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.Lab. pith.
Notae ad Labeonis pithanorum epitomasPauli Notae ad Labeonis pithanorum epitomas

Notae ad Labeonis pithanorum epitomas

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. 8,5,21La­beo li­bro pri­mo pi­tha­non a Pau­lo epi­to­ma­to­rum. Si qua aqua non­dum ap­pa­ret, eius iter duc­tus con­sti­tui non pot­est. Paulus: im­mo pu­to id­cir­co id fal­sum es­se, quia ce­di pot­est, ut aquam quae­re­res et in­ven­tam du­ce­re li­ce­ret.

Labeo, Epitomes of Probabilities by Paulus. Where no water has yet appeared, no right of way to it, nor any canal for the conduct of the same can be established. Paulus says, I think, that this is not true, by any means; because a grant can be made permitting you to look for water, and, if it should be found to convey it.

Dig. 14,2,10La­beo li­bro pri­mo pi­tha­non a Pau­lo epi­to­ma­to­rum. Si ve­hen­da man­ci­pia con­du­xis­ti, pro eo man­ci­pio, quod in na­ve mor­tuum est, vec­tu­ra ti­bi non de­be­tur. Paulus: im­mo quae­ri­tur, quid ac­tum est, utrum ut pro his qui im­po­si­ti an pro his qui de­por­ta­ti es­sent, mer­ces da­re­tur: quod si hoc ap­pa­re­re non pot­erit, sa­tis erit pro nau­ta, si pro­ba­ve­rit im­po­si­tum es­se man­ci­pium. 1Si ea con­di­cio­ne na­vem con­du­xis­ti, ut ea mer­ces tuae por­ta­ren­tur eas­que mer­ces nul­la nau­ta ne­ces­si­ta­te co­ac­tus in na­vem de­te­rio­rem, cum id sci­ret te fie­ri nol­le, trans­tu­lit et mer­ces tuae cum ea na­ve per­ie­runt, in qua no­vis­si­me vec­tae sunt, ha­bes ex con­duc­to lo­ca­to cum prio­re nau­ta ac­tio­nem. Paulus: im­mo con­tra, si mo­do ea na­vi­ga­tio­ne utra­que na­vis per­iit, cum id si­ne do­lo et cul­pa nau­ta­rum fac­tum es­set. idem iu­ris erit, si prior nau­ta pu­bli­ce re­ten­tus na­vi­ga­re cum tuis mer­ci­bus pro­hi­bi­tus fue­rit. idem iu­ris erit, cum ea con­di­cio­ne a te con­du­xis­set, ut cer­tam poe­nam ti­bi prae­sta­ret, ni­si an­te con­sti­tu­tum diem mer­ces tuas eo lo­ci ex­po­suis­set, in quem de­ve­hen­das eas mer­ces lo­cas­set, nec per eum sta­ret, quo mi­nus re­mis­sa si­bi ea poe­na spec­ta­ret. idem iu­ris in eo­dem ge­ne­re co­gi­ta­tio­nis ob­ser­va­bi­mus, si pro­ba­tum fue­rit nau­tam mor­bo im­pe­di­tum na­vi­ga­re non po­tuis­se. idem di­ce­mus, si na­vis eius vi­tium fe­ce­rit si­ne do­lo ma­lo et cul­pa eius. 2Si con­du­xis­ti na­vem am­pho­ra­rum duo mi­lium et ibi am­pho­ras por­tas­ti, pro duo­bus mi­li­bus am­pho­ra­rum pre­tium de­bes. Paulus: im­mo si aver­sio­ne na­vis con­duc­ta est, pro duo­bus mi­li­bus de­be­tur mer­ces: si pro nu­me­ro im­po­si­ta­rum am­pho­ra­rum mer­ces con­sti­tu­ta est, con­tra se ha­bet: nam pro tot am­pho­ris pre­tium de­bes, quot por­tas­ti.

Labeo, Epitomes of the Probabilities of Paulus, Book I. If you have made a contract for the transportation of slaves, freight is not due to you for a slave who died on the ship. Paulus says that, in fact, the question is what was agreed upon, whether freight was to be paid for those who were loaded on the ship, or only for those who were carried to their destination? And if this cannot be established, it will be enough for the master of the ship to prove that the slave was placed on board. 1If you hired a ship on condition that your merchandise was to be transported by her, and the master of the ship, without being compelled by necessity, placed your property on an inferior vessel, being aware that you did not wish this to be done; and your merchandise was lost, together with the ship in which it was last transported, you will be entitled to an action on the contract of leasing and hiring against the master of the first ship. Paulus, on the other hand, says that this is not true, provided both ships were lost on the voyage, since it occurred without the malice or negligence of the sailors. The rule is the same if the first master, having been detained by public authority, was prevented from sailing with your merchandise. This rule is also applicable if he entered into a contract with you under the condition that he would pay you a certain penalty if he did not, by a day agreed upon, land your goods in a place to which he had agreed to transport them, and he was not to blame if he did not wait; even though the penalty was remitted to him. We must observe the same rule in a similar imaginary case, where it is proved that the master, having been prevented by illness, was unable to sail, if his ship became unfit for navigation without any malicious intent or negligence of his. 2If you hire a ship capable of transporting two thousand jars and place jars on board, you are liable for the freight of two thousand jars. Paulus says that the fact is, if you hire the entire capacity of the ship, the freight for two thousand jars will be due, but if the freight was agreed upon according to the number of jars placed on board, the contrary rule will apply; for you owe for the transportation of as many jars as you placed on board.

Dig. 19,1,53La­beo li­bro pri­mo pi­tha­non. Si mer­ce­dem in­su­lae ac­ces­su­ram es­se emp­to­ri dic­tum est, quan­ti in­su­la lo­ca­ta est, tan­tum emp­to­ri prae­ste­tur. Paulus: im­mo si in­su­lam to­tam uno no­mi­ne lo­ca­ve­ris et am­plio­ris con­duc­tor lo­ca­ve­rit et in ven­den­da in­su­la mer­ce­dem emp­to­ri ces­su­ram es­se di­xe­ris, id ac­ce­det, quod ti­bi to­tius in­su­lae con­duc­tor de­be­bit. 1Si eum fun­dum ven­di­dis­ti, in quo se­pul­crum ha­buis­ti, nec no­mi­na­tim ti­bi se­pul­chrum ex­ce­pis­ti, pa­rum ha­bes eo no­mi­ne cau­tum. Paulus: mi­ni­me, si mo­do in se­pul­chrum iter pu­bli­cum trans­it. 2Si ha­bi­ta­to­ri­bus ha­bi­ta­tio le­ge ven­di­tio­nis re­cep­ta est, om­ni­bus in ea ha­bi­tan­ti­bus prae­ter do­mi­num rec­te re­cep­ta ha­bi­ta­tio est. Paulus: im­mo si cui in ea in­su­la, quam ven­di­de­ris, gra­tis ha­bi­ta­tio­nem de­de­ris et sic re­ce­pe­ris: ‘ha­bi­ta­to­ri­bus aut quam quis­que diem con­duc­tum ha­bet’, pa­rum ca­ve­ris (no­mi­na­tim enim de his re­ci­pi opor­tuit) ita­que eos ha­bi­ta­to­res emp­tor in­su­lae ha­bi­ta­tio­ne im­pu­ne pro­hi­be­bit.

Labeo, Probabilities, Book I. Where it is stated in a contract that the rent of a house shall belong to the purchaser; whatever the said house is rented for should be paid to the purchaser. Paulus says that this is not altogether true, for if you rent an entire house to one tenant for a certain sum, and the tenant sublets it for a larger amount, and, in selling the house, you state that the rent is to be paid to the purchaser, that only is included which the tenant owes you for the entire house. 1If you sold a tract of land in which you have a burial-place and do not expressly except it, you will have no security on this account. Paulus says that this opinion is, by no means, just, provided a public highway runs by the side of the burial-place. 2If, where a house is sold, lodgings in the same are reserved for the occupants under the terms of the sale, such a reservation is properly made with reference to all the occupants of said house, with the exception of the owner. Paulus, however, says that if you had given free lodgings to anyone in the house which you sold, and you should make the reservation in such a way that the occupants, or any one of them, will have rent to pay at a certain time, you will not properly provide for this; for it is necessary to make an express reservation with reference to them. Therefore, the purchaser can, with impunity, prevent the occupants from lodging in the house.

Dig. 19,2,62La­beo li­bro pri­mo pi­tha­no­rum. Si ri­vum, quem fa­cien­dum con­du­xe­ras et fe­ce­ras, an­te­quam eum pro­ba­res, la­bes cor­rum­pit, tuum pe­ri­cu­lum est. Paulus: im­mo si so­li vi­tio id ac­ci­dit, lo­ca­to­ris erit pe­ri­cu­lum, si ope­ris vi­tio ac­ci­dit, tuum erit de­tri­men­tum.

Labeo, Probabilities, Book I. If you make a contract for digging a canal, and complete it, and, before it is accepted, it is destroyed by accident, the risk will be yours. Paulus says that, even if the accident occurred through some fault of the ground, the party hiring the work to be done must be responsible; but if it happened because the work was defective, you must bear the loss.

Dig. 32,31Idem li­bro pri­mo pi­tha­no­rum a Pau­lo epi­to­ma­to­rum. Si cui ae­des le­ga­tae sint, is om­ne ha­be­bit id ae­di­fi­cium, quod so­lum ea­rum ae­dium erit. Paulus: hoc tunc de­mum fal­sum est, cum do­mi­nus ae­dium bi­na­rum ali­quid con­cla­ve, quod su­pra con­cama­ra­tio­nem al­te­ra­rum ae­dium es­set, in usum al­te­ra­rum con­ver­tit at­que ita his usus fue­rit: nam­que eo mo­do al­te­ris ae­di­bus id ac­ce­det, al­te­ris de­ce­det.

The Same, Epitomes of Probabilities, by Paulus, Book I. Where a house is bequeathed to anyone, he will be entitled to all the buildings situated on the land belonging to said house. Paulus: This rule, however, does not apply where the owner possessed two adjoining houses, and a room of one of them was destined for the use of the other, and employed for this purpose; for, under these circumstances, the said room will cease to be accessory to the building to which it is attached, and will become accessory to the other.

Dig. 33,4,13La­beo li­bro pri­mo pi­tha­no­rum a Pau­lo epi­to­ma­to­rum. Paulus: si fi­lius fa­mi­lias, uxo­rem cum ha­be­ret, do­tem ab ea ac­ce­pe­rat, de­in­de pa­ter fa­mi­lias fac­tus do­tem ei ut so­let le­ga­vit: quam­vis pa­tri he­res non erit, ta­men id le­ga­tum de­be­bi­tur.

Labeo, Abridgment of Probabilities by Paulus, Book I. Paulus: If a son under paternal control, who had a wife from whom he had received a dowry, should afterwards become the head of a household, and, as is customary, bequeath the dowry to her, the legacy will still be due, even though he did not become the heir of his father.

Dig. 33,7,5La­beo li­bro pri­mo πιϑανῶν a Pau­lo epi­to­ma­to­rum. Si cui fun­dum et in­stru­men­tum eius le­ga­re vis, ni­hil in­ter­est, quo­mo­do le­ges ‘fun­dum cum in­stru­men­to’ an ‘fun­dum et in­stru­men­tum’ an ‘fun­dum in­struc­tum’. Paulus. im­mo con­tra: nam in­ter ea le­ga­ta hoc in­ter­est, quod, si fun­do alie­na­to mor­tuus fue­rit qui ita le­ga­vit, ex hac scrip­tu­ra ‘fun­dum cum in­stru­men­to’ ni­hil erit le­ga­tum, ex ce­te­ris pot­erit in­stru­men­tum es­se le­ga­tum.

Labeo, Abridgment of Probabilities by Paulus, Book I. If you wish to devise to anyone a tract of land with its equipment it makes no difference what form you use, whether you devise the land with its equipment or the land and its equipment, or the land furnished with its equipment. Paulus: I indeed am of the contrary opinion, for there is this difference between legacies, namely, if the testator who made the devise should employ the following form, “I leave the land with its equipment,” and the land should be alienated, the devise will be of no force or effect; but if he used either of the other forms it will be valid.

Dig. 33,7,29La­beo li­bro pri­mo πιϑανῶν. Si na­vem cum in­stru­men­to emis­ti, prae­sta­ri ti­bi de­bet sca­pha na­vis. Paulus: im­mo con­tra. et­enim sca­pha na­vis non est in­stru­men­tum na­vis: et­enim me­dio­cri­ta­te, non ge­ne­re ab ea dif­fert, in­stru­men­tum au­tem cu­ius­que rei ne­ces­se est al­te­rius ge­ne­ris es­se at­que ea quae­quae sit: quod Pom­po­nio li­bro sep­ti­mo epis­tu­la­rum pla­cuit.

Labeo, Probabilities, Book I. If you purchase a ship with its equipment, the boat belonging to it should be delivered to you. Paulus: By no means; for a ship’s boat is not part of its equipment, as the boat differs from it in size, but not in kind. It is necessary for the equipment of anything to be of a different description, no matter what it may be. This opinion is adopted by Pomponius, in the Seventh Book of the Epistles.

Dig. 38,2,51La­beo li­bro pri­mo pi­tha­non a Pau­lo epi­to­ma­to­rum. Si eun­dem li­ber­tum et tu ca­pi­tis ac­cu­sas­ti et pa­ter tuus ma­nu­mi­sit, non pot­erit ti­bi eius li­ber­ti bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio ex edic­to prae­to­ris da­ri. Paulus: im­mo con­tra ac­ci­det, si quem ser­vum ac­cu­sa­ve­ris, de­in­de is pa­tris tui fue­rit fac­tus et is post­ea eum ma­nu­mi­sit.

Labeo, Epitomes of Probabilities, By Paulus. If you have accused the freedman of your father of a capital crime, and your father has manumitted him, prætorian possession of the estate of the freedman cannot be granted to you under the Edict of the Prætor. Paulus: The contrary rule will apply if you should bring such an accusation against a slave who afterwards becomes the property of your father, and the latter subsequently manumits him.

Dig. 40,7,41La­beo li­bro pri­mo pi­tha­non a Pau­lo epi­to­ma­to­rum. Si quem ser­vum tuum ad cer­tum tem­pus sta­tu­li­be­rum re­lin­que­re vis, ni­hil in­ter­est, utro mo­do ca­veas, ‘si ser­vie­rit’ an ‘si tri­en­nio ope­ras de­de­rit, li­ber es­to’. 1Paulus. Si quis li­ber es­se ius­sus fue­rit, si de­cem he­redi pro­mis­sis­set, quam­quam ea pro­mis­sio nul­lam rem ha­bi­tu­ra est, ta­men pro­mit­ten­do li­be­ra­bi­tur.

Labeo, Epitomes of Probabilities, by Paulus, Book I. If you desire to permit one of your slaves to be liberated from servitude within a certain time, it makes no difference whether you make this provision under the condition that he “shall serve,” or “render his services for the term of three years, in order to become free.” 1Paulus: If anyone is ordered to be free if he promises to pay ten aurei to the heir, although a promise of this kind will be of no effect, he will, nevertheless, be liberated by making it.

Ex libro II

Dig. 18,4,25Idem li­bro se­cun­do pi­tha­non. Si ex­cep­to fun­do he­redi­ta­rio ven­iit he­redi­tas, de­in­de eius fun­di no­mi­ne ven­di­tor ali­quid ad­quisiit11Die Großausgabe liest ad­quisit statt ad­quisiit., de­bet id prae­sta­re emp­to­ri he­redi­ta­tis. Paulus: im­mo sem­per quae­ri­tur in ea re, quid ac­tum fue­rit: si au­tem id non ap­pa­re­bit, prae­sta­re eam rem de­be­bit emp­to­ri ven­di­tor, nam id ip­sum ex ea he­redi­ta­te ad eum per­ve­nis­se vi­de­bi­tur non se­cus ac si eum fun­dum in he­redi­ta­te ven­den­da non ex­ce­pis­set.

The Same, Probabilities, Book II. Where the right of succession to an estate is sold with the exception of a tract of land belonging thereto, and then the vendor acquires something on account of said tract of land, he must surrender it to the purchaser of the right of succession. Paulus says that, in an instance of this kind, inquiry must always be made as to the intention of the parties. If, however, this cannot be ascertained, the vendor must transfer the property which has been acquired by him in this way to the purchaser; for it appears to have come into his hands on account of the succession, and not otherwise; just as if in disposing of the succession he had not excepted the said tract of land.

Dig. 19,1,54Idem li­bro se­cun­do pi­tha­non. Si ser­vus quem ven­di­de­ras ius­su tuo ali­quid fe­cit et ex eo crus fre­git, ita de­mum ea res tuo pe­ri­cu­lo non est, si id im­pe­ras­ti, quod so­le­bat an­te ven­di­tio­nem fa­ce­re, et si id im­pe­ras­ti, quod et­iam non ven­di­to ser­vo im­pe­ra­tu­rus eras. Paulus: mi­ni­me: nam si pe­ri­cu­lo­sam rem an­te ven­di­tio­nem fa­ce­re so­li­tus est, cul­pa tua id fac­tum es­se vi­de­bi­tur: pu­ta enim eum fuis­se ser­vum, qui per ca­ta­dro­mum de­scen­de­re aut in cloa­cam demit­ti so­li­tus es­set. idem iu­ris erit, si eam rem im­pe­ra­re so­li­tus fue­ris, quam pru­dens et di­li­gens pa­ter fa­mi­lias im­pe­ra­tu­rus ei ser­vo non fue­rit. quid si hoc ex­cep­tum fue­rit? ta­men pot­est ei ser­vo no­vam rem im­pe­ra­re, quam im­pe­ra­tu­rus non fuis­set, si non venis­set: vel­uti si ei im­pe­ras­ti, ut ad emp­to­rem iret, qui per­egre es­set: nam cer­te ea res tuo pe­ri­cu­lo es­se non de­bet. ita­que to­ta ea res ad do­lum ma­lum dum­ta­xat et cul­pam ven­di­to­ris di­ri­gen­da est. 1Si do­lia oc­to­gin­ta ac­ce­de­re fun­do, quae in­fos­sa es­sent, dic­tum erit, et plu­ra erunt quam ad eum nu­me­rum, da­bit emp­to­ri ex om­ni­bus quae vult, dum in­te­gra det: si so­la oc­to­gin­ta sunt, qua­lia­cum­que emp­to­rem se­quen­tur nec pro non in­te­gris quic­quam ei ven­di­tor prae­sta­bit.

The Same, Probabilities, Book II. Where a slave whom you have sold breaks a leg in doing something by your order, the risk is not yours, if you directed him to perform some act which he was accustomed to perform before the sale, and if you ordered him to do something which you would have ordered him to do, even if he had not been sold. Paulus says that this opinion is by no means correct; for if the slave had been accustomed to perform some dangerous task before the sale, it will be held that you were to blame for this; as, for instance, if you had been accustomed to compel your slave to go down into a vault, or into a sewer. The same rule of law applies if you were accustomed to order him to do something which the wise and diligent head of a family would not order his slave to do. What if this should be made the ground of an exception? He can, nevertheless, direct the slave to perform some new task which he would not have ordered him to perform if he had not been sold; for example, if he should order him to go to the home of the purchaser, who lived in a distant place, for certainly this would not be at your risk. Therefore, the entire matter merely has reference to the fraud and negligence of the vendor. 1Where it is stated in the contract that there were eighty casks buried in the ground, which were accessory to the land, and there are more than this; the vendor must give to the purchaser the above mentioned number, making his selection from all the others as he wishes, provided he delivers such as are sound. Where there are only eighty of them, they belong to the purchaser, just as they are; and the vendor will not be obliged to pay him anything for those that are not perfect.

Dig. 47,2,92La­beo li­bro se­cun­do pi­tha­non a Pau­lo epi­to­ma­to­rum. Si quis, cum sci­ret quid si­bi sub­ri­pi, non pro­hi­buit, non pot­est fur­ti age­re. Paulus. im­mo con­tra: nam si quis scit si­bi ra­pi et, quia non pot­est pro­hi­be­re, quie­vit, fur­ti age­re pot­est. at si po­tuit pro­hi­be­re nec pro­hi­buit, ni­hi­lo mi­nus fur­ti aget: et hoc mo­do pa­tro­nus quo­que li­ber­to et is, cu­ius mag­na ve­re­cun­dia ei, quem in prae­sen­tia pu­dor ad re­sis­ten­dum im­pe­dit, fur­tum fa­ce­re so­let.

Labeo, Epitomes of Probabilities by Paulus, Book II. If anyone, knowing that property is being stolen from him, does not prevent this from being done, he cannot bring an action for theft. Paulus: The contrary is certainly true. For if anyone knows that property has been stolen from him, and keeps quiet because he cannot prevent it, he can bring an action for theft. If, however, he could have prevented it, but did not do so, he can still bring an action for theft. In this way patrons are accustomed to commit thefts against their freedmen, and also anyone who is entitled to such respect or reverence that it prevents him from being resisted by another in his presence, is accustomed to commit a theft.

Ex libro III

Dig. 43,16,20La­beo li­bro ter­tio pi­tha­non a Pau­lo epi­to­ma­to­rum. Si co­lo­nus tuus vi de­iec­tus est, ages un­de vi in­ter­dic­to. idem si in­qui­li­nus tuus vi de­iec­tus fue­rit. Paulus: idem di­ci pot­est de co­lo­ni co­lo­no, item in­qui­li­ni in­qui­li­no.

Labeo, Epitomes of Probabilities by Paulus, Book III. If your tenant has been forcibly ejected, you can proceed under the interdict Unde vi. The same rule should be adopted if the lessee of your house is forcibly ejected. Paulus: This also applies to a sub-tenant, or a sub-lessee.

Ex libro IV

Dig. 6,1,78La­beo li­bro quar­to pi­tha­non a Pau­lo epi­to­ma­to­rum. Si eius fun­di, quem alie­num pos­si­de­res, fruc­tum non co­egis­ti, ni­hil eius fun­di fruc­tuum no­mi­ne te da­re opor­tet. Paulus. Im­mo, quae­ri­tur: hu­ius fruc­tus id­cir­co fac­tus est, quod is eum suo no­mi­ne per­ce­pe­rit? per­cep­tio­nem fruc­tus ac­ci­pe­re de­be­mus non si per­fec­ti col­lec­ti, sed et­iam coep­ti ita per­ci­pi, ut ter­ra con­ti­ne­re se fruc­tus de­sie­rint: vel­uti si oli­vae uvae lec­tae, non­dum au­tem vi­num oleum ab ali­quo fac­tum sit: sta­tim enim ip­se ac­ce­pis­se fruc­tum ex­is­ti­man­dus est.

Labeo, Epitomes of Probabilities by Paulus, Book IV. If you have not harvested the crops on a tract of land belonging to another of which you are merely in possession, you are not obliged to deliver anything produced by said land. Paulus, on the other hand, asks whether the crops become the property of the possessor because he gathered them on his own account? We must understand the harvesting of crops to mean not only where they are entirely gathered, but where this has begun and has proceeded to the extent that the crops have ceased to be supported by the land; as, for instance, where olives or grapes have been gathered, but no wine or oil has been made by anyone; for in this case, he who has gathered the crops is considered, from that time, to have obtained them.

Dig. 49,15,28La­beo li­bro quar­to pi­tha­non a Pau­lo epi­to­ma­to­rum. Si quid bel­lo cap­tum est, in prae­da est, non post­li­mi­nio red­it. Paulus: im­mo si in bel­lo cap­tus pa­ce fac­ta do­mum re­fu­git, de­in­de re­no­va­to bel­lo ca­pi­tur, post­li­mi­nio red­it ad eum, a quo prio­re bel­lo cap­tus erat, si mo­do non con­ve­ne­rit in pa­ce, ut cap­ti­vi red­de­ren­tur.

Labeo, Epitomes of Probabilities by Paulus, Book IV. If anything captured in war forms part of the booty, it does not return by the right of postliminium. Paulus: But if a prisoner taken in war flees to his home, after peace has been declared, and then the war having been renewed he again is captured, he returns by the right of postliminium, to which he was entitled when taken during the first war; provided that it was not agreed in the treaty of peace that captives should be returned.

Dig. 50,16,244La­beo li­bro quar­to pi­tha­non a Pau­lo epi­to­ma­to­rum. Si qua poe­na est, mul­ta est: si qua mul­ta est, poe­na est. Paulus: utrum­que eo­rum fal­sum est. nam­que ha­rum re­rum dis­si­mi­li­tu­do ex hoc quo­que ap­pa­ret, quod de poe­na pro­vo­ca­tio non est: si­mul at­que enim vic­tus quis est eius ma­le­fi­cii, cu­ius poe­na est sta­tu­ta, sta­tim ea de­be­tur. at mul­tae pro­vo­ca­tio est, nec an­te de­be­tur, quam aut non est pro­vo­ca­tum aut pro­vo­ca­tor vic­tus est: nec ali­ter quam si is di­xit, cui di­ce­re li­cet. ex hoc quo­que ea­rum re­rum dis­si­mi­li­tu­do ap­pa­re­re pot­erit, quia poe­nae cer­tae sin­gu­lo­rum pec­ca­to­rum sunt, mul­tae con­tra, quia eius iu­di­cis po­tes­tas est, quan­tam di­cat, ni­si cum le­ge est con­sti­tu­tum quan­tam di­cat.

Labeo, Epitomes of Probabilities by Paulus, Book IV. A penalty is a fine, and a fine is a penalty. Paulus: Both of these statements are false; for the difference between these things is apparent from the fact that an appeal cannot be taken from a penalty, for where anyone is convicted of an offence, the penalty for it is fixed, and must be paid at once; but an appeal can be taken from a fine, for it is not due unless an appeal is not taken, or the appellant loses his case; and it is the same as if the judge had passed upon it who was authorized to do so. Hence, the difference between these things becomes apparent, because certain penalties are prescribed for certain illegal acts; but this is not the case with fines, as the judge has power to impose any fine he pleases, unless the amount which he may impose is fixed by law.

Ex libro V

Dig. 41,3,49La­beo li­bro quin­to pi­tha­non a Pau­lo epi­to­ma­to­rum. Si quid est sub­rep­tum, id usu­ca­pi non pot­est, an­te­quam in do­mi­ni po­tes­ta­tem per­ve­ne­rit. Paulus: im­mo for­si­tan et con­tra: nam si id, quod mi­hi pig­no­ri de­de­ris, sub­ri­pue­ris, erit ea res fur­ti­va fac­ta: sed si­mul at­que in meam po­tes­ta­tem ve­ne­rit, usu­ca­pi pot­erit.

Labeo, Epitomes of Probabilities by Paulus, Book V. Property which has been stolen cannot be acquired by usucaption before it has again come under the control of the owner. Paulus: Perhaps the contrary opinion is true; for if you should steal property which you have given to me in pledge, it becomes stolen goods, but it can be acquired by usucaption as soon as it again comes under my control.

Dig. 46,4,23La­beo li­bro quin­to pi­tha­non a Pau­lo epi­to­ma­to­rum. Si ego ti­bi ac­cep­tum fe­ci, ni­hi­lo ma­gis ego a te li­be­ra­tus sum. Paulus: im­mo cum lo­ca­tio con­duc­tio, emp­tio ven­di­tio con­ven­tio­ne fac­ta est et non­dum res in­ter­ces­sit, utrim­que per ac­cep­ti­la­tio­nem, tam­et­si ab al­ter­utra par­te dum­ta­xat in­ter­ces­sit, li­be­ran­tur ob­li­ga­tio­ne.

Labeo, Epitomes of Probabilities, by Paulus, Book V. If I should make a release to you, I will not, for that reason, be freed from liability, so far as you are concerned. Paulus: But when a hiring, a lease, a purchase, or a sale has been made under an agreement, and the property has not yet been delivered, even though only one of the contracting parties may have consented to a release, all of them, however, will be discharged.

Ex libro VI

Dig. 6,1,79Idem li­bro sex­to pi­tha­non a Pau­lo epi­to­ma­to­rum. Si ho­mi­nem a me pe­tie­ris et is post li­tem con­tes­ta­tam mor­tuus sit, fruc­tus quo­ad is vi­xe­rit aes­ti­ma­ri opor­tet. Paulus. Ita id ve­rum es­se pu­to, si non prius is ho­mo in eam va­le­tu­di­nem in­ci­de­rit, prop­ter quam ope­rae eius in­uti­les fac­tae sunt: nam ne si vi­xis­set qui­dem in ea va­le­tu­di­ne, fruc­tus eius tem­po­ris no­mi­ne aes­ti­ma­ri con­ve­ni­ret.

The Same, Epitomes of Probabilities by Paulus, Book VI. If you bring suit against me to recover a slave, and he dies after issue is joined, the profits must be estimated during the time that he lived. Paulus says, “I think that this is true only where the slave had not yet become so ill as to render his services worthless; for even if he had continued to live in that state of ill health, it would not be proper for the profits to be estimated during that time”.

Dig. 23,3,84La­beo li­bro sex­to pi­tha­non a Pau­lo epi­to­ma­to­rum. Si de do­te pro­mis­sa agi­tur, non opor­tet in quan­tum fa­ce­re pot­est con­dem­na­ri eum qui pro­mi­sit. Paulus: im­mo quod ad ex­tra­neum at­ti­net, sem­per hoc ve­rum est. ce­te­rum si ma­nen­te ad­fi­ni­ta­te do­tem pro­mis­sam ge­ner a so­ce­ro pe­tit, uti­que in quan­tum fa­ce­re pot­est so­cer con­dem­na­bi­tur. si dir­emp­to ma­tri­mo­nio pe­ti­tur, ex cau­sa et per­so­na id tri­buen­dum pu­to: quid enim si so­cer spe­cie fu­tu­rae do­tis in­du­xe­rit ge­ne­rum et cum sci­ret se prae­sta­re do­tem non pos­se, id ege­rit, ut ge­ne­ro in­si­dia­re­tur?

Labeo, Epitomes of Probabilities by Paulus, Book VI. Where the promise of a dowry is involved, judgment should be rendered against the party who made it, without reference to his pecuniary resources. Paulus says that this is always true with reference to a stranger, but where a son-in-law claims the promised dowry from his father-in-law, while the connection between them exists, judgment will be rendered against the father-in-law in accordance with the amount which he is able to pay. If he brings an action after the marriage has been dissolved, I think that the amount to be paid will depend upon the circumstances and personal character of the parties. For what if the father-in-law had imposed upon his son-in-law by giving him reason to expect a dowry, when he knew that he was unable to furnish it, and had done this for the purpose of deceiving his son-in-law?

Dig. 41,1,65La­beo li­bro sex­to pi­tha­non a Pau­lo epi­to­ma­to­rum. Si epis­tu­lam ti­bi mi­se­ro, non erit ea tua, an­te­quam ti­bi red­di­ta fue­rit. Paulus: im­mo con­tra: nam si mi­se­ris ad me ta­bel­la­rium tuum et ego re­scri­ben­di cau­sa lit­te­ras ti­bi mi­se­ro, si­mul at­que ta­bel­la­rio tuo tra­di­de­ro, tuae fient. idem ac­ci­det in his lit­te­ris, quas tuae dum­ta­xat rei gra­tia mi­se­ro, vel­uti si pe­tie­ris a me, uti te ali­cui com­men­da­rem, et eas com­men­da­ti­cias ti­bi mi­se­ro lit­te­ras. 1Si qua in­su­la in flu­mi­ne pro­pria tua est, ni­hil in ea pu­bli­ci est. Paulus: im­mo in eo ge­ne­re in­su­la­rum ri­pae flu­mi­ni et li­to­ra ma­ri pro­xi­ma pu­bli­ca sunt, non se­cus at­que in con­ti­nen­ti agro idem iu­ris est. 2Si qua in­su­la in flu­mi­ne pu­bli­co pro­xi­ma tuo fun­do na­ta est, ea tua est. Paulus: vi­dea­mus ne hoc fal­sum sit de ea in­su­la, quae non ip­si al­veo flu­mi­nis co­hae­ret, sed vir­gul­tis aut alia qua­li­bet le­vi ma­te­ria ita sus­ti­ne­tur in flu­mi­ne, ut so­lum eius non tan­gat, at­que ip­sa mo­ve­tur: haec enim prope­mo­dum pu­bli­ca at­que ip­sius flu­mi­nis est in­su­la. 3Paulus: si in­su­la in flu­mi­ne na­ta tua fue­rit, de­in­de in­ter eam in­su­lam et con­tra­riam ri­pam alia in­su­la na­ta fue­rit, men­su­ra eo no­mi­ne erit in­struen­da a tua in­su­la, non ab agro tuo, prop­ter quem ea in­su­la tua fac­ta fue­rit: nam quid in­ter­est, qua­lis ager sit, cu­ius prop­ter pro­pin­qui­ta­tem pos­te­rior in­su­la cu­ius sit quae­ra­tur? 4Labeo libro eodem. Si id quod in pu­bli­co in­na­tum aut ae­di­fi­ca­tum est, pu­bli­cum est, in­su­la quo­que, quae in flu­mi­ne pu­bli­co na­ta est, pu­bli­ca es­se de­bet.

Labeo, Epitomes of Probabilities, by Paulus. If I send a letter to you, it will not become yours until it has been delivered to you. Paulus: I am of the opposite opinion, for if you send your secretary to me, and I send you a letter by way of answer, the letter will become yours as soon as I have delivered it to your secretary. The same thing happens in the case of a letter which I send to you merely as a favor; for instance, if you have asked me to recommend you to someone, and I send you a letter for that purpose. 1If an island in a river belongs to you, none of it is public property. Paulus: The contrary is true, for in this kind of islands, the banks of a river and the shores of the sea are, to a certain extent, public property; and the rule of law is the same with reference to a field which adjoins the bank, or the shore. 2If an island is formed in a public stream, which is near your property, it will belong to you. Paulus: Let us see if this is not false with reference to an island which is not contiguous to the channel of the river, but is suspended by branches, or some other light material, above the stream, so that the soil does not reach it, and the island can change its position. An island of this kind is, to a certain extent, public property, and belongs to the river itself. 3Paulus: If an island which is formed in the river becomes yours, and another island is afterwards formed between the first one and the opposite bank, the measure will be taken from your island, and not from your land on account of which the island became your property; for what difference does it make what the character of the land may be, on account of whose situation the ownership of the last island is claimed? 4Labeo, in the same Book, says that if anything is formed or built in a public place, it becomes public, and that an island which is formed in a public stream should also be considered public property.

Dig. 44,1,23La­beo li­bro sex­to pi­tha­non a Pau­lo epi­to­ma­to­rum. Paulus: si quis sta­tuam in mu­ni­ci­pio ea men­te po­suit, ut ea mu­ni­ci­pii es­set, et eam pe­te­re vult, ex­clu­di eum opor­tet prae­scrip­tio­ne in fac­tum da­ta.

Labeo, Epitomes of Probabilities by Paulus, Book III. Paulus: If anyone places a statue in a city with the intention that it shall belong to the city, and afterwards desires to claim it in court, he can be barred by an exception in factum.

Dig. 46,3,91La­beo li­bro sex­to pi­tha­non a Pau­lo epi­to­ma­to­rum. Si de­bi­tor tuus non vult a te li­be­ra­ri et prae­sens est, non pot­est in­vi­tus a te sol­vi. Paulus: im­mo de­bi­to­rem tuum et­iam prae­sen­tem et­iam in­vi­tum li­be­ra­re ita poteris sup­po­nen­do, a quo de­bi­tum no­van­di cau­sa sti­pu­le­ris: quod et­iam­si ac­cep­tum non fe­ce­ris, ta­men sta­tim, quod ad te at­ti­net, res per­ibit: nam et pe­ten­tem te do­li ma­li prae­scrip­tio ex­clu­det.

Ad Dig. 46,3,91Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 354, Note 5.Labeo, Epitomes of Probabilities by Paulus, Book VI. If your debtor refuses to be released by you, and he is present, he cannot be discharged by you against his will. Paulus: Further, you can release your debtor, if he is present, even without his consent, by substituting for him someone with whom you stipulate for payment of the debt with the intention of making a novation; and even if you do not give him a release, still, so far as you are concerned, the indebtedness is immediately extinguished, since, if you attempt to collect it, you will be barred by an exception on the ground of fraud.

Dig. 49,15,29Idem li­bro sex­to pi­tha­non a Pau­lo epi­to­ma­to­rum. Si post­li­mi­nio red­is­ti, ni­hil, dum in hos­tium po­tes­ta­te fuis­ti, usu­ca­pe­re po­tuis­ti. Paulus: im­mo si quid ser­vus tuus pe­cu­lii no­mi­ne, dum in eo sta­tu es­ses, pos­se­de­rit, id eo quo­que tem­po­re usu­ca­pe­re poteris, quon­iam eas res et­iam in­scien­tes usu­ca­pe­re so­le­mus et eo mo­do et­iam he­redi­tas non­dum na­to pos­tu­mo aut non­dum ad­ita au­ge­ri per ser­vum he­redi­ta­rium so­let.

The Same, Epitomes of Probabilities by Paulus, Book VI. If you should return under the right of postliminium, you have not been able to acquire any property by usucaption while you were in the power of the enemy. Paulus: But if your slave should have obtained anything as peculium, while you were in that condition, you can acquire it by usucaption during that time, as we are accustomed to acquire by usucaption property of this kind, even without our knowledge; and in this manner an estate can be increased by a slave forming part of the same, although a posthumous child may not yet have been born, or the estate have been entered upon.

Ex libro VII

Dig. 22,3,28La­beo li­bro sep­ti­mo pi­tha­non a Pau­lo epi­to­ma­to­rum. Si ar­bi­ter anim­ad­ver­te­re de­beat, an ope­ris fac­ti me­mo­ria ex­stet, hoc ei quae­ren­dum est, an ali­quis me­mi­ne­rit id opus fac­tum es­se. Paulus: im­mo cum in ar­bi­trio quae­ri­tur, me­mo­ria fac­ti ope­ris ex­stet nec ne, non hoc quae­ri­tur, num ali­quis me­mi­ne­rit, quo die aut quo con­su­le fac­tum sit, sed num hoc ali­quo mo­do pro­ba­ri pos­sit, quan­do id opus fac­tum sit: et hoc ita, quod Grae­ce di­ci so­let ἐν πλάτει. enim pot­est hoc me­mo­ria non te­ne­ri: in­tra an­num pu­ta fac­tum, cum in­ter­im ne­mo sit eo­rum, qui me­mi­ne­rit, qui­bus con­su­li­bus id vi­de­rit, sed cum om­nium haec est opi­nio nec au­dis­se nec vi­dis­se, cum id opus fie­ret, ne­que ex eis au­dis­se, qui vi­dis­sent aut au­dis­sent: et hoc in­fi­ni­te si­mi­li­ter su­sum ver­sum ac­ci­det, cum me­mo­ria ope­ris fac­ti non ex­sta­ret.

Ad Dig. 22,3,28Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 113, Note 9.Labeo, Epitomes of Probabilities, by Paulus, Book VII. Where it is the duty of an arbiter to decide a case, should he inquire whether a memorandum of the labor performed exists, or whether anyone remembers that the labor has been performed? Paulus says that when inquiry is made in a case of arbitration, as to whether a memorandum of the labor performed is in existence or not, it ought not to be asked whether anyone remembers the time, or under what consul the work was done, but whether it can be proved in any way whatsoever when it was done. And this should be accomplished, as the Greeks are accustomed to state, in a general way, for it cannot be retained in the memory that the work has been done; for example, within a certain year, since, in the meantime, no one will probably remember under what consuls it was performed. But where the opinion of all persons is that they did not hear of the work being done, or see it, or learn of it from any who might have seen it, or heard of it, and, no matter how far back one may go, no memorandum of the work performed can be found; this will be sufficient.

Ex libro VIII

Dig. 49,15,30Idem li­bro oc­ta­vo pi­tha­non a Pau­lo epi­to­ma­to­rum. Si id, quod nos­trum hos­tes ce­pe­runt, eius ge­ne­ris est, ut post­li­mi­nio red­ire pos­sit: si­mul at­que ad nos red­eun­di cau­sa pro­fu­git ab hos­ti­bus et in­tra fi­nes im­pe­rii nos­tri es­se coe­pit, post­li­mi­nio red­is­se ex­is­ti­man­dum est. Paulus: im­mo cum ser­vus ci­vis nos­tri ab hos­ti­bus cap­tus in­de au­fu­git et vel in ur­be Ro­ma ita est, ut ne­que in do­mi­ni sui po­tes­ta­te sit ne­que ul­li ser­viat, non­dum post­li­mi­nio red­is­se ex­is­ti­man­dum est.

The Same, Epitomes of Probabilities by Paulus, Book VIII. If anything which our enemies have taken from us is of such a nature that it can return by the law of postliminium, as soon as it escapes from the enemy for the purpose of returning to us and comes within the boundaries of our empire, it should be considered to have returned under the law of postliminium. Paulus: But when a slave of one of our citizens, after having been captured by the enemy, escapes from them, and remains at Rome without either being under the control of his master, or in the service of anyone else, it should be held that he has not yet returned under the law of postliminium.