The Same, On All Tribunals, Book I. A Prætor cannot appoint himself a guardian, or a judge in any special proceeding.

The Same, On All Tribunals, Book I. The Governor of a province cannot appoint himself either a guardian, or a judge in a particular case.

The Same, On All Courts, Book I. Not only must a curator be appointed for a girl about to be married, for the bestowal of her dowry; but one must also be appointed for a minor who is already married. A curator is also appointed for the purpose of increasing the dowry, or in order that some change may be made with reference to it.

The Same, On All Tribunals, Book I. A freedman shall also be sent to the Prefect of the City for punishment, if he is proved to have fraudulently administered the guardianship of the children of his patron.

The Same, On All Tribunals, Book I. There are reasons why anyone may relinquish a guardianship or a curatorship and preserve his reputation. 1Therefore, the cause of his removal should be mentioned in the decree, in order that it may be known that the reputation of the guardian does not suffer. 2But what if the magistrate did not, in his decree, indicate the cause of the removal? Papinianus says that this should not affect the good name of the guardian; which is correct. 3If the Prætor by his decision does not remove the guardian from office, but forbids him to discharge its duties, it must be said that the better opinion is that he ceases to be a guardian. 4Those who have administered none of the affairs of the trust cannot be accused of being suspicious; they can, however, be removed on the ground of idleness, negligence, or fraud, if they have acted dishonestly.

Ulpianus, On All Tribunals, Book I. Children under the age of puberty are not permitted to denounce their guardians as suspicious; but it is clear that minors are allowed to denounce their curators in this manner, if they desire to do so; provided that they act under the advice of their near relatives. 1Where not fraud, but gross negligence which very nearly resembles fraud, has been committed by a guardian, he should be removed, as being suspicious. 2In the consideration of this subject, certain additional provisions were made by a Rescript of our Emperor and the Divine Severus, addressed to Atrius Clonius; for they decreed that, where guardians did not appear in cases involving the distribution of supplies to their wards, they should be deprived of their property, and that the ward should be placed in possession of the effects of him who had been pronounced suspicious by the decree, for the purpose of preserving the same, and if it was perishable, or liable to be diminished in value by delay, it was ordered to be sold, after the appointment of a curator. 3Moreover, if a guardian does not appear after having been appointed, it is customary to summon him by several proclamations, and finally, if he does not present himself, he should be removed from office, because of his non-appearance. This proceeding should only be resorted to very rarely, and after a careful investigation has been made.

The Same, On All Tribunals. The Prætor has the right to determine the amount to be allotted for the maintenance of wards; and he himself must apportion the sum which guardians or curators shall expend for the maintenance of wards or minors. 1When the Prætor renders his decision with reference to maintenance, he must take into consideration the value of the estate, and make the allowance with such a degree of moderation as not to permit the entire income of the estate to be expended for the support of the ward; but the allowance must always be made in such a way that a balance of the income will remain. 2In rendering his decision, he must bear in mind the slaves who are to serve the wards, the income of the latter, as well as the expenses of their clothing and lodging; and the age of those to whom maintenance is granted should also be taken into consideration. 3Still, in the case of large estates, not the entire value of the same, but what will be sufficient to enable the ward to live in an economical manner, should regulate the measure of the allowance. 4Where, however, the guardian, and he who desires an allowance for his support to be made do not agree as to the means of the latter, an inquiry should be instituted, and maintenance should not be rashly granted, lest injustice be done to one or the other of the parties. First, however, the Prætor should require the guardian to disclose how much is in his hands, and warn him that he will be compelled to pay a high rate of interest on all that is in excess of the sum mentioned in this statement. 5The Prætor is also accustomed to allow a certain sum for the education of male and female wards, or minors, who are under twenty years of age; this to be regulated by the amount of their means, and the age of those who are to receive instruction. 6Where, however, the wards are poor, the guardian is not compelled to support them out of his own property, and if a ward should be reduced to want after maintenance has been allowed him, the latter should be diminished, just as it is customary to increase it, when the estate has been enhanced in value.

Ulpianus, On All Tribunals, Book I. The Prætor must be careful not to appoint a curator rashly and without the most thorough investigation of the case, since many persons feign madness or insanity in order that, by the appointment of a curator, they may the more readily evade their civil obligations.

Ad Dig. 2,1,15ROHGE, Bd. 10 (1874), S. 328: Voraussetzung der stillschweigenden Prorogation des Gerichtsstandes.The Same, On All Tribunals, Book II. If, through error, anyone appears before one Prætor while intending to appear before another, none of the proceedings which have been instituted will be valid, for no one is permitted to say that they agreed upon the judge; since, as Julianus stated, those who are in error do not agree. For what is so contrary to agreement as error, which always reveals ignorance?

Ulpianus, On All Tribunals, Book II. Julianus states in the Sixteenth Book of the Digest that a husband cannot lose any servitude attaching to the land, or impose any new ones upon it.

The Same, Concerning All Tribunals, Book II. Where one person enjoys the ownership of land, and another the usufruct of the same, the better opinion is that that portion of the decree which relates to the division of property does not apply, for there is no real community of interest.

The Same, On All Tribunals, Book II. There is no doubt that persons who are not legal guardians or curators, but transact business while acting as such, cannot in this capacity dispose of the property of wards or minors. 1It should be considered whether a sale will be valid by the ancient law under these circumstances, or whether this decree is applicable to the case of a curator of an insane person, or of anyone else who is not a minor. Because the Emperor refers to wards, and the duties of curators are understood to be connected with those of guardians, I think that the same rule must be held to apply to all of them, in accordance with the intent of the decree. 2The question arises whether common property, in which the ward has an interest, can be encumbered. And I do not think that this can be done without a judicial decision; for what is excepted in the decree merely has reference to the extinguishment of the common ownership, and not to the increase of its difficulties.

Ulpianus, On All Tribunals, Book II. If the creditors of an estate consider the heir to be suspicious, they can require him to give security for the payment of what is due to them, and the Prætor should take cognizance of the case. He ought not, however, without proper examination, to subject the heir to the necessity of furnishing security, unless after proper cause has been shown, he should decide to protect the interests of those who consider the heir as liable to suspicion. 1An heir is not considered suspicious in the same sense that a guardian is; for fraudulent acts or deceitful conduct with reference to the affairs of his ward render a guardian liable to suspicion, and not his want of means, while the latter alone will render an heir suspicious. 2It is clear that those who accuse an heir of being suspicious should only be heard within a short time after his acceptance of the estate. If, however, it is proved that they suffered him to remain in possession of the estate for a considerable period, and can accuse him of nothing criminal, as, for example, that he has been guilty of some fraudulent act, he should not, after a long time has elapsed, be reduced to the necessity of giving security. 3If the heir who is ordered to furnish security on the ground of being liable to suspicion does not obey the decree of the Prætor, the latter shall then order possession to be taken of the property of the estate, and permit it to be sold in conformity with the Edict. 4It is evident that if it should be ascertained that nothing belonging to the estate has been sold, and that no other objection can justly be raised against the heir except his poverty, the Prætor must be content to order him to take nothing from the estate. 5If the creditors cannot prove that the heir is suffering from poverty, they will be liable to him in an action on the ground of injury sustained.

The Same, On All Tribunals, Book II. We understand by the term “urban estates” not only all buildings which are situated in towns, but also inns, and such houses as are used for trade in the suburbs, and in villages, as well as palaces intended only for pleasure; but the materials, and not the location, are what constitute an urban estate. Hence, if there are any gardens attached to these buildings, it must be said that they are included under the term “urban estates.” It is clear that if these gardens afford more revenue than they do pleasure, that is to say, if they contain vines or olive trees, they should not be designated “urban estates.”

Ulpianus, On All Tribunals, Book III. Where jurisdiction has been delegated by a Governor, he to whom it is delegated cannot assemble a Council. 1Where guardians or curators desire to sell land, the Prætor or Governor can permit this to be done after hearing the case; but if he delegates his jurisdiction he can, under no circumstances, transfer with it the right to conduct the inquiry instituted for this purpose.

The Same, On All Tribunals, Book III. The Prætor is accustomed to delegate his jurisdiction, and either delegate all or a portion of the same; while he to whom the right of dispensing justice has been delegated, exercises it in the name of him who appointed him, and not in his own.

Ulpianus, On All Tribunals, Book III. Where anyone commits an atrocious act who can, on account of his infamous character and poverty, disregard a judgment rendered against him in an action for injury, the Prætor should exercise all his severity in the prosecution of the case, and the punishment of those who committed the injury.

The Same, On All Tribunals, Book III. When money was paid on the execution of a judgment, and on appeal a more favorable decision was rendered, the party can recover the money which he paid.

Ulpianus, On all Tribunals, Book IV. It is stated in an Address of the Divine Marcus that no one can compel another to go to trial in the seasons of harvest and vintage; because being occupied in agricultural pursuits, he should not be compelled to appear in court. 1If, however, the Prætor, either through ignorance or neglect, should continue to summon the parties, and they should voluntarily appear, and he should render judgment in the presence of the litigants, who are here of their own accord, the judgment will be valid, even though he who summoned them acted improperly; but if he should render judgment in their absence, and while they continued to remain away, it follows that it must be held that his judgment is of no effect; for the act of the Prætor can not abrogate the law. The judgment therefore becomes void without appeal. 2There are, however, certain cases which must be excepted, and in which we may be compelled to appear before the Prætor during the seasons of harvest and vintage, namely, where the property in question will be lost by lapse of time; that is to say, where delay will deprive the party of his right of action. And, in fact, when the matter is urgent, we can be forced to appear before the Prætor, but this only can be done in order that issue may be joined; and it is so stated in the words of the aforesaid Address, for, after issue has been joined, if either of the parties refuses to proceed, the Address grants him delay.

The Same, On All Tribunals, Book IV. After an interval of not less than ten days;

The Same, On All Tribunals, Book IV. In the peremptory citation the magistrate who issues it gives notice that he will hear and decide the case even should the other party be absent.

The Same, On All Tribunals, Book IV. After a peremptory citation has been obtained, and as soon as the day mentioned therein arrives, the absent party must be called; and whether he answers, or not, the case must proceed and decision be rendered, but not always in favor of the party who is present; for sometimes the absent party may prevail if he has a good case. 1But if the party who obtained the peremptory citation is absent on the day appointed for the hearing, and he against whom it was obtained is present, the peremptory citation must be annulled, and the cause shall not be heard, nor shall a decision be rendered in favor of the party who is present. 2If the citation is annulled, let us consider whether the defendant can be sued again, and whether the right of action still remains, or whether merely the proceeding relating to this citation is annulled? The better opinion is, that it only is annulled, and that the parties can litigate again. 3It should be borne in mind that where an absent party has a judgment rendered against him on account of a peremptory citation, and appeals, he shall not be heard; that is, if he was absent through contumacy; but if he was not, he should be heard.

The Same, On All Tribunals, Book IV. In rendering judgment, it is sufficient if the judge mentions the amount, and orders it to be paid or furnished, or makes use of any other term which has this signification. 1It is, moreover, set forth in a rescript, that even if the amount is not stated in the decision, but the party who brought suit mentioned it, and the judge says, “Pay what is claimed,” or “As much as is claimed,” the decision will be yalid. 2When magistrates render a judgment for the principal, and with reference to the interest add, “If any interest is due, let it be paid,” “Or let what interest is due be paid,” their judgment is not valid; for they ought to ascertain the amount of interest and establish it by their decision. 3If anyone, having received a peremptory summons, has judgment rendered against him after his death, it will not be valid, because a peremptory summons is of no effect after the death of the defendant; and hence the judge must take cognizance of the case, just as if matters remained unchanged, and decide as seems to him best.

The Same, On all Tribunals, Book V. When those to whom provision for maintenance has been left, were ready to make a compromise, and were satisfied with a moderate sum to be paid to them at once; the Divine Marcus stated in an Address delivered in the Senate: “That no compromise with reference to maintenance should stand, unless it was made under the authority of the Prætor.” Therefore the Prætor is accustomed to intervene and decide between the contracting parties whether the compromise is one which should be admitted. 1Whether provision for a house, or for clothing, or for maintenance dependent on real-estate is bequeathed, the inquiry of the same Prætor with reference to the compromise must be held. 2The above-mentioned Address relates to provision for maintenance left either by will or codicil, whether it was added to the will, or the party died intestate. The same rule is applicable where the provision was made by a donation mortis causa or where a charge was imposed upon anyone. Where bequests are made for the purpose of fulfilling a condition, we say that the rule is the same. It is evident that a compromise can be entered into without the authority of the Prætor when provision for maintenance is not made mortis causa. 3The Address applies to sums to be paid monthly or daily or annually, and the same rule is applicable where they are not left for life, but only for a certain term of years. 4Where a certain sum is bequeathed to anyone in order that he may support himself with the interest of the same and restore the entire amount at the time of his death; the Address will still apply, although the amount cannot be held to be paid annually. 5Where, however, a certain sum of money, or a certain amount of property is left to Titius, in order to provide for the support of Seius, the better opinion is that Titius can compromise; for by this act of Titius the maintenance of Seius is not diminished. The same rule applies where property was left to the legatee under a trust in order to provide for maintenance. 6The Address forbids a compromise which is made in such a way that anyone can spend at once the amount which is given him. What would be the case then, if a party made a compromise without the authority of the Prætor, to the effect that whatever was payable to him annually by the bequest, he should receive each month? Or what should be done if he received every day what had been left to him to be paid every month? Or how would it be if what he had a right to receive at the end of a year, should be received by him at the beginning? I am of the opinion that an arrangement of this kind is valid, because the party to be supported improves his condition by such a transaction; and that the Address of the Emperor did not intend that the maintenance of persons should be cut off by a compromise. 7It makes no difference whether the parties for whom provision for maintenance is made are freedmen, or freeborn, rich, or poor. 8The Address also directs inquiry to be made before the Prætor with reference to the following matters; in the first place, concerning the cause of the compromise; second, concerning its terms; third, concerning the personal characters of the parties to the transaction. 9With reference to the cause, it must be ascertained what reason exists for making the compromise for the Prætor will hear no one who desires to make a compromise without sufficient cause. The reasons which are usually alleged are the following, namely: where the heir and the party to be supported reside in different places; or where either of them intends to change his residence; or where there is some urgent reason for a sum of money to be paid at the time; or where provision for maintenance has been charged upon several heirs, and it is difficult for them to distribute small sums of money among different persons; or where any other reason exists among those which usually arise, and which may induce the Prætor to sanction the compromise. 10The amount of money involved in the transaction must also be considered, for the good faith of the parties is to be determined in this way. The amount must also be estimated according to the age and condition of health of the person who is making the compromise, as it is clear that it must vary in the cases of a boy, a young man, or one who is old; and it is evident that a provision for maintenance will end with the life of the party for whose benefit it was made. 11The character of the persons must also be taken into consideration; that is to say, what are the habits of life of those for whom provision is made, whether they are frugal and have sufficient for their maintenance from other sources; or whether they are of an inferior class, who will be compelled to depend entirely upon the provision made for them. With regard to the person who is charged with furnishing maintenance, these things must be investigated namely, what his means are, as well as his intentions and his opinions, for it will then be apparent whether he desires to ever reach the party with whom he makes the compromise or not. 12A compromise made with respect to maintenance, does not apply to lodging or clothing; as the Divine Marcus ordered that special arrangements should be made with reference to these matters. 13Where, however, anyone makes a compromise with respect to maintenance, it will not be considered necessary for him, against his will, to make any arrangement concerning lodgings, or other matters; he can, therefore, enter into an agreement with reference to all things at once, or only concerning a few. 14A compromise with respect to a provision for shoes must also be made under the authority of the Prætor. 15Where real-estate charged with maintenance has been left to one or several persons, and they desire to alienate it, it is necessary for the Prætor to decide concerning both the alienation and the compromise. Where real-estate charged with maintenance is left to several persons, and these make a compromise among themselves without the consent of the Prætor, the compromise should not be sustained. The same rule applies where land is given as security for maintenance, for, where a pledge is given for this purpose, it cannot be released without the authority of the Prætor. 16It is perfectly manifest that the consent of the Prætor is necessary where a compromise is made for the entire amount of the maintenance, or only for a portion of the same. 17If, when application is made to the Prætor, he permits a compromise to be made without an investigation of the case, the transaction will be void; for the matter is referred to the Prætor to be examined, and not to be neglected, or given up. If, however, he does not make inquiry about everything which he is directed to do by the Address; that is to say, about the cause, the amount, and the character of the parties to the transaction, it must be held that even though he investigates some matters, the compromise is void. 18Neither the Governor of the province, nor the Prætor can delegate his jurisdiction in a matter of this kind. 19Compromises with respect to maintenance can also be made in the presence of the Imperial Procurator; for example, where maintenance is claimed from the Treasury, and hence this can be done in the presence of the Prefect of the Treasury. 20Where an action is pending with reference to provision for maintenance, and a compromise is made, it will not be valid without the authority of the Prætor; as otherwise the Address of the Emperor might be evaded; for pretended suits could be brought, in order that a compromise might be arranged without the consent of the Prætor. 21Where provision for maintenance is left to anyone, and in addition to this a legacy which is to be paid immediately, and a compromise is made without the authority of the Prætor; whatever may be paid is first credited on the legacy which was made payable without delay, and the remainder on the provision for maintenance. 22Where anyone makes a compromise with reference to maintenance, without the authority of the Prætor, whatever is paid will be applied to the settlement of what is due on the maintenance; for it makes no difference how much the arrears were, or whether they were more or less than the amount paid; for if they are less, still the payment must be credited on the arrears of the provision for maintenance. And it is clear that if he who made the compromise with respect to maintenance, became more wealthy by the payment, it will be perfectly just that the other party should have an action to recover the amount by which he became more wealthy, for no one ought to profit by the loss of another. 23Where a certain sum to be paid annually, as, for instance, an annual pension or an usufruct has been left by anyone to a man of superior rank, a compromise can be made without the authority of the Prætor. But, if a moderate usufruct has been left, instead of a provision for maintenance, I say that a compromise made without the authority of the Prætor is of no force or effect. 24Where provision has been made for the maintenance of a person, not in money but in grain, oil, and other articles which are necessary for subsistence, a compromise cannot be arranged with respect to them, whether the payments are to be made to him annually, or monthly. Where, however, the compromise made without the Prætor’s authority was, that he should, instead of the articles, receive a certain sum of money payable either annually, or monthly, and neither the date nor the amount was changed, but only the nature of the article; or if, on the other hand, he agreed to receive subsistence in kind, which had been left to him in money; as where he changed wine for oil, or oil for wine, or anything else of this description; or changed the place so as to receive the provision left to him at Rome, in some town, or in some province, or vice versa; or if he changed the person, so as to receive from one what he should have received from several; or accepts one debtor instead of another; all these things must be submitted to the decision of the Prætor, and be determined for the benefit of the party entitled to maintenance. 25Where a certain sum, payable annually for lodging, has been left, any transaction which is entered into for the furnishing of lodging without the authority of the Prætor is valid; since the party obtains the benefit of the lodging, although the compromise may afford a lodging liable to demolition, or fire. On the other hand also, if he agrees that a stated sum shall be paid him instead of the lodging which was bequeathed, the transaction is valid, even without the Prætor’s authority.

Ulpianus, On All Tribunals, Book V. Where maintenance is bequeathed, it can be said that water is also included in the legacy, if the bequest is made in the region where water is ordinarily sold.

The Same, On All Tribunals, Book V. A controversy for possession is terminated as soon as the judge decides which party is in possession. This is done in such a way that he who loses possession can take the position of plaintiff, and then bring an action against the owner.

The Same, On All Tribunals, Book V. He who confesses that he owes a specified sum of money is considered as having had judgment rendered against him; but this rule does not apply where the amount is uncertain. 1When anyone admits that he owes an uncertain amount of money, or something which is not specifically designated, as, for instance, if he says that he is obliged to deliver either Stichus or a tract of land, he must be urged to make his allegations more definite. The same rule applies to him who admits that he owes some property, to compel him to state the amount. 2If I bring an action to recover a tract of land which is mine, and you admit that it is mine, you will occtipy the same position as if a judgment had been rendered declaring the land to belong to me. And, in any other kind of civil or honorary actions, and in all interdicts for the production of property, or its restitution, including prohibitory interdicts, if the party who is sued admits the indebtedness, it may be said that the Prætor must follow the provision of the Rescript of the Divine Marcus, and everything which he confesses to be due is held to have been judicially decided. Therefore, in actions in which time is granted for the restitution of property, it will also be granted for restitution to the party who confesses judgment; and if restitution should not be made, the value of the property shall be appraised in court. 3If anyone admits that a claim is valid in the absence of his adversary, let us see whether he should not be considered to have had judgment rendered against him; because he who makes oath with reference to his services is not liable, and it is not customary to condemn anyone in his absence. It is certain that it is sufficient for the confession to be made in the presence of an agent, a guardian, or a curator. 4Let us see whether it will be sufficient for an agent, a guardian, or a curator, to make the confession. I do not think that it will be sufficient. 5In the case of a confession by a ward, we require the authority of his guardian, 6we grant complete restitution to a minor against his confession. 7Those who have confessed judgment are entitled to time for payment after making their confession, just as parties are after judgment has been rendered.

Ulpianus, On All Tribunals, Book VIII. Even though the ward should be ignorant of the fact, and unwilling.

The Same, On All Tribunals, Book VIII. Another person cannot appoint a guardian, even under the direction of a Governor. 1Where the Prætor or the Governor of a province appoints a guardian while he is insane or demented, I do not think that the appointment will be valid; for, even though he may still continue to be Prætor or Governor, and his insanity does not deprive him of his magistracy, still, the appointment made by him will be of no force or effect. 2A guardian can be appointed upon any day whatsoever. 3A guardian or a curator can be appointed by a Prætor or a Governor for a person of either sex who may have become insane, and for one who is dumb and deaf.

Ulpianus, On All Tribunals, Book VIII. The Governor of a province usually decided with reference to salaries, but only concerning those to which instructors in liberal studies are entitled. We understand liberal studies to be those which the Greeks designate eleuveria, and they include such as are taught by professors of rhetoric, grammar, and geometry. 1For the same reason, nothing is more just than also to include professors of medicine, for the latter give their attention to the health of men, and the former to their studies; and therefore with reference to them also, the Governor of the province should expound the law arbitrarily. 2Governors hear midwives, who are also considered to practice medicine. 3Anyone understands a physician to be one who promises a cure for any part of the body, or relief from pain, as, for example, an affection of the ear, a fistula, or a toothache; provided he does not employ incantations, imprecations, or exorcisms (to make use of the ordinary term applied to charlatans), for such things as this do not properly belong to the practice of medicine, although there are persons who commend such expedients, and affirm that they have been benefited by them. 4Are philosophers to be included in the number of professors? I do not think that they are, not because philosophy is irreligious, but because those who practice it should, first of all, scorn any mercenary labor. 5Hence, the Governor of a province does not decide with reference to the remuneration of professors of the Civil Law, for their wisdom is considered to be something extremely sacred; but it should not be estimated by its value in money, or be dishonored where compensation is claimed by a person who ought to promise under oath to dispense instruction gratuitously. Still, contributions when tendered may honorably be accepted, which, however, would be dishonorable if demanded. 6Governors of provinces have also assumed the right to decide with reference to school teachers, although they are not classed as professors, as well as in the case of copyists, makers of notes, accountants, and notaries. 7The Governor should, by no means, arbitrarily decide with reference to the master-workmen of other arts, or artisans who are not included in the literary professions, or are not mentioned above. 8When assistants demand their salaries, it has been decided that the same rule applies as in the case of professors. 9The Governor should take cognizance of all claims against these persons, for the Divine Brothers stated in a Rescript that this could even be done against advocates. 10With reference to the fees of advocates, the judge should decide according to the importance of the case, the skill of the advocate, and the custom of the bar, and should make an estimate of the fees to which the advocate was entitled, provided the amount does not exceed the compensation fixed by law; for this was set forth in a Rescript of Our Emperor and his Father in the following terms: “If Julius Maternus, who has wished you to appear in his case, is ready to pay you what he agreed to do, you can only claim an amount which does not exceed that prescribed by law.” 11We should understand advocates to be all those who devote their energies to the purpose of conducting litigation. Those, however, are not included in the number of advocates who ordinarily appear in court to conduct cases in behalf of parties who are absent. 12If a fee has been agreed upon with an advocate, or if anyone has made a contract with him, having reference to the conduct of a case, let us see whether he can demand it. And, indeed, the following was stated by our Emperor and his Divine Father with reference to agreements of this kind, namely: “It is the observance of a bad custom where you exact from your client a promise for the payment of money for conducting his case. It is the law that if, while the case is pending, an agreement is made for future remuneration it will be void; but if it is made after the case has been tried, the sum promised as a fee can be collected up to a reasonable amount, even though the agreement was made with reference to what might be recovered, provided what has been paid shall be reckoned with what is due, and the entire amount does not exceed the legal fee.” The proper fee is understood to be no more than a hundred aurei in any one case. 13The Divine Severus prohibited a fee from being recovered from the heirs of an advocate after his death, because it was not his fault that he did not conduct the suit. 14It is also the duty of a Governor or a Prætor to take cognizance of the claims of nurses for the support of children to which they are entitled, when brought before their magistrates. Such claims, however, should only be considered where infants are nourished by the breast, but when this is not the case, neither the Prætor nor the Governor will have jurisdiction. 15If all these things should be demanded before the Governors of provinces, let us see whether they can have jurisdiction of reciprocal claims. I think that they should be permitted to do so.

The Same, On All Tribunals, Book VIII. Governors are accustomed to take cognizance of the cases of brokers, and although it is considered a degrading occupation, still, in order to regulate the amount of their commissions and the business in which they are engaged, they, to some extent, supervise their calling. The Greeks designate their compensation by the term the “fee of an intermediary,” and it can easily be collected by them where, for instance, anyone acts as an agent for the purpose of contracting a bond of friendship, or to obtain an assistant for a judge, or anything else of this kind. For such occupations are pursued by certain men in large cities. The term “broker” applies to those who give their services and make themselves useful by negotiating purchases, sales, commercial matters, and lawful contracts in a way which is not objectionable.

The Same, On All Tribunals, Book VIII. We should consider a person to be absent who is not in the place where his presence is demanded; for we do not require that he be beyond seas, since he is absent if he happens to be outside the suburbs of the city; but if he is within the suburbs, he is not held to be absent if he does not conceal himself. 1Anyone who has been captured by the enemy is not considered to be absent, but he who is detained by robbers is.

Ulpianus, On All Tribunals, Book IX. Where a party produces a slave who is disabled or blind, he should be discharged from liability under this action, for he has produced him, and a production of this kind is no impediment to a direct action, for the plaintiff can still bring suit under the Lex Aquilia for the damage sustained.

Ulpianus, On All Tribunals, Book IX. It is the duty of the Governor of a province to see that the bodies or bones of deceased persons are not detained, or maltreated, or prevented from being transported on the public highway, or buried.