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)
Paul.ed aed. cur.
Ad edictum aedilium curulium lib.Pauli 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. 4,7,9Pau­lus li­bro pri­mo ad edic­tum ae­di­lium cu­ru­lium. quia red­hi­bi­to ho­mi­ne om­nia re­tro agun­tur: et id­eo non vi­de­tur iu­di­cii mu­tan­di cau­sa alie­na­re qui red­hi­bet: ni­si si prop­ter hoc ip­sum red­hi­bet non red­hi­bi­tu­rus alias.

Paulus, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book I. For the reason that when a slave is returned, everything has a retroactive effect, and, therefore, the party who returns the property is not held to have alienated it, in order to change the conditions of the trial; unless he restores the slave for this very purpose, and otherwise would not have restored him.

Dig. 18,1,54Pau­lus li­bro pri­mo ad edic­tum ae­di­lium cu­ru­lium. Res bo­na fi­de ven­di­ta prop­ter mi­ni­mam cau­sam in­emp­ta fie­ri non de­bet.

Paulus, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book I. Where property is sold in good faith, the sale should not be annulled for a trifling reason.

Dig. 21,1,30Pau­lus li­bro pri­mo ad edic­tum ae­di­lium cu­ru­lium. Item si ser­vi red­hi­ben­di no­mi­ne emp­tor iu­di­cium ac­ce­pit vel ip­se eius no­mi­ne dic­ta­vit, ca­ven­dum ex utra­que par­te erit, ut, si quid si­ne do­lo ma­lo con­dem­na­tus sit vel si quid ex eo quod ege­rit ad eum per­ve­ne­rit do­lo­ve ma­lo eius fac­tum sit quo mi­nus per­ve­ni­ret, id red­dat. 1Quas im­pen­sas ne­ces­sa­rio in cu­ran­dum ser­vum post li­tem con­tes­ta­tam emp­tor fe­ce­rit, im­pu­ta­bit: prae­ce­den­tes im­pen­sas no­mi­na­tim com­pre­hen­den­das Pe­dius: sed ci­ba­ria ser­vo da­ta non es­se im­pu­tan­da Aris­to, nam nec ab ip­so ex­igi, quod in mi­nis­te­rio eius fuit.

Paulus, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book I. Moreover, if the purchaser, in an action for the return of a slave, joins issue, or he himself brings suit in his own name, security must be furnished by both parties that the vendor will pay the amount of the judgment rendered against him, where there is no bad faith on his part, and that the purchaser will deliver to the vendor anything that comes into his hands or which on account of his bad faith he has been unable to obtain by means of the action which he has brought in behalf of the slave. 1Ad Dig. 21,1,30,1ROHGE, Bd. 3 (1872), S. 100: Anspruch auf Fütterungskosten im Falle der Auflösung des Kaufs eines Pferdes wegen Mängeln desselben.The purchaser shall be entitled to any necessary expenses incurred by him on account of the illness of the slave after issue has been joined, and Pedius says that expenses previously incurred should be specifically mentioned; but Aristo holds that food for the slave should not be taken into account, for the reason that nothing is demanded for the time that the slave was in service.

Dig. 21,1,43Pau­lus li­bro pri­mo ad edic­tum ae­di­lium cu­ru­lium. Bo­vem qui cor­nu pe­tit vi­tio­sum es­se ple­ri­que di­cunt, item mu­las quae ces­sum dant: ea quo­que iu­men­ta, quae si­ne cau­sa tur­ban­tur et se­met ip­sa eri­piunt, vi­tio­sa es­se di­cun­tur. 1Qui ad ami­cum do­mi­ni de­pre­ca­tu­rus con­fu­git, non est fu­gi­ti­vus: im­mo et­iam­si ea men­te sit, ut non im­pe­tra­to au­xi­lio do­mum non re­ver­ta­tur, non­dum fu­gi­ti­vus est, quia non so­lum con­si­lii, sed et fac­ti fu­gae no­men est. 2Qui per­sua­su al­te­rius a do­mi­no re­ces­sit, fu­gi­ti­vus est, li­cet id non fue­rit fac­tu­rus ci­tra con­si­lium eius qui per­sua­sit. 3Si ser­vus meus bo­na fi­de ti­bi ser­viens fu­ge­rit vel sciens se meum es­se vel igno­rans, fu­gi­ti­vus est, ni­si ani­mo ad me re­ver­ten­di id fe­cit. 4Mor­tis con­scis­cen­dae cau­sa si­bi fa­cit, qui prop­ter ne­qui­tiam ma­los­que mo­res fla­gi­tium­ve ali­quod ad­mis­sum mor­tem si­bi con­scis­ce­re vo­luit, non si do­lo­rem cor­po­ris non sus­ti­nen­do id fe­ce­rit. 5Si quis ser­vum eme­rit et rap­to eo vi bo­no­rum rap­to­rum ac­tio­ne qua­dru­plum con­se­cu­tus est, de­in­de ser­vum red­hi­beat, red­de­re de­be­bit quod ac­ce­pit: sed si per eum ser­vum in­iu­riam pas­sus in­iu­riae no­mi­ne ege­rit, non red­det ven­di­to­ri: ali­ter for­si­tan at­que si lo­ris ab ali­quo cae­so aut quaes­tio­ne de eo ha­bi­ta emp­tor ege­rit. 6Ali­quan­do et­iam red­hi­be­ri man­ci­pium de­be­bit, li­cet aes­ti­ma­to­ria, id est quan­to mi­no­ris, aga­mus: nam si ad­eo nul­lius sit pre­tii, ut ne ex­pe­diat qui­dem ta­le man­ci­pium do­mi­ni ha­be­re, vel­uti si fu­rio­sum aut lu­na­ti­cum sit, li­cet aes­ti­ma­to­ria ac­tum fue­rit, of­fi­cio ta­men iu­di­cis con­ti­ne­bi­tur, ut red­di­to man­ci­pio pre­tium re­ci­pia­tur. 7Si quis, cum con­si­lium in­is­set frau­dan­do­rum cre­di­to­rum, red­hi­bue­rit non red­hi­bi­tu­rus alias, ni­si vel­let eos frau­da­re, te­ne­tur cre­di­to­ri­bus prop­ter man­ci­pium ven­di­tor. 8Pig­nus ma­ne­bit ob­li­ga­tum, et­iam­si red­hi­bi­tus fue­rit ser­vus: quem­ad­mo­dum, si eum alie­nas­set aut usum fruc­tum eius, non rec­te red­hi­be­tur ni­si red­emp­tum, sic et pig­no­re li­be­ra­tum red­hi­be­tur. 9Si sub con­di­cio­ne ho­mo emp­tus sit, red­hi­bi­to­ria ac­tio an­te con­di­cio­nem ex­sis­ten­tem in­uti­li­ter agi­tur, quia non­dum per­fec­ta emp­tio ar­bi­trio iu­di­cis im­per­fec­ta fie­ri non pot­est: et id­eo et­si ex emp­to vel ven­di­to vel red­hi­bi­to­ria an­te ac­tum fue­rit, ex­ple­ta con­di­cio­ne ite­rum agi pot­erit. 10In­ter­dum et­iam­si pu­ra sit ven­di­tio, prop­ter iu­ris con­di­cio­nem in sus­pen­so est, vel­uti si ser­vus, in quo al­te­rius usus fruc­tus, al­te­rius pro­prie­tas est, ali­quid eme­rit: nam dum in­cer­tum est, ex cu­ius re pre­tium sol­vat, pen­det, cui sit ad­quisi­tum, et id­eo ne­utri eo­rum red­hi­bi­to­ria com­pe­tit.

Paulus, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book I. Most authorities say that an ox which strikes with its horns is vicious, just as is the case with mules that kick. Horses, also, which are frightened without any cause and run away, are also said to be vicious. 1A slave who takes refuge with a friend of his master, in order to obtain his intercession with the latter, is not a fugitive; not even if he has the intention of not returning home if he does not obtain pardon. He is not yet a fugitive, for the reason that the term “flight” does not merely apply to design but also to the act itself. 2Where a slave, through being instigated by another to leave his master, takes to flight, he is a fugitive; even though he would not have run away if it had not been for the advice of the person who persuaded him. 3If a slave of mine who was serving you in good faith runs away, he is a fugitive, whether he knows that he belongs to me or is ignorant of the fact, unless he did so with the intention of returning to me. 4A slave attempts suicide who does so on account of wickedness, bad habits, or some crime which he has committed; but not where he takes such a step because he is unable to endure bodily suffering. 5Where anyone purchases a slave, and is deprived of him by force, he can recover fourfold damages on the ground of robbery, and he can afterwards return the slave, and the vendor must refund the price which he received. Where, however, he suffered injury through his slave, and has instituted proceedings on that account, he cannot return him to the vendor, unless the purchaser should bring an action against the party who has beaten the slave with a whip, or subjected him to torture. 6Ad Dig. 21,1,43,6ROHGE, Bd. 10 (1874), S. 347: Actio quanti minoris auf Restitution des ganzen Kaufpreises, wenn die Waare durch den Fehler völlig entwerthet ist.A slave should sometimes be returned, even though we may have brought an action for his appraisement, that is to say, the estimate of the excess of the price above his true value. For if he is worthless, so that it is not to the advantage of his master to have such a slave, as, for instance, where he is subject to fits of rage, or is insane, even though an action for his appraisement may have been instituted, it is, nevertheless, the duty of the judge to cause the purchase-money to be repaid after the slave has been returned. 7If anyone should cause the return of a slave with the intention of defrauding his creditors, and would not have returned him unless he had intended to defraud them; the vendor will be liable to the creditors for the value of the slave. 8When a slave is pledged, he will remain bound even though he be returned; just as where he, or the usufruct in him, has been disposed of, he cannot lawfully be returned unless he is redeemed and restored free from the liability contracted under the pledge. 9Where a slave is purchased under a condition, and proceedings with a view to his return are instituted before the condition has been fulfilled, they will be void, because the purchase is not yet complete, and cannot be set aside by the decision of a judge; and therefore if an action on purchase or sale, or one for the return of property is filed before the condition has been fulfilled, suit can afterwards be brought a second time. 10In some instances even where an absolute sale has taken place, it remains in abeyance on account of a condition of law; as for example, where a slave in whom one party has the usufruct and the other the ownership, buys something; for as long as it is uncertain out of whose property he pays the price, the title to the property will be in suspense, and therefore neither of the parties can bring an action for the return of the slave.

Ex libro II

Dig. 18,1,55Idem li­bro se­cun­do ad edic­tum ae­di­lium cu­ru­lium. Nu­da et ima­gi­na­ria ven­di­tio pro non fac­ta est et id­eo nec alie­na­tio eius rei in­tel­le­gi­tur.

The Same, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book II. A sale without consideration and imaginary, is considered not to be made at all, and therefore the alienation of the property is not taken into consideration.

Dig. 21,1,41Pau­lus li­bro se­cun­do ad edic­tum ae­di­lium cu­ru­lium. et ge­ne­ra­li­ter ‘aliud­ve quod no­ce­ret ani­mal, si­ve so­lu­ta sint, si­ve al­li­ga­ta, ut con­ti­ne­ri vin­cu­lis, quo mi­nus dam­num in­fe­rant, non pos­sint,

Paulus, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book II. And, generally speaking, “Or any other animal likely to commit injury, whether it be at large or tied, but incapable of being restrained so as not to cause damage,”

Dig. 21,1,44Idem li­bro se­cun­do ad edic­tum ae­di­lium cu­ru­lium. Ius­tis­si­me ae­di­les no­lue­runt ho­mi­nem ei rei quae mi­no­ris es­set ac­ce­de­re, ne qua fraus aut edic­to aut iu­re ci­vi­li fie­ret: ut ait Pe­dius, prop­ter dig­ni­ta­tem ho­mi­num: alio­quin ean­dem ra­tio­nem fuis­se et in ce­te­ris re­bus: rid­icu­lum nam­que es­se tu­ni­cae fun­dum ac­ce­de­re. ce­te­rum ho­mi­nis ven­di­tio­ni quid­vis ad­ice­re li­cet: nam et ple­rum­que plus in pe­cu­lio est quam in ser­vo, et non­num­quam vi­ca­rius qui ac­ce­dit plu­ris est quam is ser­vus qui venit. 1Pro­po­ni­tur ac­tio ex hoc edic­to in eum cu­ius ma­xi­ma pars in ven­di­tio­ne fue­rit, quia ple­rum­que ve­na­li­cia­rii ita so­cie­ta­tem co­eunt, ut quid­quid agunt in com­mu­ne vi­dean­tur age­re: ae­quum enim ae­di­li­bus vi­sum est vel in unum ex his, cu­ius ma­ior pars aut nul­la par­te mi­nor es­set, ae­di­li­cias ac­tio­nes com­pe­te­re, ne co­ge­re­tur emp­tor cum mul­tis li­ti­ga­re, quam­vis ac­tio ex emp­to cum sin­gu­lis sit pro por­tio­ne, qua so­cii fue­runt: nam id ge­nus ho­mi­num ad lu­crum po­tius vel tur­pi­ter fa­cien­dum pro­nius est. 2In red­hi­bi­to­ria vel aes­ti­ma­to­ria pot­est du­bi­ta­ri, an, quia alie­num ser­vum ven­di­dit, et ob evic­tio­nem et prop­ter mor­bum for­te vel fu­gam si­mul te­ne­ri pot­est: nam pot­est di­ci ni­hil in­ter­es­se emp­to­ris sa­num es­se, fu­gi­ti­vum non es­se eum, qui evic­tus sit. sed in­ter­fuit emp­to­ris sa­num pos­se­dis­se prop­ter ope­ras, ne­que ex post­fac­to de­cres­cat ob­li­ga­tio: sta­tim enim ut ser­vus tra­di­tus est com­mit­ti­tur sti­pu­la­tio quan­ti in­ter­est emp­to­ris.

The Same, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book II. The Ædiles, with great justice, refuse to permit a slave to be accessory to property of less value than himself, in order to avoid fraud being committed either against the Edict or against the Civil Law, and also, as Pedius says, against the dignity of mankind; otherwise the same rule would apply as in the other matters, since it would be ridiculous for a tract of land to be considered accessory to a tunic. Anything, however, may be permitted to be accessory to the sale of a slave, for very frequently the peculium is more valuable than the slave himself, and sometimes a sub-slave, classed as an accessory, is worth more than the principal slave who is sold. 1An action is granted under this Edict against the party who had the greatest interest in the sale of the slave, because dealers in slaves generally form partnerships, so that whatever they do is held to be transacted in common; for it seemed just to the Ædiles that the actions which they established should be brought either against the party who owned the greater share of the property—or at least who did not own less than the others—in order that the buyer might not be compelled to engage in litigation with many persons; although an action on purchase can be brought against each individual partner in proportion to his share; for this kind of men are much inclined to gain, as well as to the commission of dishonorable acts. 2Ad Dig. 21,1,44,2ROHGE, Bd. 10 (1874), S. 275: Actio redhibitoria. Zurückgabe der fehlerhaften Sache. Untergang derselben ohne Verschulden des Empfängers nach erklärtem Rücktritte.In an action for the return of property, or for its appraisement, a doubt arises whether a party who has sold a slave belonging to another will be liable, at the same time, on the ground of eviction, or because of unsoundness, or on account of the flight of the slave. For it may be said that the purchaser has no further interest where he has been deprived of the possession of the slave by a better title, whether he is sound or a fugitive; but it is to the interest of the purchaser that he should have been sound when he possessed him on account of his services, and the obligation does not increase because of what may have subsequently happened, for just as soon as the slave is delivered, the stipulation relating to the interest of the purchaser becomes operative.

Dig. 21,2,35Pau­lus li­bro se­cun­do ad edic­tum ae­di­lium cu­ru­lium. Evic­tus au­tem a cre­di­to­re tunc vi­de­tur, cum fe­re spes ha­ben­di abs­ci­sa est: ita­que si Ser­via­na ac­tio­ne evic­tus sit, com­mit­ti­tur qui­dem sti­pu­la­tio: sed quon­iam so­lu­ta a de­bi­to­re pe­cu­nia pot­est ser­vum ha­be­re, si so­lu­to pig­no­re ven­di­tor con­ve­nia­tur, pot­erit uti do­li ex­cep­tio­ne.

Paulus, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book II. Property is held to have been obtained by a creditor through eviction, where the expectation of holding it has been almost lost by the purchaser. Therefore, where eviction took place under the Servian Action, the stipulation in fact becomes operative; but as, where the money is paid by the debtor, the purchaser can hold the slave when the pledge is released, if the vendor is sued, he can avail himself of an exception on the ground of bad faith.

Dig. 21,2,41Pau­lus li­bro se­cun­do ad edic­tum ae­di­lium cu­ru­lium. Si ei cui ven­di­di et du­plam pro­mis­si, cum ip­se ea­dem sti­pu­la­tio­ne mi­hi ca­vis­set, he­res ex­sti­te­rim, evic­to ho­mi­ne nul­la par­te sti­pu­la­tio com­mit­ti­tur: ne­que enim mi­hi evin­ci vi­de­tur, cum ven­di­de­rim eum, ne­que ei cui me pro­mis­so­rem prae­sta­rem, quon­iam pa­rum com­mo­de di­car ip­se mi­hi du­plam prae­sta­re de­be­re. 1Item si do­mi­no ser­vi he­res ex­sti­te­rit emp­tor, quon­iam evin­ci ei non pot­est nec ip­se si­bi vi­de­tur evin­ce­re, non com­mit­ti­tur du­plae sti­pu­la­tio. his igi­tur ca­si­bus ex emp­to agen­dum erit. 2Si is, qui fun­dum eme­rit et sa­tis de evic­tio­ne ac­ce­pe­rit et eun­dem fun­dum ven­di­de­rit, emp­to­ri suo he­res ex­sti­te­rit, vel ex con­tra­rio emp­tor ven­di­to­ri he­res ex­sti­te­rit: an evic­to fun­do cum fi­de­ius­so­ri­bus age­re pos­sit, quae­ri­tur. ex­is­ti­mo au­tem utro­que ca­su fi­de­ius­so­res te­ne­ri, quon­iam et cum de­bi­tor cre­di­to­ri suo he­res ex­sti­te­rit, ra­tio quae­dam in­ter he­redem et he­redi­ta­tem po­ni­tur et in­tel­le­gi­tur ma­ior he­redi­tas ad de­bi­to­rem per­ve­ni­re, qua­si so­lu­ta pe­cu­nia quae de­be­ba­tur he­redi­ta­ti, et per hoc mi­nus in bo­nis he­redis es­se: et ex con­tra­rio cum cre­di­tor de­bi­to­ri suo ex­sti­tit he­res, mi­nus in he­redi­ta­te ha­be­re vi­de­tur, tam­quam ip­sa he­redi­tas he­redi sol­ve­rit. si­ve er­go is qui de evic­tio­ne sa­tis ac­ce­pe­rat emp­to­ri cui ip­se ven­di­de­rat, si­ve emp­tor ven­di­to­ri suo he­res ex­sti­te­rit, fi­de­ius­so­res te­ne­bun­tur. et si ad eun­dem ven­di­to­ris et emp­to­ris he­redi­tas rec­ci­de­rit, agi cum fi­de­ius­so­ri­bus pot­erit.

Paulus, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book II. Where I sold a slave and promised double his value to the purchaser in case of eviction, and he had already bound himself to me by the same stipulation; and I afterwards become his heir, and the slave is lost through a superior title, the stipulation in no respect becomes operative. I am not held to have been deprived of him by eviction, since I sold him, nor was he evicted from the party to whom I made the guarantee, since I could, with very little propriety, be said to be liable to pay myself double damages. 1Again, if the purchaser should become the heir of the owner of the slave, as the slave cannot be evicted from him, nor can he be held to evict him from himself, the stipulation for double the amount of his value will not become operative. Therefore, in these cases an action on sale should be brought. 2Where anyone purchases a tract of land, and takes security against eviction, and sells the said land to a purchaser who becomes his heir; or, on the other hand, the purchaser becomes the heir of the vendor, in case the land is lost by eviction, the question arises whether suit can be brought against the sureties. I think that, in either case, the sureties will be liable, since when a debtor becomes the heir of his creditor, a kind of an account is opened between the heir and the estate, and the estate is understood to have become larger for the debtor, since the money which was owing to the estate has been paid and the property of the heir is diminished to that extent. On the other hand, when a creditor becomes the heir of his debtor, the assets of the estate are held to be diminished, just as if the estate itself had paid the creditor. Therefore, whether he who had taken security against eviction himself made the sale to the purchaser, or whether the latter becomes the heir of the vendor, the sureties will be liable; and if the estates of the vendor and the purchaser should pass into the hands of the same person, he can bring an action against the sureties.

Dig. 21,2,56Pau­lus li­bro se­cun­do ad edic­tum ae­di­lium cu­ru­lium. Si dic­tum fue­rit ven­den­do, ut sim­pla pro­mit­ta­tur, vel tri­plum aut qua­dru­plum pro­mit­te­re­tur, ex emp­to per­pe­tua ac­tio­ne agi pot­erit. non ta­men, ut vul­gus opi­na­tur, et­iam sa­tis­da­re de­bet qui du­plam pro­mit­tit, sed suf­fi­cit nu­da re­pro­mis­sio, ni­si aliud con­ve­ne­rit. 1Si com­pro­mi­se­ro et con­tra me da­ta fue­rit sen­ten­tia, nul­la mi­hi ac­tio de evic­tio­ne dan­da est ad­ver­sus ven­di­to­rem: nul­la enim ne­ces­si­ta­te co­gen­te id fe­ci. 2In sti­pu­la­tio­ne du­plae cum ho­mo ven­di­tur par­tis ad­iec­tio ne­ces­sa­ria est, quia non pot­est vi­de­ri ho­mo evic­tus, cum pars eius evic­ta est. 3Si, cum pos­sit usu ca­pe­re emp­tor, non ce­pit, cul­pa sua hoc fe­cis­se vi­de­tur: un­de si evic­tus est ser­vus, non te­ne­tur ven­di­tor. 4Si prae­sen­te pro­mis­so­re qui de evic­tio­ne pro­mi­sit et non igno­ran­te pro­cu­ra­to­ri de­nun­tia­tum sit, pro­mis­sor ni­hi­lo mi­nus te­ne­tur. 5Si­mi­li mo­do te­ne­tur et qui cu­ra­vit, ne si­bi de­nun­tia­ri pos­sit. 6Sed et si ni­hil ven­di­to­re fa­cien­te emp­tor co­gnos­ce­re ubi es­set non po­tuit, ni­hi­lo mi­nus com­mit­ti­tur sti­pu­la­tio. 7Pu­pil­lo et­iam si­ne tu­to­ris auc­to­ri­ta­te pos­se de­nun­tia­ri, si tu­tor non ap­pa­ret, ex du­plae sti­pu­la­tio­ne be­ni­gnius re­cep­tum es­se Tre­ba­tius ait.

Paulus, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book II. Where it was stated to the vendor that he must bind himself to pay either simple, triple, or quadruple damages, he can be sued in an action on purchase without reference to lapse of time; for he who pays double damages is not compelled to give security, as is generally supposed, but the mere promise is sufficient, unless something else should be agreed upon. 1If I submit a question to arbitration, and an award is rendered against me, an action on the ground of eviction should not be granted me against the vendor, for I have not acted from necessity. 2Where a slave is sold under a stipulation for double damages, if he should be evicted, an addition with reference to the eviction of a share of said slave will be necessary, for a slave cannot be held to be evicted where only a share in him is involved. 3If the purchaser was able to acquire title by usucaption and does not do so, he is considered to have done this through his own fault, and hence, if the slave is evicted, the vendor will not be liable. 4If notice is given to the agent of the promisor (and the latter is present at the time), and has bound himself with reference to eviction, and is not ignorant of the fact, the promisor will still be liable. 5He also will be liable who took measures to avoid being notified. 6Where, however, the purchaser was not able to ascertain the whereabouts of the vendor, although the latter did nothing to conceal himself, the stipulation will, nevertheless, become operative. 7Trebatius says that it has been established as equitable that, in case of a stipulation for double damages, a ward can be notified without the authority of his guardian, if the latter does not appear.

Dig. 35,2,48Pau­lus li­bro se­cun­do ad edic­tum ae­di­lium cu­ru­lium. Cum emp­tor ven­di­to­ri vel con­tra he­res ex­sti­tit, evic­to ho­mi­ne utrum du­plum in aes alie­num de­du­ce­re vel com­pu­ta­re de­beat an sim­plum? du­plum enim es­set, si alius he­res ex­sti­tis­set. et be­ni­gnius est eo­dem he­rede ex­is­ten­te sim­plum ei im­pu­ta­ri.

Paulus, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book II. Where the purchaser of a slave becomes the heir of the vendor, or vice versa, and the slave is evicted, shall double his value be deducted, or only his actual value, in computing the amount due under the Falcidian Law; for the amount would be double if there should be another heir? The more equitable opinion is, that while the heir is the same, only the actual value of the slave should be calculated.

Dig. 50,16,74Pau­lus li­bro se­cun­do ad edic­tum ae­di­lium cu­ru­lium. Sig­na­to­rius anu­lus ‘or­na­men­ti’ ap­pel­la­tio­ne non con­ti­ne­tur.

Paulus, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book II. A signet ring is not embraced in the term “ornament.”