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)
Pomp.Plaut.
Ex Plautio lib.Pomponii Ex Plautio libri

Ex Plautio libri

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

Ex libro I

Dig. 21,2,22Pom­po­nius li­bro pri­mo ex Plau­tio. Si pro re pu­pil­li quam emit li­tis aes­ti­ma­tio­nem tu­tor non ex pe­cu­nia pu­pil­li, sed ex suo prae­sti­te­rit, sti­pu­la­tio de evic­tio­ne pu­pil­lo ad­ver­sus ven­di­to­rem com­mit­ti­tur. 1Si pro evic­tio­ne fun­di quem emit mu­lier sa­tis ac­ce­pis­set et eun­dem fun­dum in do­tem de­dis­set, de­in­de ali­quis eum a ma­ri­to per iu­di­cium abs­tu­lis­set, pot­est mu­lier sta­tim age­re ad­ver­sus fi­de­ius­so­res emp­tio­nis no­mi­ne, qua­si mi­no­rem do­tem ha­be­re coe­pis­set vel et­iam nul­lam, si tan­tum ma­ri­tus op­tu­lis­set, quan­ti fun­dus es­set.

Pomponius, On Plautius, Book I. Where a guardian pays damages assessed on account of property purchased for his ward, not out of the money belonging to the latter, but out of his own property; a stipulation against eviction becomes operative in favor of the ward as against the vendor. 1Where a woman takes security against eviction from a tract of land which she purchased, and gives the same land by way of dowry, and someone afterwards deprives her husband of it by means of an action; the woman can immediately proceed against the surety on the ground of purchase, as having reduced the amount of her dowry, or rendered it worthless; provided the husband tendered to the claimant the value of the said property.

Dig. 40,1,13Pom­po­nius li­bro pri­mo ex Plau­tio. Ser­vus fu­rio­si ab ad­gna­to cu­ra­to­re ma­nu­mit­ti non pot­est, quia in ad­mi­nis­tra­tio­ne pa­tri­mo­nii ma­nu­mis­sio non est. si au­tem ex fi­dei­com­mis­si cau­sa de­be­ret li­ber­ta­tem fu­rio­sus, du­bi­ta­tio­nis tol­len­dae cau­sa ab ad­gna­to tra­den­dum ser­vum, ut ab eo cui tra­di­tus es­set ma­nu­mit­ta­tur, Oc­ta­ve­nus ait.

Pomponius, On Plautius, Book I. The slave of an insane person cannot be manumitted by a relative of the latter who has been appointed his curator, because the manumission of a slave is not included in the administration of the property. If, however, the insane person should owe the slave his freedom on account of a trust, Octavenus says that, in order to remove all doubt, the slave should be delivered by the curator to the person to whom he is to be transferred in order to be manumitted by him.

Dig. 46,2,21Pom­po­nius li­bro pri­mo ex Plau­tio. Si de­bi­to­rem meum ius­se­ro ti­bi sol­ve­re, non sta­tim tu et­iam sti­pu­lan­do id no­va­re pos­sis, quam­vis de­bi­tor sol­ven­do ti­bi li­be­ra­re­tur.

Pomponius, On Plautius, Book I. If I order my debtor to pay you, you cannot immediately, while you are stipulating, make a novation, although the debtor, by paying you, will be released.

Dig. 46,3,65Pom­po­nius li­bro pri­mo ex Plau­tio. Si fi­lia fu­rio­si a vi­ro di­vor­te­rit, dic­tum est vel ad­gna­to cu­ra­to­ri vo­lun­ta­te fi­liae vel fi­liae con­sen­tien­te ad­gna­to sol­vi do­tem.

Pomponius, On Plautius, Book I. If the daughter of an insane person should be divorced from her husband, it has been decided that the dowry can be paid to the agnate curator, with the consent of the daughter, or to the daughter with the consent of the agnate.

Ex libro II

Dig. 3,3,62Pom­po­nius li­bro se­cun­do ex Plau­tio. Ad le­ga­tum pe­ten­dum pro­cu­ra­tor da­tus si in­ter­dic­to uta­tur ad­ver­sus he­redem de ta­bu­lis ex­hi­ben­dis, pro­cu­ra­to­ria ex­cep­tio, qua­si non et hoc es­set ei man­da­tum, non ob­stat.

Pomponius, On Plautius, Book II. Where an agent is appointed for the collection of a legacy, and makes use of an interdict against the heir for the production of the will, an exception against the agent on the ground that he is not authorized to do this by the mandate, cannot be pleaded against him.

Dig. 21,2,59Pom­po­nius li­bro se­cun­do ex Plau­tio. Si res quam a Ti­tio emi le­ga­ta sit a me, non pot­est le­ga­ta­rius con­ven­tus a do­mi­no rei ven­di­to­ri meo de­nun­tia­re, ni­si ces­sae ei fue­rint ac­tio­nes. vel quo­dam ca­su hy­po­the­cas ha­bet.

Pomponius, On Plautius, Book II. Where property which I purchased from Titius is bequeathed by me, and the legatee is sued by the owner of the same, he cannot notify my vendor of the eviction, unless the rights of action should be assigned to him, or where he has the property secured by hypothecation.

Dig. 21,3,2Pom­po­nius li­bro se­cun­do ex Plau­tio. Si a Ti­tio fun­dum eme­ris qui Sem­pro­nii erat is­que ti­bi tra­di­tus fue­rit, pre­tio au­tem so­lu­to Ti­tius Sem­pro­nio he­res ex­sti­te­rit et eun­dem fun­dum Mae­vio ven­di­de­rit et tra­di­de­rit: Iu­lia­nus ait ae­quius es­se prio­rem te tue­ri, quia et si ip­se Ti­tius fun­dum a te pe­te­ret, ex­cep­tio­ne sum­mo­ve­re­tur et si ip­se Ti­tius eum pos­si­de­ret, Pu­bli­cia­na pe­te­res.

Pomponius, On Plautius, Book II. If you purchase a tract of land from Titius, which in fact belonged to Sempronius, and after the price was paid he delivers it to you, and Titius then becomes the heir of Sempronius, and sells and delivers the same land to Mævius; Julianus says that it is more equitable, for you have the prior lien, because if Titius himself had attempted to recover the land from you, he would have been barred by an exception; and if Titius himself had held possession of it, you could have recourse to the Publician Action.

Ex libro III

Dig. 17,1,11Pom­po­nius li­bro ter­tio ex Plau­tio. Si ei, cui dam­na­tus ex cau­sa fi­de­ius­so­ria fue­ram, he­res post­ea ex­ti­te­ro, ha­be­bo man­da­ti ac­tio­nem.

Pomponius, On Plautius, Book III. If I should subsequently become the heir of a party in whose favor judgment has been rendered against me on account of security, I will be entitled to an action on mandate.

Dig. 17,1,47Pom­po­nius li­bro ter­tio ex Plau­tio. Iu­lia­nus ait, si fi­de­ius­so­ri uxor do­ti pro­mi­se­rit, quod ei ex cau­sa fi­de­ius­so­ria de­beat, nup­tiis se­cu­tis con­fes­tim man­da­ti ad­ver­sus de­bi­to­rem age­re eum pos­se, quia in­tel­le­gi­tur ab­es­se ei pe­cu­nia eo, quod one­ra ma­tri­mo­nii sus­ti­ne­ret. 1Si is, qui pro te ho­mi­nem da­re fi­de­ius­sit, alie­num ho­mi­nem sti­pu­la­to­ri de­de­rit, nec ip­se li­be­ra­tur nec te li­be­rat et id­eo man­da­ti ac­tio­nem te­cum non ha­bet. sed si sti­pu­la­tor eum ho­mi­nem usu­ce­pe­rit, di­cen­dum es­se Iu­lia­nus ait li­be­ra­tio­nem con­tin­ge­re: eo er­go ca­su man­da­ti ac­tio post usu­ca­pio­nem de­mum te­cum erit.

Pomponius, On Plautius, Book III. Julianus says that, if a wife promises her dowry to her surety, because she is indebted to him on account of his suretyship, after the marriage has taken place the husband can at once bring an action on mandate against the debtor; for the reason that he is understood to have lost money by means of which he could have paid expenses incurred during marriage. 1Where a party has become surety to deliver a slave for you, and he delivers another slave to the stipulator, he will not himself be released, nor will he release you; and therefore he will not be entitled to an action on mandate against you. But if the stipulator has obtained the said slave by usucaption, Julianus says that it must be held that there has been a release, and, in consequence of this, an action of mandate will lie, but only after usucaption has taken place.

Dig. 22,2,2Pom­po­nius li­bro ter­tio ex Plau­tio. La­beo ait, si ne­mo sit, qui a par­te pro­mis­so­ris in­ter­pel­la­ri tra­iec­ti­ciae pe­cu­niae pos­sit, id ip­sum tes­ta­tio­ne com­plec­ti de­be­re, ut pro pe­ti­tio­ne id ce­de­ret.

Pomponius, On Plautius, Book III. Labeo says if there is no one who can be notified on the part of the promisor with reference to money which is to be transported, an instrument should be drawn up in the presence of witnesses, which will take the place of a notification.

Dig. 45,1,90Pom­po­nius li­bro ter­tio ex Plau­tio. Cum sti­pu­la­ti su­mus pro usu­ris le­gi­ti­mis poe­nam in sin­gu­los men­ses, si sors so­lu­ta non sit, et­iam­si sor­tis ob­li­ga­tio in iu­di­cium sit de­duc­ta, ad­huc ta­men poe­na cres­cit, quia ve­rum est so­lu­tam pe­cu­niam non es­se.

Pomponius, On Plautius, Book III. When we stipulate that if the principal is not paid, a penalty shall be due every month, instead of the legal interest, even though a judgment may be obtained for the principal, the penalty will still continue to increase, because it is certain that the principal has not been paid.

Dig. 46,2,23Pom­po­nius li­bro ter­tio ex Plau­tio. Fi­lius pa­tris ac­tio­nem igno­ran­te eo no­va­re non pot­est.

Pomponius, On Plautius, Book III. A son under paternal control cannot make a novation of the action of his father, without the knowledge of the latter.

Dig. 46,8,16Pom­po­nius li­bro ter­tio ex Plau­tio. Si in­de­bi­tum pro­cu­ra­to­ri so­lu­tum sit, agi sta­tim ex hac sti­pu­la­tio­ne ad­ver­sus pro­cu­ra­to­rem pot­est, ut ra­tum ha­beat do­mi­nus, ut pos­sit di­nos­ci, utrum­ne do­mi­no con­di­ci de­beat id quod in­de­bi­tum so­lu­tum sit, si is ra­tum ha­beat, an ve­ro pro­cu­ra­to­ri con­di­cen­dum sit, si do­mi­nus ra­tum non ha­beat. 1Si pro­cu­ra­tor fun­dum pe­tis­set et ca­vis­set, uti ad­so­let, ra­tam rem do­mi­num ha­bi­tu­rum, de­in­de do­mi­nus post­ea eun­dem fun­dum ven­di­dis­set eum­que emp­tor pe­te­ret, sti­pu­la­tio­nem ra­tam rem ha­be­ri com­mit­ti Iu­lia­nus scri­bit.

Pomponius, On Plautius, Book III. If payment of a sum of money which was not due should be made to an agent, proceedings can immediately be instituted under this stipulation against the agent, to compel ratification by the principal, so that it may be determined whether what has been improperly paid should be recovered from the principal, if he has ratified it; or whether a personal action should be brought against the agent, if the principal does not confirm the transaction. 1When an agent demands a tract of land, and gives security (as is customary) that his principal will ratify his act, and afterwards the principal sells the land, and the purchaser claims it, Julianus says that the stipulation that the transaction will be ratified becomes operative.

Ex libro IV

Dig. 23,2,40Pom­po­nius li­bro quar­to ex Plau­tio. Aris­to re­spon­dit pri­vi­gnae fi­liam non ma­gis uxo­rem du­ci pos­se quam ip­sam pri­vi­gnam.

Pomponius, On Plautius, Book IV. Aristo gave it as his opinion that a man could not marry the daughter of his stepdaughter, any more than he could his stepdaughter herself.

Dig. 42,1,24Pom­po­nius li­bro quar­to ex Plau­tio. Et si fi­de­ius­sor ac­cep­tus sit rei vel ac­tio­nis, non prod­erit, si per­so­na, pro qua fi­de­ius­sit, in quan­tum fa­ce­re pot­est, con­dem­nan­da est. 1Si ma­ri­tus sol­ven­do non fue­rit, li­cet ip­si ma­ri­to pro­sit, quod fa­ce­re non pos­sit (id enim per­so­nae ma­ri­ti prae­sta­tur), he­redi eius hoc non prod­est.

Pomponius, On Plautius, Book IV. If a surety has been accepted for the payment of the debt or the judgment, it will be no advantage to him if the person for whom he bound himself has judgment rendered against him for the amount which he is able to pay. 1If the husband should not be solvent, he can take advantage of the fact that he is not able to make payment; for this privilege is granted to him personally, and will not profit his heir.

Ex libro V

Dig. 7,1,47Pom­po­nius li­bro quin­to ex Plau­tio. Quod si he­res hoc non fe­cis­set et ob id fruc­tua­rius frui non po­tuis­set, he­res et­iam fruc­tua­rii eo no­mi­ne ha­be­bit ac­tio­nem, quan­ti fruc­tua­rii in­ter­fuis­set non ces­sas­se he­redem, li­cet usus fruc­tus mor­te eius in­ter­is­set.

Pomponius, On Plautius, Book V. If, however, the heir should not make these repairs, and on this account the usufructuary should not be able to enjoy the property; the heir of the usufructuary will be entitled to an action on this ground for an amount of damages equal to the difference it would have made to the usufructuary if the heir had not failed to make said repairs; even though the usufruct has been terminated by the death of the usufructuary.

Dig. 7,1,65Pom­po­nius li­bro quin­to ex Plau­tio. Sed cum fruc­tua­rius de­beat quod suo suo­rum­que fac­to de­te­rius fac­tum sit re­fi­ce­re, non est ab­sol­ven­dus, li­cet usum fruc­tum de­relin­que­re pa­ra­tus sit: de­bet enim om­ne, quod di­li­gens pa­ter fa­mi­lias in sua do­mo fa­cit, et ip­se fa­ce­re. 1Non ma­gis he­res re­fi­ce­re de­bet quod ve­tus­ta­te iam de­te­rius fac­tum re­li­quis­set tes­ta­tor, quam si pro­prie­ta­tem ali­cui tes­ta­tor le­gas­set.

Ad Dig. 7,1,65Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 215, Note 11.Pomponius, On Plautius, Book V. But as the usufructuary is obliged to repair anything which has been injured by his own act, or by that of any of his family; he should not be released, even though he is ready to relinquish the usufruct; for he himself is obliged to do everything that the careful head of a household would do in his own house. 1An heir is no more compelled to repair property which a testator left ruined by age, than he would be if the testator had left anyone the ownership of the same.

Dig. 40,4,40Pom­po­nius li­bro quin­to ex Plau­tio. Iu­lia­nus ait, cum idem ho­mo et per fi­dei­com­mis­sum de­tur ali­cui et li­ber es­se iu­bea­tur, he­redem li­ber­ta­tem prae­sta­re de­be­re: non enim co­ge­tur, in­quit, ex cau­sa fi­dei­com­mis­si aes­ti­ma­tio­nem suf­fer­re, cum de­bi­tam li­ber­ta­tem red­di­de­rit. 1Sed et cum sub con­di­cio­ne ser­vo li­ber­tas per fi­dei­com­mis­sum de­tur et ip­se prae­sen­ti die da­re­tur, non ali­ter tra­de­re eum co­ge­tur, quam ut ca­vea­tur ex­is­ten­te con­di­cio­ne li­ber­ta­ti eum re­sti­tu­tum iri: nam in om­ni­bus fe­re cau­sis fi­dei­com­mis­sas li­ber­ta­tes pro di­rec­to da­tis ha­ben­das. sed Ofi­lius aie­bat, si ad­imen­di le­ga­ti cau­sa fi­dei­com­mis­sam li­ber­ta­tem tes­ta­tor de­dis­set, ea ve­ra es­se: si ve­ro one­ra­ri he­redem a tes­ta­to­re le­ga­ta­rius os­ten­de­rit, aes­ti­ma­tio­nem ni­hi­lo mi­nus le­ga­ta­rio prae­stan­dam.

Pomponius, On Plautius, Book V. Julianus says that where the same slave is granted a sum under the terms of a trust, and is also ordered to be free, the heir must grant him his freedom; for he says that he is not, by virtue of the trust, compelled to pay the value of the slave, as he gives him his freedom to which he is entitled. 1But where freedom is granted to a slave conditionally, under the terms of a trust, and the slave himself is given at the time, the heir will not be obliged to deliver him, unless security is furnished by the beneficiary of the trust that, if the condition is fulfilled, he will liberate the slave; for in almost all cases freedom granted by virtue of a trust is considered as having been directly granted. Ofilius, however, says that if a testator bestowed freedom by means of a trust, with the intention of depriving the slave of a legacy, this opinion is correct. But if the legatee can prove that the heir was charged by the testator, he will still be obliged to pay the value of the slave to the legatee.

Dig. 42,1,9Pom­po­nius li­bro quin­to ex Plau­tio. Fu­rio­so sen­ten­tia a iu­di­ce vel ab ar­bi­tro di­ci non pot­est.

Pomponius, On Plautius, Book V. Judgment cannot be rendered by a magistrate or an arbiter against a person who is insane.

Dig. 43,26,10Pom­po­nius li­bro quin­to ex Plau­tio. Quam­vis an­cil­lam quis pre­ca­rio ro­ga­ve­rit, id ac­tum vi­de­tur, ut et­iam quod ex an­cil­la na­tum es­set in ea­dem cau­sa ha­be­re­tur.

Pomponius, On Plautius, Book V. Although anyone may have only asked for a female slave under a precarious tenure, it is held that it was intended that he should be entitled to any offspring of the said female slave.

Dig. 45,2,18Pom­po­nius li­bro quin­to ex Plau­tio. Ex duo­bus reis eius­dem Sti­chi pro­mit­ten­di fac­tis al­te­rius fac­tum al­te­ri quo­que no­cet.

Ad Dig. 45,2,18Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 295, Note 13.Pomponius, On Plautius, Book V. Where two joint-promisors are bound to deliver the same slave, the act of one prejudices the other.

Dig. 46,2,24Idem li­bro quin­to ex Plau­tio. No­va­tio non pot­est con­tin­ge­re ea sti­pu­la­tio­ne, quae non com­mit­ti­tur. nec huic con­tra­rium est, quod, si sti­pu­la­tus a Ti­tio fue­ro no­van­di ani­mo sub con­di­cio­ne, quod mi­hi Sem­pro­nius de­bet, et pen­den­te con­di­cio­ne Ti­tius de­ces­se­rit, quam­vis an­te ad­itam he­redi­ta­tem con­di­cio ex­sti­te­rit, no­va­tio fie­ret: hic enim mor­te pro­mis­so­ris non ex­tin­gui­tur sti­pu­la­tio, sed trans­it ad he­redem cu­ius per­so­nam in­ter­im he­redi­tas sus­ti­net.

The Same, On Plautius, Book V. A novation cannot arise from a stipulation which does not become operative. Nor can it be stated, in opposition to this, that if I stipulate with Titius, with the intention of renewing the debt which Sempronius owes me, under a condition, and while the condition is pending Titius should die, although the condition may have been fulfilled before the estate was entered upon, novation will take place; for, in this instance, the stipulation is not extinguished by the death of the promisor, but passes to the heir who, in the meantime, represents the estate.

Ex libro VI

Dig. 1,8,10Pom­po­nius li­bro sex­to ex Plau­tio. Aris­to ait, sic­ut id, quod in ma­re ae­di­fi­ca­tum sit, fie­ret pri­va­tum, ita quod ma­ri oc­cu­pa­tum sit, fie­ri pu­bli­cum.

Pomponius, On Plautius, Book VI. Aristo declares that just as anything built into the sea becomes private property, so whatever the sea encroaches upon becomes public property.

Dig. 12,1,8Pom­po­nius li­bro sex­to ex Plau­tio. Pro­in­de mu­tui da­tio in­ter­dum pen­det, ut ex post fac­to con­fir­me­tur: vel­uti si dem ti­bi mu­tuos num­mos, ut, si con­di­cio ali­qua ex­sti­te­rit, tui fiant sis­que mi­hi ob­li­ga­tus: item si le­ga­tam pe­cu­niam he­res cre­di­de­rit, de­in­de le­ga­ta­rius eam no­luit ad se per­ti­ne­re, quia he­redis ex die ad­itae he­redi­ta­tis vi­den­tur num­mi fuis­se, ut cre­di­ta pe­cu­nia pe­ti pos­sit. nam Iu­lia­nus ait et tra­di­tio­nes ab he­rede fac­tas ad id tem­pus red­igi, quo he­redi­tas ad­ita fue­rit, cum re­pu­dia­tum sit le­ga­tum aut ad­po­si­tum.

Pomponius, On Plautius, Book VI. Hence a gift of mutuum sometimes remains in abeyance, in order to be confirmed by some subsequent act; as, for example, if I loan you a sum of money with the understanding that if a certain condition takes place, it will become yours and you shall be bound to pay me. In like manner, where an heir lends money which has been bequeathed as a legacy, and the legatee afterwards is unwilling to take it, for the reason that it is held that the money was the property of the heir from the day the estate was entered upon, he can bring an action to recover the money which was loaned. For Julianus says that even where delivery of property has been made by the heir, reference must be had to the time when the estate was entered upon, whether the legacy is rejected or accepted.

Dig. 12,1,12Pom­po­nius li­bro sex­to ex Plau­tio. Si a fu­rio­so, cum eum com­po­tem men­tis es­se pu­ta­res, pe­cu­niam qua­si mu­tuam ac­ce­pe­ris ea­que in rem tuam ver­sa fue­rit, con­dic­tio­nem fu­rio­so ad­quiri Iu­lia­nus ait: nam ex qui­bus cau­sis igno­ran­ti­bus no­bis ac­tio­nes ad­quirun­tur, ex is­dem et­iam fu­rio­so ad­quiri. item si is qui ser­vo cre­di­de­rat fu­re­re coe­pe­rit, de­in­de ser­vus in rem do­mi­ni id ver­te­rit, con­di­ci fu­rio­si no­mi­ne pos­se. et si alie­nam pe­cu­niam cre­den­di cau­sa quis de­de­rit, de­in­de fu­re­re coe­pe­rit et con­sump­ta sit ea pe­cu­nia, con­dic­tio­nem fu­rio­so ad­quiri.

Pomponius, On Plautius, Book VI. Where you receive money as a loan from an insane person, who you think is of sound mind, and the money is expended for your benefit, Julianus says the insane person will have a right of action for its recovery; for it is the rule that where a right of action is acquired by a party who is unaware of the fact, it is also, under the same circumstances, acquired by one who is insane. Moreover, if anyone makes a loan to a slave and afterwards becomes insane, and the slave spends the money for the benefit of his master, an action for recovery can be brought in the name of the insane person. And where any one loans the money of another, and subsequently becomes insane, and the money is expended, the right to sue for its recovery is acquired by the insane person.

Dig. 41,1,50Pom­po­nius li­bro sex­to ex Plau­tio. Quam­vis quod in li­to­re pu­bli­co vel in ma­ri ex­stru­xe­ri­mus, nos­trum fiat, ta­men de­cre­tum prae­to­ris ad­hi­ben­dum est, ut id fa­ce­re li­ceat: im­mo et­iam ma­nu pro­hi­ben­dus est, si cum in­com­mo­do ce­te­ro­rum id fa­ciat: nam ci­vi­lem eum ac­tio­nem de fa­cien­do nul­lam ha­be­re non du­bi­to.

Pomponius, On Plautius, Book VI. Although whatever we construct on the public shore or in the sea will belong to us, still, a decree of the Prætor must be obtained to permit this to be done; and, indeed, if anyone should do something of this kind which inconveniences others, he can be prevented by force; for I have no doubt that he who puts up the building will have no right to a civil action.

Dig. 43,16,11Pom­po­nius li­bro sex­to ex Plau­tio. Vim fa­cit, qui non si­nit pos­si­den­tem eo, quod pos­si­de­bit, uti ar­bi­trio suo, si­ve in­se­ren­do si­ve fo­dien­do si­ve aran­do si­ve quid ae­di­fi­can­do si­ve quid om­ni­no fa­cien­do, per quod li­be­ram pos­ses­sio­nem ad­ver­sa­rii non re­lin­quit.

Pomponius, On Plautius, Book VI. He employs force who does not permit the party in possession to make use of the property in any way that he may desire, whether by sowing seed, or cultivating, or digging, or plowing, or building upon it, or by the commission of any other act which interferes with the free possession of the land by his adversary.

Dig. 46,3,66Idem li­bro sex­to ex Plau­tio. Si pu­pil­li de­bi­tor iu­ben­te eo si­ne tu­to­ris auc­to­ri­ta­te pe­cu­niam cre­di­to­ri eius nu­me­ra­vit, pu­pil­lum qui­dem a cre­di­to­re li­be­rat, sed ip­se ma­net ob­li­ga­tus: sed ex­cep­tio­ne se tue­ri pot­est. si au­tem de­bi­tor pu­pil­li non fue­rat, nec pu­pil­lo con­di­ce­re pot­est, qui si­ne tu­to­ris auc­to­ri­ta­te non ob­li­ga­tur, nec cre­di­to­ri, cum quo al­te­rius ius­su con­tra­xit: sed pu­pil­lus in quan­tum lo­cu­ple­tior fac­tus est, ut­po­te de­bi­to li­be­ra­tus, uti­li ac­tio­ne te­ne­bi­tur.

The Same, On Plautius, Book VI. If the debtor of a ward, by his direction and without the authority of his guardian, pays money to the creditor of the former, he releases the ward from liability to the creditor, but he himself remains bound. He, however, can protect himself by means of an exception. But if he was not indebted to the ward, he cannot bring a personal action for recovery against the latter, who is not responsible as he acted without the authority of the guardian; nor can he bring one against the creditor, with whom he contracted by the order of another. The ward, however, having been released from liability for his indebtedness, can be sued in a prætorian action for the amount by which he has been pecuniarily benefited.

Dig. 47,12,5Pom­po­nius li­bro sex­to ex Plau­tio. Uti­mur eo iu­re, ut do­mi­nis fun­do­rum, in qui­bus se­pul­chra fe­ce­rint, et­iam post ven­di­tos fun­dos ad­eun­do­rum se­pul­chro­rum sit ius. le­gi­bus nam­que prae­dio­rum ven­dun­do­rum ca­ve­tur, ut ad se­pul­chra, quae in fun­dis sunt, item eius ad­itus amb­itus fu­ne­ri fa­cien­di sit.

Pomponius, On Plautius, Book IX. It is our practice to hold that the owners of land, in which they have set apart places of sepulture, have the right of access to the sepulchres, even after they have sold the land. For it is provided by the laws relating to the sale of real property that a right of way is reserved to sepulchres situated thereon, as well as the right to approach and surround them for the purpose of conducting funeral ceremonies.

Ex libro VII

Dig. 7,1,49Pom­po­nius li­bro sep­ti­mo ad Plau­tium. Si mi­hi et ti­bi a Sem­pro­nio et Mu­cio he­redi­bus usus fruc­tus le­ga­tus sit, ego in par­tem Sem­pro­nii qua­dran­tem, in par­tem Mu­cii al­te­rum qua­dran­tem ha­be­bo, tu item in utrius­que par­te eo­rum qua­dran­tes ha­bes.

Pomponius, On Plautius, Book VII. Where an usufruct is bequeathed to me and to you at the charge of Sempronius and Mucius, heirs of the testator, I will be entitled to a fourth part from the share of Sempronius and another fourth part from the share of Mucius; and you, in like manner, will be entitled to two-fourths taken from their respective shares.

Dig. 31,11Pom­po­nius li­bro sep­ti­mo ex Plau­tio. Sta­tu­li­be­rum ab he­rede ne tunc qui­dem, cum du­bia sit eius ex tes­ta­men­to li­ber­tas, le­ga­tum si­ne li­ber­ta­te ac­ci­pe­re pos­se La­beo ait, quia ser­vus eius es­set: sed si he­res ean­dem con­di­cio­nem le­ga­to in­se­rat, quae li­ber­ta­ti a tes­ta­to­re da­tae prae­po­si­ta fue­rit, va­let le­ga­tum: nam et si, cum mo­re­re­tur he­res, ser­vus li­ber es­se ius­sus es­set, rec­te si­ne li­ber­ta­te ei ab he­rede le­ga­ri pos­se con­sti­tit, quia su­per­va­cuum sit ei li­ber­ta­tem da­re, quam ex tes­ta­men­to he­redis cap­tu­rus non sit, sed ex tes­ta­to­ris ha­bet. 1‘Sti­chum aut Pam­phi­lum, utrum he­res meus vo­let, Ti­tio da­to, dum, utrum ve­lit da­re, eo die, quo tes­ta­men­tum meum re­ci­ta­tum erit, di­cat’. si non di­xe­rit he­res, Pam­phi­lum an Sti­chum da­re ma­lit, per­in­de ob­li­ga­tum eum es­se pu­to, ac si Sti­chum aut Pam­phi­lum da­re dam­na­tus es­set, utrum le­ga­ta­rius ele­ge­rit. si di­xe­rit se Sti­chum da­re vel­le, Sti­cho mor­tuo li­be­ra­ri eum: si an­te diem le­ga­ti ce­den­tem al­ter mor­tuus fue­rit, al­ter qui su­per­erit in ob­li­ga­tio­ne ma­ne­bit. cum au­tem se­mel di­xe­rit he­res, utrum da­re ve­lit, mu­ta­re sen­ten­tiam non pot­erit. et ita et Iu­lia­no pla­cuit.

Pomponius, On Plautius, Book VII. Labeo says that a slave who is to be liberated by the heir under a certain condition cannot receive a legacy without the grant of his freedom while this is in abeyance under the terms of the will, for the reason that he is the slave of the heir. If, however, the heir inserted in his own will the same condition under which the slave was to obtain his freedom by that of the testator, the legacy will be valid. But if the slave should be ordered to be free while the heir is in default, it has very properly been decided that a legacy can be bequeathed to the slave without the grant of his freedom; because it would be superfluous to give him his freedom which he could not obtain under the will of the heir, but could obtain under that of the testator. 1“Let Stichus, or Pamphilus, whichever one my heir may choose, be given to Titius, provided he makes his choice upon the day on which my will shall be published.” If the heir does not say whether he prefers to give Pamphilus or Stichus, I think that he will be bound to give Stichus or Pamphilus, whichever one the legatee may select. If he says that he prefers to give Stichus, and Stichus should die, he will be released. If one of the two slaves should die before the time when the legacy vests, the survivor will remain subject to the obligation. Moreover, when the heir has once stated which one he prefers to give, he cannot change his mind, and this opinion was also held by Julianus.

Dig. 31,13Pom­po­nius li­bro sep­ti­mo ex Plau­tio. Qui duos reos eius­dem pe­cu­niae ha­bet Ti­tium at­que Mae­vium, ita le­ga­vit: ‘quod mi­hi Ti­tius de­bet, Mae­vio he­res meus da­to. quod Mae­vius de­bet, Se­io da­to’. his ver­bis one­rat he­redem: nam cum ac­tio­nes suas he­res Mae­vio prae­sti­te­rit ad­ver­sus Ti­tium, vi­de­tur Mae­vius fac­to eius li­be­ra­tus es­se et id­cir­co Se­io he­res te­ne­bi­tur. 1Si is qui unum reum ha­be­bat quod is si­bi de­be­ret duo­bus in so­li­dum se­pa­ra­tim le­gas­set, one­ra­tur he­res duo­bus sa­tis­fa­ce­re uni ac­tio­ne ce­den­do, al­te­ri pe­cu­niam sol­ven­do.

Pomponius, On Plautius, Book VII. Where a man has two debtors who jointly owe him the same sum of money, that is to say, Titius and Mævius, and he makes a bequest as follows, “Let my heir pay to Mævius what Titius owes me, and let him pay to Seius what Mævius owes me,” he binds his heir by these words; for when the latter assigns to Mævius his right of action against Titius, Mævius is held to have been released by his act, and therefore the heir will be liable to Seius. 1Where a testator who has one debtor bequeaths the amount which he owes to him to two legatees separately, the heir is bound to satisfy both of the latter, one of them by assigning his right of action to him, and the other by paying him the money.

Dig. 34,3,4Pom­po­nius li­bro sep­ti­mo ex Plau­tio. Quid er­go est, cum age­re pot­erit cre­di­tor ex tes­ta­men­to? non ali­ter he­res con­dem­na­ri de­be­bit, quam si ca­vea­tur ei ad­ver­sus de­bi­to­rem de­fen­su iri. item agen­te de­bi­to­re ni­hil am­plius he­res prae­sta­re de­bet, quam ut eum ad­ver­sus cre­di­to­rem de­fen­dat.

Pomponius, On Plautius, Book VII. What then must be done, as the creditor can bring an action under the will? The heir should not have judgment rendered against him, unless security is furnished him for defence against the debtor. Likewise, if the debtor should institute proceedings, the heir is required to do nothing more than to protect him against the creditor.

Dig. 40,4,41Idem li­bro sep­ti­mo ex Plau­tio. Si ita fue­rit li­ber­tas re­lic­ta: ‘Sti­chus ser­vus meus an­no duo­de­ci­mo, post­quam ego mor­tuus ero, li­ber es­to’, ve­ri­si­mi­le est prin­ci­pio duo­de­ci­mi an­ni eum li­be­rum es­se, nam hoc mor­tuum sen­sis­se. et in­ter hos ser­mo­nes ‘duo­de­ci­mo an­no’ et ‘post duo­de­cim an­nos’ mul­tum in­ter­est et ita lo­qui so­le­mus. duo­de­ci­mus an­nus est, cum quan­tu­lum­li­bet ex duo­de­ci­mo an­no venis­set aut prae­ter­is­set, et qui duo­de­ci­mo an­no li­ber es­se iu­be­tur, om­ni­bus an­ni die­bus li­ber es­se ius­sus est. 1Sed si ita sit scrip­tum in tes­ta­men­to: ‘Sti­chus ser­vus meus he­redi meo mil­le num­mos an­no bi­en­nio tri­en­nio, post­quam ego mor­tuus ero, si sol­ve­rit sa­tis­ve fe­ce­rit, li­ber es­to’, non pot­est is ser­vus ni­si tri­en­nio prae­terito li­ber es­se, ni­si prae­sen­tem eam pe­cu­niam sol­vat aut sa­tis­fa­ciat: com­pen­san­da et­enim est he­redi li­ber­ta­tis ce­le­ri­tas prae­ma­tu­rae pe­cu­nia­rum so­lu­tio­ni. 2La­beo scri­bit, si sic li­ber­tas re­lic­ta sit: ‘Sti­chus in­tra an­num, post­quam mor­tuus ero, li­ber es­to’, sta­tim eum li­be­rum es­se: nam et si ita sit: ‘si in­tra an­num de­ci­mum he­redi meo de­de­rit, li­ber es­to’, sta­tim sol­ven­do eo li­be­rum es­se si­ne mo­ra fu­tu­rum.

The Same, On Plautius, Book VII. Where freedom is granted as follows, “Let Stichus be free the twelfth year after my death,” it is probable that he will become free at the beginning of the twelfth year, for this was the intention of the deceased. There is, however, a great deal of difference between the two expressions, “the twelfth year,” and “after twelve years,” and we are accustomed to say “the twelfth year” when ever so little of the twelfth year has arrived, or elapsed. He who is ordered to be free the twelfth year is ordered to be free for every day during that year. 1Where the following provision is inserted in a will, “Let my slave, Stichus, be free, if he pays my heir a thousand sesterces at the end of one, two, and three years, after my death, or if he gives security to do so,” the slave cannot become free before the expiration of the third year, unless he pays the entire sum immediately, or gives security; as the advantage which the heir derives from immediate payment should be compensated by the rapidity with which the grant of freedom is made. 2Labeo says that where a testamentary grant of freedom is made as follows, “Let Stichus be free within a year after my death,” he will become free immediately. And if his freedom had been bequeathed as follows, “Let him be free, if he pays such-and-such a sum to my heir within ten years,” and he pays it at once, he will become free without delay.

Dig. 40,5,8Pom­po­nius li­bro sep­ti­mo ex Plau­tio. Eum cui mil­le num­mi le­ga­ti fuis­sent, si ro­ga­tus fuis­set vi­gin­ti ser­vum ma­nu­mit­te­re, non co­gi fi­dei­com­mis­sam li­ber­ta­tem prae­sta­re, si le­ga­tum non ca­pe­ret, con­stat.

Pomponius, On Plautius, Book VII. Where a person to whom the sum of a thousand sesterces has been bequeathed is charged to manumit a slave worth twenty, he cannot be compelled to execute the grant of freedom under the trust, if he does not accept the legacy.

Dig. 40,7,21Pom­po­nius li­bro sep­ti­mo ex Plau­tio. La­beo li­bro pos­te­rio­rum ita re­fert: ‘Ca­le­nus dis­pen­sa­tor meus, si ra­tio­nes di­li­gen­ter trac­tas­se vi­de­bi­tur, li­ber es­to sua­que om­nia et cen­tum ha­be­to’. di­li­gen­tiam de­si­de­ra­re eam de­be­mus, quae do­mi­no, non quae ser­vo fue­rit uti­lis. erit au­tem ei di­li­gen­tiae con­iunc­ta fi­des bo­na non so­lum in ra­tio­ni­bus or­di­nan­dis, sed et­iam in re­li­quo red­den­do. et quod ita scrip­tum est ‘vi­de­bi­tur’, pro hoc ac­ci­pi de­bet ‘vi­de­ri pot­erit’: sic et ver­ba le­gis duo­de­cim ta­bu­la­rum ve­te­res in­ter­pre­ta­ti sunt ‘si aqua plu­via no­cet’, id est ‘si no­ce­re pot­erit’. et si quae­re­re­tur, cui eam di­li­gen­tiam pro­ba­ri opor­teat, he­redum ar­bi­tra­tum vi­ri bo­ni mo­re agen­tium se­qui de­be­bi­mus, vel­uti si is, qui cer­tam pe­cu­niam de­dis­set, li­ber es­se ius­sus est, non ad­scrip­to eo, cui si de­dis­set, eo mo­do pot­erit li­ber es­se, quo pos­set, si ita fuis­set scrip­tum ‘si he­redi de­dis­set’. 1Pac­tu­me­ius Cle­mens aie­bat, si ita sit fi­dei­com­mis­sum re­lic­tum ‘cui eo­rum vo­les, ro­go re­sti­tuas’, si nul­lum ele­gis­set cui re­sti­tue­ret, om­ni­bus de­be­ri im­pe­ra­to­rem An­to­ni­num con­sti­tuis­se.

Pomponius, On Plautius, Book VII. Labeo, in his Book of Last Works, states the following case: “Let Galenus, my steward, be free, if he appears to have carefully conducted my business, and let him retain all his property, and receive a hundred aurei in addition.” In this instance we should require such diligence as will benefit the master and not the slave. Moreover, good faith should be added to the diligence, not only in keeping the accounts, but also in the payment of any balance which may remain. By the word “appears” is meant “can be considered to have.” The ancients interpreted the following words of the Law of the Twelve Tables, “If rain-water causes damage,” to mean if it can cause damage. And if this question is asked before whom the abovementioned diligence must be established, we must answer that this ought to be decided by the heirs in accordance with the judgment of a reliable citizen; for instance, if a slave is ordered to be free on condition of his paying a certain sum of money, and it is not stated to whom he shall pay it, he will become free just as he would if the testator had written, “If he should pay the sum to my heir.” 1Pactumeius Clemens said that if a trust had been bequeathed as follows, “I charge you to deliver it to whichever of them you choose,” and the heir did not make any choice as to whom he should deliver the property, he must deliver it to all, and this was decreed by the Emperor Antoninus.

Dig. 44,7,50Pom­po­nius li­bro sep­ti­mo ex Plau­tio. Quod quis ali­quo an­no da­re pro­mit­tit aut da­re dam­na­tur, ei po­tes­tas est quo­li­bet eius an­ni die dan­di.

Pomponius, On Plautius, Book VII. When anyone promises to pay a sum of money within a year, or has judgment rendered against him requiring him to do so, he can pay it on any day during the year.