Ad edictum praetoris libri
Ex libro LVIII
Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LVIII. Where anyone promises to produce two persons in court, and he produces one and not the other, he is held not to have kept his promise, as one of them has not been produced.
The Same, On the Edict, Book LVIII. Where property awarded by a judicial decision has been included in a new stipulation, and a release had been made of the latter for the purpose of making a donation, it must be said that the release will be valid.
Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LVIII. If an agent does not appear, an action to enforce judgment against him will be refused, and will be granted against his principal; but if he does appear, it will be granted against him. In this instance, however, he is not held to have appeared in court who has been appointed agent in a case in which he is interested; for there is another reason why he cannot refuse to plead in an action to enforce judgment, and that is because he has become an agent in his own behalf, and not in that of another. 1A guardian and a curator are in such a position that they are not considered to have appeared in court, and therefore, an action to enforce judgment should not be granted against them. 2The agent of a municipality can avoid execution in a case where judgment has been rendered, for an action to enforce judgment should be granted against the citizens. 3The Prætor says: “I will grant an action to compel the party against whom a decision has been rendered to pay the money.” Hence the party who has lost his case is required to make payment. But what should be done, and what shall we say, if he is not prepared to make payment, but is ready to satisfy the claim in some other way? Labeo says that it should be added, “If the party who had lost his case should not satisfy the claim,” for it may happen that he has a solvent person to offer in his stead. The reason, however, for requiring payment is that the Prætor was unwilling that a new obligation should be created out of the former one; and therefore he provides that the money shall be paid. The opinion of Labeo should be adopted for good and sufficient reasons. 4If, after the decision and by agreement of the litigants, security is furnished by the party who lost his case, the rule will be relaxed with reference to him if a new contract is made; but if this is not done for the purpose of entering into a new contract, the order of execution will stand. If, however, pledges are accepted, or securities are furnished to provide for the execution of the judgment, the result will be that we must hold that the execution will remain just as if something had been added to the decision in the case, and nothing had been withdrawn from it. The same rule should be gbserved in the case of a party whose agent had judgment rendered against him. 5When a decision is rendered against anyone requiring him to make payment within a certain time, from what date must we compute the time for the action to enforce judgment? Shall we do so from the day when the decision was rendered, or from the day when the time prescribed in cases of this kind has elapsed? If the judge fixed a shorter time than that prescribed by law, what is lacking through his decision must be supplied by the law. If, however, the judge, in fixing the period, included a greater number of days than those legally allowed, the unsuccessful party will be granted not only the time prescribed by law, but also that which the judge granted in addition. 6We must understand a person who has been condemned to be one who has had a judgment legally rendered against him in such a way that it will stand. If, however, for any reason, the judgment should prove to be of no effect, it must be said that the term “condemnation” will not be applicable. 7We should understand a discharge from liability to mean not only that the party pays the claim, but that he is entirely released from the obligation upon which the judgment was founded. 8Celsus says that if you had a decision rendered against you in a noxal action, and by way of reparation you gave up a slave in whom another had the usufruct, you will still be liable to the action to enforce judgment; but if the usufruct should be extinguished, he states that you will be released.
Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LVIII. He who makes a mistake does not confess unless he is ignorant of the law.
The Same, On the Edict, Book LVIII. He who has made an assignment of his property is not deprived of it before the sale; and therefore, if he is ready to set up a defence, his property will not be sold.
The Same, On the Edict, Book LVIII. Food, drink, the care of the body, and everything necessary to human life is embraced in the term “maintenance.” Labeo says that maintenance also includes clothing.
Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LVIII. Labeo says that under the term “covering,” all clothing which anyone puts on is included; for there is no doubt that the term applies to cloaks and every kind of garments. Therefore, when we include clothing under the term “maintenance,” we do not mean bedclothes used at night, but all articles intended for dress.