iunc­tis de­ces­sit, non ad om­nes, sed ad re­li­quos qui con­iunc­ti erant per­ti­net, sin au­tem ex se­pa­ra­tis, ad om­nes, qui tes­ta­men­to eo­dem scrip­ti sunt he­redes, por­tio eius per­ti­net.

Ad Dig. 28,5,64Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. III, § 604, Note 4.Javolenus, On Cassius, Book VI. Where heirs are appointed without the designation of their shares, it is important to ascertain whether they are appointed conjointly, or separately; because if any one of those appointed conjointly should die, his share will not belong to all the heirs, but only to the remaining ones who are appointed along with him; but where one of those appointed separately dies, his share will belong to all of the heirs appointed under the will.

Dig. 31,37Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro pri­mo ex Cas­sio. Qui tes­ta­men­to in­uti­li­ter ma­nu­mis­sus est le­ga­ri eo­dem tes­ta­men­to pot­est, quia to­tiens ef­fi­ca­cior est li­ber­tas le­ga­to, quo­tiens uti­li­ter da­ta est.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book I. Where a slave has been illegally manumitted by a will, he can be bequeathed by the same will, because freedom only takes precedence over a legacy where it was granted in accordance with law.

Ex libro II

Dig. 31,38Idem li­bro se­cun­do ex Cas­sio. Quod ser­vus le­ga­tus an­te ad­itam he­redi­ta­tem ad­quisiit, he­redi­ta­ti ad­quirit.

The Same, On Cassius, Book II. Whatever a slave, who was bequeathed, acquired before the estate was entered upon, he acquires for the estate.

Dig. 32,84Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro se­cun­do ex Cas­sio. Cui quae Ro­mae es­sent le­ga­ta sunt, ei et­iam quae cus­to­diae cau­sa in hor­reis ex­tra ur­bem re­po­si­ta sunt, de­ben­tur.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book II. Where a testator bequeathed his property, which was at Rome, to a certain person, he would also be entitled to whatever was stored for safe keeping in warehouses outside the City.

Dig. 33,5,14Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro se­cun­do ex Cas­sio. Si, cum op­tio ser­vi ex uni­ver­sa fa­mi­lia le­ga­ta es­set, he­res ali­quem prius­quam op­ta­re­tur ma­nu­mi­sit, ad li­ber­ta­tem eum in­ter­im non per­du­cit, ser­vum ta­men quem ita ma­nu­mi­se­rit amit­tit, quia is aut elec­tus le­ga­to ce­dit aut re­lic­tus tunc li­ber os­ten­di­tur.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book II. Where the right to select a slave from the entire body of those forming part of an estate is bequeathed, and the heir manumits one of them before the choice is made, he cannot, in the meantime, confer his freedom upon him, but he will lose the slave whom he manumitted, because if he is chosen by the legatee, he will belong to him, but if he is rejected, he will then become free.

Dig. 33,7,11Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro se­cun­do ex Cas­sio. Ea­dem ra­tio est in avi­bus, quae in in­su­lis ma­ri­ti­mis alun­tur.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book II. The same rule applies to birds which are kept in houses near the sea.

Dig. 33,8,17Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro se­cun­do ex Cas­sio. Qui pe­cu­lium ser­vi le­ga­ve­rat, iu­di­cium eo no­mi­ne ac­ce­pe­rat, de­in­de de­ces­se­rat. pla­cuit non ali­ter pe­cu­lium ex cau­sa le­ga­ti prae­sta­ri, quam si de ac­cep­to iu­di­cio he­redi ca­ve­re­tur.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book II. A certain individual who had bequeathed the peculium of his slave undertook to defend him in court, and afterwards died. It was decided that the heir was not compelled to deliver the peculium on account of the legacy, unless security to indemnify him for any loss arising from the defence of the slave was furnished.

Dig. 34,1,6Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro se­cun­do ex Cas­sio. Le­ga­tis ali­men­tis ci­ba­ria et ves­ti­tus et ha­bi­ta­tio de­be­bi­tur, quia si­ne his ali cor­pus non pot­est: ce­te­ra quae ad dis­ci­pli­nam per­ti­nent le­ga­to non con­ti­nen­tur,

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book II. Where maintenance is bequeathed, food, clothing, and lodging are included, because without these the body cannot be sustained; but things which have reference to instruction are not embraced in the legacy,

Dig. 35,1,54Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro se­cun­do ex Cas­sio. Si quis le­ga­ta, qui­bus dies ad­po­si­ta non es­set, an­nua bi­ma tri­ma die da­ri ius­sit et ali­cui, cum pu­bes es­set, pe­cu­niam le­ga­vit, id quo­que le­ga­tum an­nua bi­ma tri­ma die post pu­ber­ta­tem prae­stan­dum es­se in com­men­ta­riis Gaii scrip­tum est, quia ma­gis con­di­cio quam dies le­ga­to ad­iec­ta es­set. con­tra ego sen­tio, quia fe­re dies po­ni­tur ad pro­ro­gan­da ea, quae ad prae­sens tem­pus, non et­iam quae in fu­tu­rum le­ga­ta sunt, dies­que pu­ber­ta­tis ha­bet ali­quam tem­po­ris de­mons­tra­tio­nem. 1Duo­bus ea­dem res, si he­redi cen­tum de­dis­sent, le­ga­ta est: si al­ter ex his quin­qua­gin­ta de­de­rit, par­tem le­ga­ti con­se­que­tur et pars eius, qui non de­de­rit, al­te­ri cum sua con­di­cio­ne ad­cres­cit.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book II. Where anyone orders legacies, for the payment of which he does not fix any time, to be paid in one, two and three years, and bequeaths a sum of money to a minor when he shall arrive at the age of puberty, it is stated in the Commentaries of Gaius that the last legacy mentioned should be paid in one, two or three years after the boy arrives at puberty; because a more important condition than the term of payment is attached to the legacy. I think that the opposite opinion is correct, because where a time is prescribed, it has reference to the postponement of the payment of legacies which are due at present, but does not apply to those which are payable in the future, and the age of puberty establishes a certain date for the payment of the legacy. 1The same property was bequeathed to two persons, if they should pay a hundred aurei to the heir. If one of them should pay him fifty, he will be entitled to his share of the legacy, and the share of the one who did not pay will accrue to the other, dependent upon compliance with the condition.

Dig. 35,1,68Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro se­cun­do ex Cas­sio. Si ita le­ga­tum es­set ‘cum nub­se­rit’, si nup­ta fue­rit et hoc tes­ta­tor scis­set, al­te­rum ma­tri­mo­nium erit ex­spec­tan­dum ni­hil­que in­ter­erit, utrum vi­vo tes­ta­to­re an post mor­tem ea ite­rum nub­se­rit.

The Same, On Cassius, Book II. Where a legacy is bequeathed to take effect when a woman marries, if she was already married and the testator was aware of the fact, the parties must wait for a second marriage, and it will make no difference whether the woman marries again during the lifetime of the testator or after his death.

Ex libro III

Dig. 5,3,48Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro ter­tio ex Cas­sio. In aes­ti­ma­tio­ni­bus he­redi­ta­tis ita venit pre­tium ven­di­tae he­redi­ta­tis, ut id quo­que ac­ce­dat, quod plus fuit in he­redi­ta­te, si ea neg­otia­tio­nis cau­sa ven­iit: sin au­tem ex fi­dei­com­mis­si cau­sa, ni­hil am­plius quam quod bo­na fi­de ac­ce­pit.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book IV. In appraising the value of an estate, the purchase-money obtained for its sale must be included, as well as the addition of whatever else it was worth, if this was done on account of business; but where it is disposed of in compliance with the terms of a trust, nothing more will be included than what the party acquired in good faith.

Dig. 31,39Idem li­bro ter­tio ex Cas­sio. Si areae le­ga­tae post tes­ta­men­tum fac­tum ae­di­fi­cium im­po­si­tum est, utrum­que de­be­bi­tur et so­lum et su­per­fi­cium.

The Same, On Cassius, Book III. When land which is not built upon is devised, and, after the will was executed, a building is erected thereon, both the ground and the building must be delivered by the heir.

Dig. 38,2,34Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro ter­tio ex Cas­sio. Si li­ber­tus, cum duos pa­tro­nos ha­be­ret, al­te­rum prae­ter­iit, al­te­rum ex sem­is­se fe­cit he­redem et al­te­ri ex­tra­neo sem­is­sem de­reli­quit, scrip­tus qui­dem pa­tro­nus de­bi­tam si­bi par­tem im­mu­nem ha­bet: de ce­te­ra au­tem par­te pa­tro­ni, quae su­pra de­bi­tum ei re­lic­ta est, et de sem­is­se ex­tra­neo re­lic­to al­te­ri pa­tro­no pro ra­ta por­tio­ne sa­tis­fie­ri opor­tet.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book III. When a freedman, who has two patrons, passes one of them over in his will, and appoints a stranger heir to half of his estate, the patron who is appointed heir can claim the share to which he is entitled without deduction; and out of the other share which was left over and above what was due to him, and out of the remaining half bequeathed to the stranger, an amount shall be taken pro rata to make up the share to which the other patron is entitled by law.

Ex libro IV

Dig. 23,3,64Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro quar­to ex Cas­sio. Post di­vor­tium mu­lier si de do­te ma­ri­tus ni­hil ca­vit et, cum alii nup­sis­set, post­ea ad prio­rem vi­rum red­iit, ta­ci­te dos ei red­in­te­gra­tur.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book IV. Where a husband made no subsequent provision with reference to a dowry, if, after a divorce has taken place, the woman should marry another man, and afterwards, having again been divorced, return to her first husband, the dowry will be tacitly restored to him unimpaired.

Dig. 23,4,1Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro quar­to ex Cas­sio. Pa­cis­ci post nup­tias, et­iam­si ni­hil an­te con­ve­ne­rit, li­cet. 1Pac­ta quae de red­den­da do­te fiunt, in­ter om­nes fie­ri opor­tet, qui re­pe­te­re do­tem et a qui­bus re­pe­ti pot­est, ne ei, qui non in­ter­fuit, apud ar­bi­trum co­gnos­cen­tem pac­tum non pro­sit.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book IV. It is lawful for an agreement to be made after marriage, even if none has previously been, entered into. 1Agreements made for the purpose of returning a dowry should be entered into by all the parties who have either a right to recover the dowry, or from whom it can be recovered, in order that one of them, who is not a party to the proceedings, will not be able to obtain any advantage from the magistrate who may be called upon to enforce the agreement.

Ex libro V

Dig. 26,2,24Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro quin­to ex Cas­sio. Si plu­res tu­to­res sint, a prae­to­re cu­ra­to­rem pos­ci li­tis cau­sa su­per­va­cuum est, quia al­te­ro auc­to­re cum al­te­ro agi pot­est.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book V. Where there are several guardians, it is superfluous to petition the Prætor to appoint a curator for the purpose of conducting a lawsuit against one of them, because the ward can begin the action with the authority of another guardian.

Dig. 34,5,22Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro quin­to ex Cas­sio. Cum pu­be­re fi­lio ma­ter nau­fra­gio per­iit: cum ex­plo­ra­ri non pos­sit, uter prior ex­stinc­tus sit, hu­ma­nius est cre­de­re fi­lium diu­tius vi­xis­se.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book V. A mother lost her life in a shipwreck at the same time as her son who had reached the age of puberty. If it cannot be ascertained which of them died first, it is more natural to suppose that the son lived the longer.

Ex libro VI

Dig. 1,7,16Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro sex­to ex Cas­sio. Ad­op­tio enim in his per­so­nis lo­cum ha­bet, in qui­bus et­iam na­tu­ra pot­est ha­be­re.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book VI. For adoption can only take place with persons between whom the natural relation of father and son might exist.

Dig. 2,1,2Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro sex­to ex Cas­sio. Cui iu­ris­dic­tio da­ta est, ea quo­que con­ces­sa es­se vi­den­tur, si­ne qui­bus iu­ris­dic­tio ex­pli­ca­ri non po­tuit.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book VI. He to whom legal jurisdiction is given is also held to be invested with all the powers necessary for its exercise.

Dig. 38,1,21Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro sex­to ex Cas­sio. Ope­rae enim lo­co edi de­bent ubi pa­tro­nus mo­ra­tur, sump­tu sci­li­cet et vec­tu­ra pa­tro­ni.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book VI. For the services should be rendered in the place where the patron resides, and of course at his expense for food and transportation.

Dig. 38,1,33Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro sex­to ex Cas­sio. Im­po­ni ope­rae ita, ut ip­se li­ber­tus se alat, non pos­sunt.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book VI. Services cannot be imposed upon a freedman in such a way that he shall be required to support himself.

Dig. 40,7,28Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro sex­to ex Cas­sio. Si he­redi­tas eius, qui ser­vum, in­tra dies tri­gin­ta mor­tis suae si ra­tio­nes red­di­dis­set, li­be­rum es­se ius­se­rat, post dies tri­gin­ta ad­ita est, iu­re qui­dem stric­to ita ma­nu­mis­sus li­ber es­se non pot­est, quon­iam con­di­cio­ne de­fi­ci­tur: sed fa­vor li­ber­ta­tis eo rem per­du­xit, ut re­spon­dea­tur ex­ple­tam con­di­cio­nem, si per eum, cui da­ta es­set, non sta­ret quo mi­nus ex­ple­re­tur. 1Sta­tu­li­ber, an­te­quam con­di­cio li­ber­ta­tis op­ti­ge­rit, si quid com­pa­ras­set, pe­cu­lio le­ga­to non ces­su­rum in li­bris Gaii Cas­sii scrip­tum est, ni­si id le­ga­tum in tem­pus li­ber­ta­tis col­la­tum es­set. vi­dea­mus, ne, cum pe­cu­lium et ac­ces­sio­nem et de­ces­sio­nem ha­beat, aug­men­tum quo­que eius pe­cu­lii, si mo­do ab he­rede ei ab­la­tum non sit, le­ga­to ces­su­rum sit: et ma­gis hoc iu­re uti­mur.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book VI. Where the estate of a person who directed that his slave should become free within thirty days after his death, if he rendered his accounts, was not entered upon until after the thirty days had expired, the manumitted slave cannot become free by the strict construction of the law, as the condition was not fulfilled; but the indulgence with which freedom is regarded causes the condition to be considered as complied with, if it was not the fault of the person upon whom it was imposed that this was not done. 1It is stated in the Books of Gaius Cassius that if a slave, who is to be conditionally free, should acquire any property before the condition upon which his liberty is dependent is complied with, it will not be embraced in the bequest of his peculium, unless the legacy was made to include the time when he was free. As the peculium is susceptible of both increase and diminution, let us see whether its increase by the heir will form part of the legacy, provided the slave is not deprived of it. This is our present practice.

Dig. 50,4,12Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro sex­to ex Cas­sio. Cui mu­ne­ris pu­bli­ci va­ca­tio da­tur, non re­mit­ti­tur ei, ne ma­gis­tra­tus fiat, quia id ad ho­no­rem ma­gis quam ad mu­ne­ra per­ti­net. ce­te­ra om­nia, quae ad tem­pus ex­tra or­di­nem ex­igun­tur, vel­uti mu­ni­tio via­rum, ab hu­ius­mo­di per­so­na ex­igen­da non sunt.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book VI. Anyone who has been granted exemption from the performance of municipal duties is not excused from becoming a magistrate, because the functions of the latter are more honorable than those attaching to other public employments; but all other extraordinary duties required from anyone temporarily, as, for instance, the repair of highways, should not be demanded of a person of this kind.

Dig. 50,16,111Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro sex­to ex Cas­sio. ‘Cen­se­re’ est con­sti­tue­re et prae­ci­pe­re. un­de et­iam di­ce­re so­le­mus ‘cen­seo hoc fa­cias’ et ‘se­met ali­quid cen­suis­se’. in­de cen­so­ris no­men vi­de­tur es­se trac­tum.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book VI. The expression, “To be of the opinion,” means to determine and direct; hence, we are accustomed to say, “I am of the opinion that you should do this,” and “The Senate directed that such-and-such a thing should be done.” It is from this verb that the word “censor” is derived.

Ex libro VII

Dig. 17,1,36Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro sep­ti­mo ex Cas­sio. ita ut om­nes sum­mas ma­io­res et mi­no­res co­acer­vet et ita por­tio­nem ei qui man­da­tum sus­ce­pit prae­stet. quod et ple­ri­que pro­bant. 1Si­mi­li mo­do et in il­la spe­cie, ubi cer­to pre­tio ti­bi eme­re man­da­vi et alia­rum par­tium no­mi­ne com­mo­de neg­otium ges­sis­ti et vi­lius eme­ris, pro tua par­te tan­tum ti­bi prae­sta­tur, quan­ti in­ter­est tua, dum­mo­do in­tra id pre­tium, quod man­da­to con­ti­ne­tur. quid enim fiet, si ex­iguo pre­tio hi, cum qui­bus ti­bi com­mu­nis fun­dus erat, rem ab­ice­re vel ne­ces­si­ta­te rei fa­mi­lia­ris vel alia cau­sa co­ge­ren­tur? non et­iam tu ad idem dis­pen­dium de­du­ce­ris. sed nec lu­crum ti­bi ex hac cau­sa ad­quire­re de­bes, cum man­da­tum gra­tui­tum es­se de­bet: ne­que enim ti­bi con­ce­den­dum est prop­ter hoc ven­di­tio­nem im­pe­di­re, quod ani­mo­sio­rem eius rei emp­to­rem es­se quam ti­bi man­da­tum est co­gno­ve­ris. 2Quod si fun­dum, qui per par­tes venit, emen­dum ti­bi man­das­sem, sed ita, ut non ali­ter man­da­to te­near, quam si to­tum fun­dum eme­res: si to­tum eme­re non po­tue­ris, in par­ti­bus emen­dis ti­bi neg­otium ges­se­ris (si­ve ha­bue­ris in eo fun­do par­tem si­ve non) et eve­niet, ut is cui ta­le man­da­tum da­tum est pe­ri­cu­lo suo in­ter­im par­tes emat et, ni­si to­tum eme­rit, in­gra­tis eas re­ti­neat. nam pro­pius est, ut cum hu­ius­mo­di in­com­mo­dis man­da­tum sus­ci­pi pos­sit prae­sta­ri­que of­fi­cium et in par­ti­bus emen­dis per­in­de at­que in to­to de­beat ab eo, qui ta­le man­da­tum sua spon­te sus­ce­pit. 3Quod si man­das­sem ti­bi, ut fun­dum mi­hi eme­res, non ad­di­to eo, ut non ali­ter man­da­to te­near, quam si to­tum eme­res, et tu par­tem vel quas­dam par­tes eius eme­ris, tum ha­be­bi­mus si­ne du­bio in­vi­cem man­da­ti ac­tio­nem, quam­vis re­li­quas par­tes eme­re non po­tuis­ses.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book VII. A person of this kind should bring all the amounts, large and small, together, and in that way ascertain the share to be paid by the party who received the mandate. Many authorities adopt this rule. 1In like manner, in the following instance, where I directed you to purchase something for me at a certain price, and you transacted the business profitably with reference to the other joint-owners, and made the purchase at a low figure, you will have for your share the amount of your interest, provided it is within the sum contained in the mandate; but what if the parties who held the land in common with you were compelled to dispose of it at a low price, either on account of the bad condition of their affairs, or for some other reason? You should not make the same sacrifice, nor should you profit by this circumstance, as a mandate ought to be gratuitous, nor should you be permitted, on this account, to prevent the sale, because you knew that the purchaser was more anxious to obtain the property than he was at the time he directed you to purchase it. 2If I should direct you to purchase for me a tract of land, which is sold by certain parties, in such a way, however, that I shall not be bound by the mandate unless you purchase the entire tract, and you are unable to purchase it all; you will be transacting your own business with reference to the shares you have bought, whether you have an interest in the land or not. The result will also be that he to whom a mandate of this kind has been given, will, in the meantime, purchase the different shares at his own risk, and, unless he buys them all, they will remain in his hands, even though he does not want them. It is more probable that, since a party can undertake the execution of a mandate attended with such inconveniences, and has done so voluntarily, he should discharge his duty by purchasing the different shares, just as he ought to do in purchasing all of them together. 3If I direct you to purchase a tract of land for me, and do not add that I shall not be liable under the mandate unless you buy it all, and you purchase one, or several portions of the same; we will then undoubtedly be entitled to actions on mandate against one another reciprocally, even though you could not purchase the remaining portions of the land.

Dig. 18,1,63Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro sep­ti­mo ex Cas­sio. Cum ser­vo do­mi­nus rem ven­de­re cer­tae per­so­nae ius­se­rit, si alii ven­di­dis­set, quam cui ius­sus erat, ven­di­tio non va­let: idem iu­ris in li­be­ra per­so­na est: cum per­fi­ci ven­di­tio non po­tuit in eius per­so­na, cui do­mi­nus venire eam no­luit. 1De­mons­tra­tio­ne fun­di fac­ta fi­nes no­mi­na­ri su­per­va­cuum est: si no­mi­nen­tur, et­iam ip­sum ven­di­to­rem no­mi­na­re opor­tet, si for­te alium agrum con­fi­nem pos­si­det.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book VII. Where a master orders his slave to sell property to a certain person, and he sells it to another, the sale will not be valid. The same rule applies to a person who is free, since a sale cannot be made to a party to whom the owner was unwilling that the property should be sold. 1Where the contents of a tract of land have been described, it is superfluous to mention the boundaries of the adjacent tracts. If they are mentioned, it is also necessary to state the names of the vendors of the same, if any of them should happen to have adjoining land.

Dig. 18,6,17Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro sep­ti­mo ex Cas­sio. Ser­vi emp­tor si eum con­duc­tum ro­ga­vit, do­nec pre­tium sol­ve­ret, ni­hil per eum ser­vum ad­quire­re pot­erit, quon­iam non vi­de­tur tra­di­tus is, cu­ius pos­ses­sio per lo­ca­tio­nem re­ti­ne­tur a ven­di­to­re. pe­ri­cu­lum eius ser­vi ad emp­to­rem per­ti­net, quod ta­men si­ne do­lo ven­di­to­ris in­ter­ve­ne­rit.

Ad Dig. 18,6,17ROHGE, Bd. 11 (1874), Nr. 97, S. 295: Folge des Annahmeverzuges des Frachtguts seitens des Empfängers. Befugnis des Frachtführers zum Verkaufe, nicht Verpflichtung.ROHGE, Bd. 13 (1874), Nr. 68, S. 207: Unterlassung von Schadensabwendungs-Maßregeln seitens des vertragstreuen Contrahenten.Javolenus, On Cassius, Book VII. Where the purchaser of a slave asks permission to hire him until he can pay his price, he will acquire nothing through the services of said slave, since he is not held to be delivered whose possession is retained by the vendor through hiring him. The purchaser will be responsible for the slave, where anything happens to him without the fraud of the vendor.

Dig. 19,1,18Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro sep­ti­mo ex Cas­sio. Gra­na­ria, quae ex ta­bu­lis fie­ri so­lent, ita ae­dium sunt, si sti­pi­tes eo­rum in ter­ra de­fos­si sunt: quod si su­pra ter­ram sunt, ru­tis et cae­sis ce­dunt. 1Te­gu­lae, quae non­dum ae­di­fi­ciis im­po­si­tae sunt, quam­vis te­gen­di gra­tia al­la­tae sunt, in ru­tis et cae­sis ha­ben­tur: aliud iu­ris est in his, quae de­trac­tae sunt ut re­po­ne­ren­tur: ae­di­bus enim ac­ce­dunt.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book VII. Granaries, which are usually made of boards, belong to the building, if their foundations are in the earth; but if they are above ground, they should be classed as movable property. 1Tiles which have not yet been placed upon buildings, although they have been brought there for that purpose, are included in the class of personal property. A different rule applies to those which have been removed with the intention of being replaced, for they are accessories to the house.

Dig. 41,2,21Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro sep­ti­mo ex Cas­sio. In­ter­dum eius pos­ses­sio­nem, cu­ius ip­si non ha­be­mus, alii tra­de­re pos­su­mus, vel­uti cum is, qui pro he­rede rem pos­si­de­bat, an­te­quam do­mi­nus fie­ret, pre­ca­rio ab he­rede eam ro­ga­vit. 1Quod ex nau­fra­gio ex­pul­sum est, usu­ca­pi non pot­est, quon­iam non est in de­relic­to, sed in de­per­di­to. 2Idem iu­ris es­se ex­is­ti­mo in his re­bus, quae iac­tae sunt: quon­iam non pot­est vi­de­ri id pro de­relic­to ha­bi­tum, quod sa­lu­tis cau­sa in­ter­im di­mis­sum est. 3Qui alie­nam rem pre­ca­rio ro­ga­vit, si ean­dem a do­mi­no con­du­xit, pos­ses­sio ad do­mi­num re­ver­ti­tur.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book VII. We can sometimes deliver to another the possession of property which we ourselves do not hold; as, for instance, when he who possesses an article as heir, and, before becoming the owner of the same, claims it under a precarious title from the real heir. 1Property which has been thrown overboard in a shipwreck cannot be acquired by usucaption, since it has not been abandoned, but merely lost. 2I think that the same rule of law applies to property which has been thrown into the sea to lighten the ship, as that cannot be considered as abandoned which has been temporarily relinquished on account of safety. 3When anyone claims the property of another by a precarious title, and leases it from him, possession of the same will revert to the owner.

Dig. 41,8,5Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro sep­ti­mo ex Cas­sio. Ea res, quae le­ga­ti no­mi­ne tra­di­ta est, quam­vis do­mi­nus eius vi­vat, le­ga­to­rum ta­men no­mi­ne usu­ca­pie­tur,

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book VII. Property delivered as a legacy can be acquired by usucaption on this ground, even though the owner of it may be living,

Dig. 41,8,7Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro sep­ti­mo ex Cas­sio. Ne­mo pot­est le­ga­to­rum no­mi­ne usu­ca­pe­re ni­si is, cum quo tes­ta­men­ti fac­tio est, quia ea pos­ses­sio ex iu­re tes­ta­men­ti pro­fi­cis­ci­tur.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book VII. No one can acquire property by usucaption on account of a legacy, unless he himself had a right to make a will for the benefit of the testator, because possession of this kind depends upon testamentary capacity.

Ex libro VIII

Dig. 3,5,27Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro oc­ta­vo ex Cas­sio. Si quis man­da­tu Ti­tii neg­otia Se­ii ges­sit, Ti­tio man­da­ti te­ne­tur lis­que aes­ti­ma­ri de­bet, quan­to Se­ii et Ti­tii in­ter­est: Ti­tii au­tem in­ter­est, quan­tum is Se­io prae­sta­re de­bet, cui vel man­da­ti vel neg­otio­rum ges­to­rum no­mi­ne ob­li­ga­tus est. Ti­tio au­tem ac­tio com­pe­tit cum eo, cui man­da­vit alie­na neg­otia ge­ren­da, et an­te­quam ip­se quic­quam do­mi­no prae­stet, quia id ei ab­es­se vi­de­tur, in quo ob­li­ga­tus est.

Ad Dig. 3,5,27ROHGE, Bd. 17 (1875), Nr. 21, S. 78: Legitimation des Verkäufers, der den Speditionsvertrag in eigenem Namen geschlossen, den dem Käufer aus der Nichterfüllung entstandenen Schaden als seinen eigenen einzuklagen.ROHGE, Bd. 18 (1876), Nr. 22, S. 97: Begründung des Anspruchs des Postfiskus auf Ersatz aus dem Verluste eines Geldbriefbeutels. Berufung auf die Verbindlichkeit, dem Absender Ersatz zu leisten.Javolenus, On Cassius, Book VIII. Where anyone has transacted the business of Seius by the direction of Titius, he is liable to Titius in an action of mandate, and in the action the amount of the interest of both Seius and Titius should be taken into consideration; the interest of Titius, however, must be determined by the amount he has to pay Seius, to whom he is liable either on mandate, or for business transacted. Titius has a right of action also against the party whom he directed to attend to the affairs of another, before he himself pays anything to his principal; because he is held to have lost the amount for which he was liable.

Dig. 19,2,37Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro oc­ta­vo ex Cas­sio. Si, prius­quam lo­ca­to­ri opus pro­ba­re­tur, vi ali­qua con­sump­tum est, de­tri­men­tum ad lo­ca­to­rem ita per­ti­net, si ta­le opus fuit, ut pro­ba­ri de­be­ret.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book VIII. If a work is destroyed by superior force before it has been accepted by the employer, he must bear the loss, if the work was of such a character that he should have accepted it.

Ex libro IX

Dig. 11,1,14Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro no­no ex Cas­sio. Si is, cu­ius no­mi­ne no­xae iu­di­cium ac­cep­tum est, ma­nen­te iu­di­cio li­ber iu­di­ca­tus est, reus ab­sol­vi de­bet, nec quic­quam in­ter­ro­ga­tio in iu­re fac­ta prod­erit, quia eius per­so­nae, cu­ius no­mi­ne quis cum alio ac­tio­nem ha­bet, ob­li­ga­tio­nem trans­fer­re pot­est in eum, qui in iu­re suum es­se con­fi­te­tur, vel­ut alie­num ser­vum suum es­se con­fi­ten­do: li­be­ri au­tem ho­mi­nis no­mi­ne quia cum alio ac­tio non est, ne per in­ter­ro­ga­tio­nem qui­dem aut con­fes­sio­nem trans­fer­ri pot­erit. quo ca­su eve­niet, ut non rec­te ho­mi­nis li­be­ri no­mi­ne ac­tum sit cum eo qui con­fes­sus est. 1In to­tum au­tem con­fes­sio­nes ita ra­tae sunt, si id, quod in con­fes­sio­nem venit, et ius et na­tu­ram re­ci­pe­re pot­est.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book IX. When the individual on whose account issue has been joined in a noxal action is decided to be free, during the course of the trial, the defendant should be discharged; and the interrogation will be of no benefit because it was made in court; since where anyone has a right of action against another on account of a third party, he cannot transfer the liability of said party to one who confesses in court that he is his slave; as, for instance, if he confesses that the slave of another is his own; still, as no action can be brought against another person on account of a man who is free, liability cannot be transferred by means of any interrogatory or confession. The result in this case is that no action can properly be brought with reference to a freeman against someone who has made a confession. 1In general, confessions are considered only where what is included in the confession can be accepted as in conformity with law and nature.

Dig. 17,1,51Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro no­no ex Cas­sio. Fi­de­ius­sor quam­vis per er­ro­rem an­te diem pe­cu­niam sol­ve­rit, re­pe­te­re ta­men ab eo non pot­est ac ne man­da­ti qui­dem ac­tio­nem, an­te­quam dies sol­ven­di ve­niat, cum reo ha­be­bit.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book IX. A surety, although he may have paid the money by mistake before it is due, can not, nevertheless, bring suit against the creditor; nor can he, indeed, bring an action on mandate to which he may be entitled against the principal debtor, before the day of payment arrives.

Ex libro X

Dig. 8,2,12Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Ae­di­fi­cia, quae ser­vi­tu­tem pa­tian­tur ne quid al­tius tol­la­tur, vi­ri­dia su­pra eam al­ti­tu­di­nem ha­be­re pos­sunt: at si de pro­spec­tu est ea­que ob­sta­tu­ra sunt, non pos­sunt.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book X. Where buildings are subject to a servitude that no portion of them shall be raised any higher, shrubs can be placed upon them above that height; but where the servitude relates to the view and the shrubs would obstruct it, this cannot be done.

Dig. 8,3,13Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Cer­to ge­ne­ri agro­rum ad­quiri ser­vi­tus pot­est, vel­ut vi­neis, quod ea ad so­lum ma­gis quam ad su­per­fi­ciem per­ti­net. id­eo sub­la­tis vi­neis ser­vi­tus ma­ne­bit: sed si in con­tra­hen­da ser­vi­tu­te aliud ac­tum erit, do­li ma­li ex­cep­tio erit ne­ces­sa­ria. 1Si to­tus ager iti­ne­ri aut ac­tui ser­vit, do­mi­nus in eo agro ni­hil fa­ce­re pot­est, quo ser­vi­tus im­pe­dia­tur, quae ita dif­fu­sa est, ut om­nes glae­bae ser­viant, aut si iter ac­tus­ve si­ne ul­la de­ter­mi­na­tio­ne le­ga­tus est: mo­do de­ter­mi­na­bi­tur et qua pri­mum iter de­ter­mi­na­tum est, ea ser­vi­tus con­sti­tit, ce­te­rae par­tes agri li­be­rae sunt: igi­tur ar­bi­ter dan­dus est, qui utro­que ca­su viam de­ter­mi­na­re de­bet. 2La­ti­tu­do ac­tus iti­ne­ris­que ea est, quae de­mons­tra­ta est: quod si ni­hil dic­tum est, hoc ab ar­bi­tro sta­tuen­dum est. in via aliud iu­ris est: nam si dic­ta la­ti­tu­do non est, le­gi­ti­ma de­be­tur. 3Si lo­cus non ad­iec­ta la­ti­tu­di­ne no­mi­na­tus est, per eum qua­li­bet iri pot­erit: sin au­tem prae­ter­mis­sus est ae­que la­ti­tu­di­ne non ad­iec­ta, per to­tum fun­dum una pot­erit eli­gi via dum­ta­xat eius la­ti­tu­di­nis, quae le­ge com­pre­hen­sa est: pro quo ip­so, si du­bi­ta­bi­tur, ar­bi­tri of­fi­cium in­vo­can­dum est.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book X. A servitude may be acquired in favor of certain kinds of land, as for instance, vineyards, because this would have reference rather to the soil itself than to the surface of the same; so that, if the vineyards were removed, the servitude will remain. But if another intention existed when the servitude was created, an exception on the ground of malicious fraud will be necessary. 1Where an entire field is subject to a servitude of passage or the driving of cattle, the owner cannot do anything in the said field by which the servitude may be interfered with; because it is so extended that every clod is subject to it. But where the right of passage or to drive cattle is bequeathed without any limit, the limits shall be established at once, and where they are first established there will the servitudes be created, and the remaining parts of the field will be free. Hence, an arbiter must be appointed who, in both instances, should determine the direction of the right of way. 2The width of a driveway for cattle, and that of a pathway, is the one which was designated; and if nothing was said with reference to it, it must be fixed by the arbiter. In the case of a right of way the rule is different; for if the width is not stated, that which is established by law is the proper one. 3If the place is designated but the width is not given, the party can cross said place wherever he wishes. But if the place is not mentioned and the width is not stated, a right of way may be chosen over any portion of the land, but the width of the same must be that prescribed by law; and if there is any doubt as to the direction, the services of an arbiter must be enlisted to decide it.

Dig. 8,4,4Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Ca­ve­ri, ut ad cer­tam al­ti­tu­di­nem mo­nu­men­tum ae­di­fi­ce­tur, non pot­est, quia id, quod hu­ma­ni iu­ris es­se de­siit, ser­vi­tu­tem non re­ci­pit: sic­ut ne il­la qui­dem ser­vi­tus con­sis­te­re pot­est, ut cer­tus nu­me­rus ho­mi­num in uno lo­co hu­me­tur.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book X. It is not possible to provide that a monument shall only be built to a certain height, because what has ceased to be controlled by human law cannot be subject to a servitude; just as no servitude can be created providing that only a certain number of bodies shall be buried in one place.

Dig. 8,6,14Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Si lo­cus, per quem via aut iter aut ac­tus de­be­ba­tur, im­pe­tu flu­mi­nis oc­cu­pa­tus es­set et in­tra tem­pus, quod ad amit­ten­dam ser­vi­tu­tem suf­fi­cit, al­lu­vio­ne fac­ta re­sti­tu­tus est, ser­vi­tus quo­que in pris­ti­num sta­tum re­sti­tui­tur: quod si id tem­pus prae­ter­ie­rit, ut ser­vi­tus amit­ta­tur, re­no­va­re eam co­gen­dus est. 1Cum via pu­bli­ca vel flu­mi­nis im­pe­tu vel rui­na amis­sa est, vi­ci­nus pro­xi­mus viam prae­sta­re de­bet.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book X. Where a place subject to a right of way or a right to walk or drive is overflowed by a river, and before the time established for the loss of the servitude has elapsed, the land is restored by a deposit of alluvium, the servitude is also restored to its former condition. If, however, so much time should elapse that the servitude is lost, the owner of the land can be compelled to renew it. 1Where a highway is destroyed by the overflow of a river, or by the destruction of a building, the nearest neighbor must furnish a roadway.

Dig. 39,3,18Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Si in pu­bli­co opus fac­tum est, quo aqua plu­via no­ce­ret, agi non pot­est: in­ter­ve­nien­te lo­co pu­bli­co agi pot­erit. cau­sa eius rei haec est, quod ea ac­tio­ne non te­ne­tur ni­si do­mi­nus so­lus. 1Si­ne per­mis­su prin­ci­pis aqua per viam pu­bli­cam du­ci non pot­est.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book X. If the work which causes damage by rain-water is erected in a public place, the action cannot be brought; but where the two tracts are separated by a public place, it can be. The reason for this is that the owner alone is liable under this action. 1Water cannot be conducted across a public highway without the consent of the Emperor.

Dig. 43,11,2Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Viam pu­bli­cam po­pu­lus non uten­do amit­te­re non pot­est.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book X. The public cannot lose a highway by failing to make use of it.

Ex libro XI

Dig. 4,8,39Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro un­de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Non ex om­ni­bus cau­sis, ex qui­bus ar­bi­tri pa­ri­tum sen­ten­tiae non est, poe­na ex com­pro­mis­so com­mit­ti­tur, sed ex his dum­ta­xat, quae ad so­lu­tio­nem pe­cu­niae aut ope­ram prae­ben­dam per­ti­nent. idem. con­tu­ma­ciam li­ti­ga­to­ris ar­bi­ter pu­ni­re pot­erit pe­cu­niam eum ad­ver­sa­rio da­re iu­ben­do: quo in nu­me­ro ha­be­ri non opor­tet, si tes­tium no­mi­na ex sen­ten­tia ar­bi­tri ex­hi­bi­ta non sunt. 1Cum ar­bi­ter diem com­pro­mis­si pro­fer­ri ius­sit, cum hoc ei per­mis­sum est, al­te­rius mo­ra al­te­ri ad poe­nam com­mit­ten­dam prod­est.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book XI. It is not in all cases where the decision of the arbiter is not obeyed that liability for the penalty arising from the arbitration is incurred, but only in those which have reference to the payment of money, or the performance of some service. Javolenus also states that an arbiter can punish the contumacy of a litigant by ordering him to pay a sum of money to his adversary; but a party must not be included among contumacious persons where he did not give the names of his witnesses in accordance with the decision of the arbiter. 1If an arbiter orders the time fixed for arbitration to be extended, where he is allowed to do this, the default of either party will not allow the penalty to be collected by the other.

Dig. 41,1,58Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro un­de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Quae­cum­que res ex ma­ri ex­trac­ta est, non an­te eius in­ci­pit es­se qui ex­tra­xit, quam do­mi­nus eam pro de­relic­to ha­be­re coe­pit.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book XI. Anything which is taken from the sea does not begin to be the property of him who obtains it until the owner of said property begins to consider it as abandoned.

Dig. 45,1,104Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro un­de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Cum ser­vus pe­cu­niam pro li­ber­ta­te pac­tus est et ob eam rem reum de­dit: quam­vis ser­vus ab alio ma­nu­mis­sus est, reus ta­men rec­te ob­li­ga­bi­tur, quia non quae­ri­tur, a quo ma­nu­mit­ta­tur, sed ut ma­nu­mit­ta­tur.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book XI. Where a slave has agreed to pay a sum of money for his freedom, and has given a surety for that purpose, even though he may be manumitted by another person, the surety will, nevertheless, legally be bound, for the reason that the inquiry was not made to ascertain by whom he was manumitted, but merely to learn whether he has been manumitted.

Dig. 46,3,78Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro un­de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Si alie­ni num­mi in­scio vel in­vi­to do­mi­no so­lu­ti sunt, ma­nent eius cu­ius fue­runt: si mix­ti es­sent, ita ut dis­cer­ni non pos­sent, eius fie­ri qui ac­ce­pit in li­bris Gaii scrip­tum est, ita ut ac­tio do­mi­no cum eo, qui de­dis­set, fur­ti com­pe­te­ret.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book XI. When money belonging to another is paid without the knowledge or consent of the owner, it still continues to be his property. If it is mixed with other money, so that it cannot be separated, it is stated in the Books of Gaius that it will belong to the person who receives it; so that an action of theft will lie in favor of the owner against him who paid the money.

Dig. 50,16,112Idem li­bro un­de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Li­tus pu­bli­cum est ea­te­nus, qua ma­xi­me fluc­tus ex­aes­tuat. idem­que iu­ris est in la­cu, ni­si is to­tus pri­va­tus est.

The Same, On Cassius, Book XI. The shore of the sea is public as far as high-water mark. The same rule of law applies to a lake, unless it is all private property.

Ex libro XII

Dig. 15,1,33Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro duo­de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Sed si quis ser­vum ita ven­di­dit, ut pre­tium pro pe­cu­lio ac­ci­pe­ret, pe­nes eum vi­de­tur es­se pe­cu­lium, ad quem pre­tium pe­cu­lii per­ve­nit,

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book XII. But where anyone has sold a slave with the understanding that he was to receive a price for the peculium, the peculium is held to be in the hands of the party to whom the price of the same was paid.

Dig. 15,1,35Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro duo­de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. At cum he­res ius­sus est pe­cu­lium da­re ac­cep­ta cer­ta sum­ma, non vi­de­tur pe­nes he­redem es­se pe­cu­lium.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book XII. But where the heir was directed to deliver the peculium on receipt of a certain sum, the peculium is not held to be in the hands of the heir.

Dig. 15,3,2Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro duo­de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Qui num­mis ac­cep­tis ser­vum ma­nu­mis­sit, agi cum eo de in rem ver­so non pot­est, quia dan­do li­ber­ta­tem lo­cu­ple­tior ex num­mis non fit.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book XII. The action founded on the employment of property for another’s benefit cannot be brought against anyone who has liberated a slave in consideration of money received; because, by granting him his freedom, he is not enriched by the money.

Dig. 15,3,9Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro duo­de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Si ve­ro pa­ter do­tem da­tu­rus non fuit, in rem pa­tris ver­sum es­se non vi­de­tur.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book XII. If, indeed, the father was not about to give a dowry, it is not held to have been employed in his business.

Ex libro XIII

Dig. 41,2,22Idem li­bro ter­tio de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Non vi­de­tur pos­ses­sio­nem ad­ep­tus is qui ita nac­tus est, ut eam re­ti­ne­re non pos­sit.

The Same, On Cassius, Book XIII. He who obtains possession in such a way that he cannot retain it is not considered to have acquired it at all.

Dig. 43,5,5Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro ter­tio de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. De ta­bu­lis pro­fe­ren­dis in­ter­dic­tum com­pe­te­re non opor­tet, si he­redi­ta­tis con­tro­ver­sia ex his pen­det aut si ad pu­bli­cam quaes­tio­nem per­ti­net: ita­que in ae­de sa­cra in­ter­im de­po­nen­dae sunt aut apud vi­rum ido­neum.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book XIII. The interdict, requiring a person to produce a will, will not lie where any controversy with reference to the estate is pending, or any public question is involved. Therefore the will should in the meantime be deposited either in a temple or in the hands of some responsible person.

Dig. 50,17,198Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro ter­tio de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Ne­que in in­ter­dic­to ne­que in ce­te­ris cau­sis pu­pil­lo no­ce­re opor­tet do­lum tu­to­ris, si­ve sol­ven­do est si­ve non est.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book XIII. Fraud committed by a guardian, whether he is solvent or not, should not prejudice the rights of his ward in an interdict, or in any other legal proceeding.

Ex libro XIV

Dig. 9,2,37Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro quar­to de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Li­ber ho­mo si ius­su al­te­rius ma­nu in­iu­riam de­dit, ac­tio le­gis Aqui­liae cum eo est qui ius­sit, si mo­do ius im­pe­ran­di ha­buit: quod si non ha­buit, cum eo agen­dum est qui fe­cit. 1Si qua­dru­pes, cu­ius no­mi­ne ac­tio es­set cum do­mi­no, quod pau­pe­r­iem fe­cis­set, ab alio oc­ci­sa est et cum eo le­ge Aqui­lia agi­tur, aes­ti­ma­tio non ad cor­pus qua­dru­pe­dis, sed ad cau­sam eius (in quo de pau­pe­r­ie ac­tio est) re­fer­ri de­bet et tan­ti dam­nan­dus est is qui oc­ci­dit iu­di­cio le­gis Aqui­liae, quan­ti ac­to­ris in­ter­est no­xae po­tius de­di­tio­ne de­fun­gi quam li­tis aes­ti­ma­tio­ne.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book XIV. Ad Dig. 9,2,37 pr.Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 455, Note 27.Where a freeman committed an injury with his own hands by order of another, an action under the Lex Aquilia can be brought against the party who gave the order; provided he had the right of commanding; but if he did not have it, proceedings must be instituted against the party who committed the act. 1Where a quadruped, on account of which a right of action exists against its owner because it has committed damage, is killed by another party against whom suit is then brought under the Lex Aquilia, the estimation of the value of said animal must be made, not with reference to what it is actually worth, but to the circumstances under which the right of action for damages exists; and the party who killed the animal must have judgment rendered against him in a suit under the Lex Aquilia to the amount of the interest the plaintiff had to settle the case through surrendering the animal by way of reparation, rather than by paying the damages which have been estimated.

Dig. 35,2,60Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro quar­to de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Cum pa­ter im­pu­be­ri fi­liae he­redem sub­sti­tuit, id quod ei le­ga­to­rum no­mi­ne a pa­tre ob­ve­nit, cum he­redi­tas ad sub­sti­tu­tos per­ti­net, in com­pu­ta­tio­nem le­gis Fal­ci­diae non venit. 1Le­ga­to pe­ti­to cum in li­tem iu­ra­tum est, ra­tio le­gis Fal­ci­diae non eius sum­mae, in quam le­ga­ta­rius iu­ra­vit, ha­be­ri de­bet, sed eius, quan­ti re ve­ra id fuit quod pe­ti­tum est: nam id quod poe­nae cau­sa ad­cre­vit in le­gem Fal­ci­diam non in­ci­dit.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book XIV. Where a father substitutes an heir for his daughter, who has not yet arrived at puberty, any property which has been received as a legacy by the substitute from the father will not, when the estate passes to the former, be included in the computation made to ascertain the proportion due under the Falcidian Law. 1Where a legacy is claimed, and an oath was made in court by the legatee, the amount due under the Falcidian Law shall not be ascertained from the sum to which the legatee has made oath, but from the true value of the property which is claimed; for what accrues by way of penalty does not come within the scope of the Falcidian Law.

Dig. 39,5,24Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro quar­to de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Fi­de­ius­so­ri eius, qui do­na­tio­nis cau­sa pe­cu­niam su­pra mo­dum le­gis pro­mi­sit, ex­cep­tio da­ri de­bet et­iam in­vi­to reo, ne, si for­te reus sol­ven­do non fue­rit, pe­cu­niam fi­de­ius­sor amit­tat.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book XIV. An exception should be granted to the surety of him who, for the purpose of making a donation, promised a sum of money greater than that authorized by law, even against the consent of the principal; for if the latter should not be solvent, the surety will lose the money.

Dig. 50,16,113Idem li­bro quar­to de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. ‘Mor­bus son­ti­cus’ est, qui cui­que rei no­cet.

The Same, On Cassius, Book XIV. A serious illness is one which interferes with every kind of business.

Ex libro XV

Dig. 3,4,8Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro quin­to de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Ci­vi­ta­tes si per eos qui res ea­rum ad­mi­nis­trant non de­fen­dun­tur nec quic­quam est cor­po­ra­le rei pu­bli­cae quod pos­si­dea­tur, per ac­tio­nes de­bi­to­rum ci­vi­ta­tis agen­ti­bus sa­tis­fie­ri opor­tet.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book XV. Where a municipal corporation is not defended by those who have charge of its affairs, and no common property exists of which possession may be obtained, payment must be made to those who bring suit for debts owing to the corporation.

Dig. 4,6,34Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro quin­to de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Mi­les com­mea­tu ac­cep­to si do­mo sua est, rei pu­bli­cae cau­sa ab­es­se non vi­de­tur. 1Qui ope­ras in pu­bli­co, quod vec­ti­ga­lium cau­sa lo­ca­tum est, dat, rei pu­bli­cae cau­sa non ab­est.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book XV. A soldier who is at home on a furlough is not held to be absent in the service of the State. 1A person who gives his services for the collection of public taxes which have been farmed out, is not absent in the service of the State.

Dig. 5,1,34Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro quin­to de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Si is qui Ro­mae iu­di­cium ac­ce­pe­rat de­ces­sit, he­res eius quam­vis do­mi­ci­lium trans ma­re ha­bet, Ro­mae ta­men de­fen­di de­bet, quia suc­ce­dit in eius lo­cum, a quo he­res re­lic­tus est.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book XV. When a party dies after having joined issue at Rome, his heir, even though he resides beyond sea, must defend the case at Rome, because he succeeds to the place of him by whom he was appointed heir.

Dig. 12,3,9Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro quin­to de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Cum fur­ti agi­tur, iu­ra­re ita opor­tet ‘tan­ti rem fuis­se cum fur­tum fac­tum sit’, non ad­ici ‘eo plu­ris­ve’, quia quod res plu­ris est, uti­que tan­ti est.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book XV. Where proceedings for theft are instituted, the value of the property at the time when the theft was committed must be sworn to, without adding the words, “Or more,” because where property is worth more, it is, at all events, worth as much.

Dig. 16,2,14Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro quin­to de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Quae­cum­que per ex­cep­tio­nem per­emi pos­sunt, in com­pen­sa­tio­nem non ve­niunt.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book XV. Any claim that can be destroyed by an exception cannot be included in a set-off.

Dig. 47,2,72Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro quin­to de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Si is, cui com­mo­da­ta res erat, fur­tum ip­sius ad­mi­sit, agi cum eo et fur­ti et com­mo­da­ti pot­est: et, si fur­ti ac­tum est, com­mo­da­ti ac­tio ex­stin­gui­tur, si com­mo­da­ti, ac­tio­ni fur­ti ex­cep­tio ob­ici­tur. 1Eius rei, quae pro he­rede pos­si­de­tur, fur­ti ac­tio ad pos­ses­so­rem non per­ti­net, quam­vis usu­ca­pe­re quis pos­sit, quia fur­ti age­re pot­est is, cu­ius in­ter­est rem non sub­ri­pi, in­ter­es­se au­tem eius vi­de­tur qui dam­num pas­su­rus est, non eius qui lu­crum fac­tu­rus es­set.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book XV. When a person to whom an article has been lent for use steals it, an action for theft as well as one on loan can be brought against him, and if the one for theft should be brought, the right of action on loan will be extinguished; and if the one on loan is brought, an exception can be pleaded in bar of the action for theft. 1Where property is held by anyone in the capacity of heir, the possessor will not be entitled to the action for theft, although he can obtain the property by usucaption; because he who is interested in not having it stolen can bring the action for theft. This, however, seems to be the interest of the person who would suffer the injury, and not of him who would be pecuniarily benefited.

Dig. 47,2,74Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro quin­to de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Si is, qui pig­no­ri rem ac­ce­pit, cum de ven­den­do pig­no­re ni­hil con­ve­nis­set, ven­di­dit, aut an­te, quam dies ven­di­tio­nis veniret pe­cu­nia non so­lu­ta, id fe­cit: fur­ti se ob­li­gat.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book XV. If anyone who receives property in pledge should sell it, when no agreement had been made with reference to its sale while pledged, or if he should dispose of it before the day of sale arrives, and the debt is not paid, he renders himself liable for theft.

Dig. 47,7,12Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro quin­to de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Qui agrum ven­di­dit, ni­hi­lo mi­nus fur­tim ar­bo­rum cae­sa­rum age­re pot­est.

Javolenus, On Cassius, Book XV. Anyone who sells a field, can, nevertheless, bring an action for the cutting of trees before the sale has been concluded.

Dig. 50,4,13Idem li­bro quin­to de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Va­ca­tio item­que im­mu­ni­tas, quae li­be­ris et pos­te­ris ali­cu­ius da­ta est, ad eos dum­ta­xat per­ti­net, qui eius fa­mi­liae sunt.

The Same, On Cassius, Book XV. Exemption and immunity from public employments conceded to the children and descendants of anyone only have reference to persons belonging to his family.

Dig. 50,16,114Idem li­bro quin­to de­ci­mo ex Cas­sio. Sol­ven­do es­se ne­mo in­tel­le­gi­tur, ni­si qui so­li­dum pot­est sol­ve­re.

The Same, On Cassius, Book XV. No one is understood to be solvent unless he can pay everything that he owes.