Scævola, Digest, Book I. The purchaser of a tract of land bound himself for the payment of twenty aurei, and agreed to this by stipulation; and afterwards, the vendor entered into an undertaking that he would be content with thirteen, and would accept payment of that amount within a specified time. Suit having been brought against the debtor for the payment of the latter sum, he agreed that, if it was not paid within another specified period, it could be collected from him in accordance with the bond first executed. The question arose as to whether the whole debt could not be collected under the first obligation, since the debtor had not complied with the terms of the later agreement? I answered that it could, in accordance with what had been stated. 1Lucius Titius had a confused account with Gaius Seius, a money broker, for the reason that he had received and paid him different sums. In the end, Seius owed him money, and Lucius Titius received a letter from him in the following words: “According to the broker’s account which you have with me up to this date, there remains in my hands as the result of many transactions the sum of three hundred and eighty six aurei, and the interest upon the same. I will return to you the amount which you have in my hands without agreement. If any instrument issued, that is to say, written, by you, remains in my hands for any reason, no matter what the amount therein may be, it shall be considered void and cancelled”. The question arose, since Lucius Titius had ordered Seius, the broker, to pay his patron three hundred aurei, before this letter was written, whether, according to the terms of the letter, by which all undertakings pertaining to any contract whatever were to be considered void and cancelled, it was provided that neither Seius nor his sons could be sued on this ground? I answered that if the account only included the receipts and payments, other obligations remained in the same condition.

Scævola, Digest, Book I. The Emperors Antoninus and Verus stated in a Rescript, “That there is no doubt that private agreements which have been entered into do not prejudice the rights of others”; therefore, where a compromise has been made between the heir and the mother of the deceased, the will cannot be held to be rescinded by it, nor are manumitted slaves or legatees deprived of their rights of action thereby. Hence, when they bring suit for anything under the will, they must sue the heir mentioned therein; who, when he compromised matters connected with the estate, whether he provided for himself with reference to the burdens attached to it, or whether he did not do so, he has no right to permit his own negligence to injure others. 1Ad Dig. 2,15,3,1Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 414, Note 4.When a compromise is entered into with regard to a trust, and afterwards codicils are found; I ask, if the mother of the deceased has received less through the compromise than her share, ought she to receive what is lacking by virtue of the trust? The answer was that she ought. 2A debtor whose pledge had been sold by his creditor compromised for a smaller sum with Mævius, who claimed to be the heir of the lawful creditor, and afterwards the will of the creditor having been produced, it appeared that Septicius was the heir. The question then arose whether, if the debtor brought suit against Septicius for the property pledged, he could make use of an exception on the ground of the compromise made with Mævius, who was not the legal heir at that time; and can Septicius have a right to recover the money which was paid by the debtor to Mævius as the heir, on the ground that it was received by him under the pretext of inheritance? The answer was that this could not be done, according to the facts stated, for the reason that Septicius did not himself make a compromise with him, nor was Mævius, when he accepted it, acting as the agent of Septicius.

Scævola, Digest, Book I. An envoy who was appointed by his native town, having accepted the office, came to Rome; and, before he had discharged his duties, purchased a house in Nicopolis, his own city. The question arose whether he was liable to the Decree of the Senate by which an envoy is prohibited from attending to his private business or affairs before the duties of his office have been performed. The answer was that he did not appear to be liable.

Scævola, Digest, Book I. The following was provided by municipal law: “When anyone renders judgment outside of the council, he shall be expelled from the council, or order, and shall pay a thousand drachmas.” The question arose whether he should be subjected to the penalty if he was ignorant that he had violated the law. The answer was that penalties of this kind were only intended for those who knew that they were acting illegally.