Ad Massurium Sabinum libri
Ex libro XXXVI
Dig. 1,6,5Idem libro trigensimo sexto ad Sabinum. Nepotes ex filio mortuo avo reccidere solent in filii potestatem, hoc est patris sui: simili modo et pronepotes et deinceps vel in filii potestate, si vivit et in familia mansit, vel in eius parentis, qui ante eos in potestate est. et hoc non tantum in naturalibus, verum in adoptivis quoque iuris est.
The Same, On Sabinus, Book XXXVI. Grandsons, after the death of their paternal grandfather, usually come under the control of his son, that is, of their own father. In like manner, great-grandchildren and other descendants also come under the control of a son, if he is living, and remains in the family; or under that of an ascendant who precedes them in authority. This is also the law not only concerning natural children but also with reference to those who have been adopted.
Dig. 2,14,49Ulpianus libro trigensimo sexto ad Sabinum. Si quis crediderit pecuniam et pactus sit ut, quatenus facere possit debitor, eatenus agat: an pactum valeat? et magis est hoc pactum valere. nec enim improbum est, si quis hactenus desideret conveniri, quatenus facultates patiuntur.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXVI. When anyone loans money, and agrees that he will only bring suit against the debtor for the amount that he is able to pay, is such a contract valid? The better opinion is that this contract is valid, as there is nothing improper for anyone to consent to be sued for an amount which his means permit.
Dig. 23,1,6Ulpianus libro trigesimo sexto ad Sabinum. Si puellae tutores ad finienda sponsalia nuntium miserunt, non putarem suffecturum ad dissolvendam nuptiarum spem hunc nuntium, non magis quam sponsalia posse eos solos constituere, nisi forte omnia ista ex voluntate puellae facta sint.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXVI. If the guardians of a girl send a notice of the termination of a betrothal, I do not think that this will be sufficient to destroy the expectation of marriage, any more than it would be sufficient, of itself, to establish it; unless all this is done with the consent of the girl.
Dig. 23,3,27Ulpianus libro trigesimo sexto ad Sabinum. Quod si fuerit factum, fundus vel res dotalis efficitur.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXVI. When this is done, the land or the personal property becomes dotal.
Dig. 23,3,29Ulpianus libro trigesimo sexto ad Sabinum. Cum pater dotem pro filia promittit et dotem legat, si quidem marito legavit, videndum est, an legatum valeat, et non puto valere: nam cum creditori debitor legat id quod debet, nullum legatum est. quod si filiae legavit, valet legatum: dos enim ex promissione marito debetur, legatum filiae. et si quidem hoc animo testatorem esse filia ostenderit, ut duplicaret ei legatum, habebit utrumque, dotem quam maritus persecutus fuerit et legatum ex causa legati. quod si alterutrum voluit habere: si mulier legatum petat, opposita doli exceptione non alias cogetur ei heres legatum solvere, quam si caverit indemnem hoc nomine heredem futurum adversus maritum ex promissione agentem. sed si maritus agat, nihil de indemnitate eum cavere oportebit, verum mulier post eum agens exceptione repelletur, quia semel dos praestita est.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXVI. Where a father promises a dowry for his daughter, and bequeaths it, if he leaves it to her husband should it be considered whether the legacy is valid or not? I do not think that it is valid, for when a debtor bequeaths to a creditor what he owes him, the legacy is void. If, however, he makes the bequest to his daughter, the legacy is valid, for the dowry was due to the husband on account of the promise, and the legacy is due to the daughter. If the daughter should prove that the testator intended to double the legacy, she will be entitled to both, the dowry which her husband has a right to collect and the legacy on account of the bequest. But if the testator intended that she should have one or the other of these, and the woman claims the legacy, and is met by an exception on the ground of bad faith, the heir will not be compelled to pay her the legacy, unless she indemnified him, on this account against her husband bringing an action based on the promise made. Where, however, the husband institutes proceedings, it will not be necessary for her to indemnify the heir, but where the woman brings an action after him, she can be barred by an exception because the dowry has already been paid.
Dig. 24,1,33Idem libro trigesimo sexto ad Sabinum. Si stipulata fuerit mulier annuum, id ex stipulatu petere constante matrimonio non potest. sed si manente matrimonio decessisse maritus proponatur, puto, quia in annuo quoque donatio vertitur, posse dici stipulationem confirmari ex senatus consulto. 1Si uxor marito annuum versa vice praestiterit, restituetur ei hoc et poterit vindicare id quod exstat: credo poterit et condicere, in quantum locupletior factus est, quia non tam sollemne est annuum, quod maritus uxori pendit et quod uxor marito praestat, immo incongruens est et contra sexus naturam. 2Et si forte maritus ab uxore stipulatus sit id annuum decesseritque mulier constante matrimonio, dicendum erit ex oratione donationem convalescere.
The Same, On Sabinus, Book XXXVI. Ad Dig. 24,1,33 pr.Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 509, Note 35.Where a husband agrees to pay his wife a certain sum annually, she cannot bring an action on the stipulation during the marriage. But, if while the marriage is still in existence, the husband should die, I think that, because the donation has reference to an annual payment, the stipulation can be enforced under the Decree of the Senate. 1On the other hand, where a wife makes an agreement with her husband to pay him a certain sum every year, this can be refunded to her, and she can bring an action to recover what remains. I think that she can also bring a personal action for the amount to which her husband is enriched; because the annual allowance which a husband pays to his wife is not as important as that which a wife pays to her husband, for this is inconsistent, and contrary to the nature of the sex. 2Ad Dig. 24,1,33,2Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 509, Note 35.If the husband stipulated with his wife for annual payments, and the woman should die during marriage, it must be said that the donation will become valid under the Address.
Dig. 24,3,12Ulpianus libro trigesimo sexto ad Sabinum. Maritum in id quod facere potest condemnari exploratum est: sed hoc heredi non esse praestandum,
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXVI. It is established that the husband can have judgment rendered against him for the amount which he is able to pay, but this privilege cannot be granted to his heir;
Dig. 24,3,14Ulpianus libro trigesimo sexto ad Sabinum. Alia causa est defensoris, quem placet sufficienter videri defendisse, si tantum uxori praestet, quantum consequeretur, si ipsum maritum convenisset. 1Eleganter quaerit Pomponius libro quinto decimo ex Sabino, si paciscatur maritus, ne in id quod facere possit condemnetur, sed in solidum, an hoc pactum servandum sit? et negat servari oportere, quod quidem et mihi videtur verum: namque contra bonos mores id pactum esse melius est dicere, quippe cum contra receptam reverentiam, quae maritis exhibenda est, id esse apparet.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXVI. The case is different where a defender appears, for it is held that he properly defends the husband if he merely gives to the wife the amount which she could have recovered if she had brought suit against her husband himself. 1Ad Dig. 24,3,14,1Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 268, Note 10.Pomponius very properly asks, in the Sixteenth Book On Sabinus, where a husband had made an agreement with his wife that judgment should not be rendered against him to the extent of his resources, but for the entire amount; whether such an agreement should be observed. He denies that it should be observed. This opinion seems to me to be correct, for it is better to hold that such an agreement was made contrary to good morals, as it is apparent that it was entered into in violation of the respect which a woman should show to her husband.
Dig. 24,3,19Ulpianus libro trigesimo sexto ad Sabinum. Si mulier diverterit et iudicio de dote contestato reversa fuerit in matrimonium, redintegrato matrimonio exspirat iudicium et omnia in statu pristino manent.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXVI. But if a woman obtains a divorce, and issue is joined in an action on dowry, and she returns to her husband, the marriage having been re-established, the action will be terminated, and everything will remain in its former condition.
Dig. 25,1,1Ulpianus libro trigesimo sexto ad Sabinum. Impensarum quaedam sunt necessariae, quaedam utiles, quaedam vero voluptariae. 1Necessariae hae dicuntur, quae habent in se necessitatem inpendendi: ceterum si nulla fuit necessitas, alio iure habentur. 2In necessariis impensis hoc sciendum est eas demum inpensas dotem minuere, quae in dotem factae sunt: ceterum si in dotem factae non sint, non habent in se reputationem. 3Inter necessarias inpensas esse Labeo ait moles in mare vel flumen proiectas. sed et si pistrinum vel horreum necessario factum sit, in necessariis impensis habendum ait. proinde Fulcinius inquit, si aedificium ruens quod habere mulieri utile erat refecerit, aut si oliveta reiecta restauraverit, vel ex stipulatione damni infecti ne committatur praestiterit,
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXIX. Expenses are either necessary, useful, or incurred for purposes of pleasure. 1Those expenses are called necessary which are made through necessity. Where, however, no necessity exists, they come under another head. 2With reference to necessary expenses, it must be remembered that they only decrease the dowry when they are incurred on account of it. When, however, they are not incurred with reference to the dowry, they cannot be taken out of it. 3Labeo says that dikes built in the sea or river come under the head of necessary expenses. Where a mill or a granary, which is required, is built, it should be included among necessary expenses. Hence Falcinius says that if the husband should rebuild a house which was useful to his wife, and which was falling into ruin; or if he should replant an olive-orchard, where the trees had blown down; or if he should enter into a stipulation providing against the occurrence of threatened injury:
Dig. 25,1,3Ulpianus libro trigesimo sexto ad Sabinum. vel si vites propagaverit vel arbores curaverit vel seminaria pro utilitate agri fecerit, necessarias inpensas fecisse videbitur. 1Nos generaliter definiemus multum interesse, ad perpetuam utilitatem agri vel ad eam quae non ad praesentis temporis pertineat, an vero ad praesentis anni fructum: si in praesentis, cum fructibus hoc compensandum: si vero non fuit ad praesens tantum apta erogatio, necessariis inpensis computandum.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXVI. Or if he should plant vines, or takes care of trees or nurseries for the benefit of the land, he will be held to have incurred necessary expenses. 1Generally speaking, we make a distinction, and in fact there is much difference where expenses are incurred to the permanent advantage of the land, and where this is done only for the present time, or on account of the crop for the present year. In the latter instance, the expenses ought to be set off against the crop, but where they have not been incurred temporarily, they should be reckoned among those that are necessary.
Dig. 25,1,5Ulpianus libro trigesimo sexto ad Sabinum. Quod dicitur necessarias impensas dotem minuere, sic erit accipiendum, ut et Pomponius ait, non ut ipsae res corporaliter deminuantur, ut puta fundus vel quodcumque aliud corpus: etenim absurdum est deminutionem corporis fieri propter pecuniam. ceterum haec efficietaaDie Großausgabe liest res faciet statt efficiet. desinere esse fundum dotalem vel partem eius. manebit igitur maritus in rerum detentationem, donec ei satisfiat: non enim ipso iure corporum, sed dotis fit deminutio. ubi ergo admittimus deminutionem dotis ipso iure fieri? ubi non sunt corpora, sed pecunia: nam in pecunia ratio admittit deminutionem fieri. proinde si aestimata corpora in dotem data sint, ipso iure dos deminuetur per inpensas necessarias. hoc de his inpensis dictum est, quae in dotem ipsam factae sint: ceterum si extrinsecus, non imminuent dotem. 1Sed si inpensis necessariis mulier satisfecerit, utrum dos crescat an vero dicimus ex integro videri dotem? et ego, ubi pecunia est, non dubito dotem videri crevisse. 2Si dos tota soluta sit non habita ratione inpensarum, videndum est, an condici possit id, quod pro impensis necessariis compensari solet. et Marcellus admittit condictioni esse locum: sed etsi plerique negent, tamen propter aequitatem Marcelli sententia admittenda est. 3Utiles autem impensae sunt, quas maritus utiliter fecit, remque meliorem uxoris fecerit, hoc est dotem,
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXVI. Where it is stated that necessary expenses diminish the dowry, this (as Pomponius says) must be understood to mean not that the property itself is actually diminished, as for instance, land or any other dotal property, for it is absurd to hold that any diminution of the same can occur on account of money expended; but it signifies that the said property ceases to become dotal either wholly, or in part. Hence the husband will remain in possession of it until his claim is satisfied, for no diminution of the same is effected, by operation of law, but merely a diminution of the dowry takes place. When, therefore, shall we admit that a diminution of the dowry occurs by operation of law? This will be the case where the dowry consists of other property than money, for it is reasonable to admit that a diminution of money can take place. Hence, if certain property, after being appraised, is given by way of dowry, the dowry will be diminished by operation of law to the amount of the necessary expenses incurred. This is said to be applicable to expenses incurred with reference to the dowry itself, but if they are made with reference to other matters they do not diminish the dowry. 1Where the wife pays such necessary expenses, can we say that the dowry is increased, or should it be held to remain unimpaired? Where the dowry consists of money, I have no doubt that it should be held to have increased. 2Where the entire dowry is paid without any account having been taken of expenses, it must be considered whether the amount which it is customary to set off against necessary expenses can be recovered by a personal action. Marcellus holds that there is ground for such action, and although many authorities deny that this is the case, still, on account of equity, the opinion of Marcellus should be upheld. 3Useful expenses are those which the husband incurs for the benefit of the property, and which improve the property of the wife, that is to say, her dowry.
Dig. 25,1,7Ulpianus libro trigesimo sexto ad Sabinum. Voluptariae autem inpensae sunt, quas maritus ad voluptatem fecit et quae species exornant. quarum utiles non quidem minuunt ipso iure dotem, verumtamen habent exactionem.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXVI. Expenses for the purpose of pleasure are those which the husband incurs to that end, and which are an ornament to the property. Such expenses do not diminish the dowry by operation of law, as those which are useful do, nevertheless, they can be demanded.
Dig. 25,1,9Ulpianus libro trigesimo sexto ad Sabinum. Pro voluptariis impensis, nisi parata sit mulier pati maritum tollentem, exactionem patitur. nam si vult habere mulier, reddere ea quae impensa sunt debet marito: aut si non vult, pati debet tollentem, si modo recipiant separationem: ceterum si non recipiant, relinquendae sunt: ita enim permittendum est marito auferre ornatum quem posuit, si futurum est eius quod abstulit.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXVI. The husband is permitted to demand from his wife expenses incurred for pleasure, if she does not permit him to remove what caused them. For, if the wife desires to retain such improvements, she should refund the amount expended by her husband; or if she does not wish to retain them, she should permit him to remove them, provided they admit of separation. If, however, they cannot be separated, they should be left; for the husband is not allowed to take away any ornaments which he has added to the property, unless by doing so he can make them his own.
Dig. 25,1,11Ulpianus libro trigesimo sexto ad Sabinum. In voluptariis autem Aristo scribit nec si voluntate mulieris factae sunt, exactionem parere. 1Donationem inter virum et uxorem circa impensas quoque inhibitam vere Sabinus scribit.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXVI. Aristo, however, says with reference to expenses incurred for pleasure, that the husband cannot demand them, even if they have been made with the consent of his wife. 1Sabinus very properly holds that gifts which are prohibited between husband and wife also extend to expenses incurred on account of the dowry.
Dig. 25,2,7Ulpianus libro trigesimo sexto ad Sabinum. Mulier habebit rerum amotarum actionem adversus virum et compensare potest mulier cum actione, qua maritus agere vult ob res amotas.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXVI. A wife is entitled to an action against her husband for the recovery of property fraudulently appropriated, and she can set off the claim in her action against that made by the husband, where he brings suit for the same cause.
Dig. 26,2,10Ulpianus libro trigesimo sexto ad Sabinum. Si hereditas nondum adita sit, ex qua tutor speratur, verius est alium tutorem posse dari, quasi nondum sit, nec speretur. 1In tutelis testamentariis id sequimur quod novissimum est, et si saepius tutor datus sit, novissimam scripturam intuemur. 2Qui filium et ex eo nepotem habebat, si nepoti tutorem dederit, habet disceptationem, an aliquo casu non sit utilis datio: ut puta si proponas filium vivo patre decessisse et nepotem ex eo successisse vivo avo. et fortius dicendum est tutelam quoque e lege Iunia Vellea confirmatum: nam et Pomponius libro sexto decimo ex Sabino scripsit valere tutoris dationem. cum enim confirmatum sit testamentum, consequenter tutoris quoque datio valebit in eo testamento scripta quod valet, id est ubi nepos vel heres institutus sit vel nominatim exheredatus sit. 3Si furiosus testamento tutor detur, si quidem, cum furere desierit, tutorem esse recte datum Proculus existimat: quod si datus sit pure, negat Proculus valere dationem. sed est verius, quod et Pomponius ait, recte videri datum et tunc fore tutorem, cum sapere coeperit. 4Servus alienus ita dari tutor potest ‘si liber erit, tutor esto’. quin immo et si pure datus sit, videtur inesse haec condicio ‘cum liber erit’. potest autem quis et extraneo servo defendere ex hac causa fideicommissariam libertatem: quid enim interest, suum servum an alienum tutorem scripserit, cum pupilli favore et publicae utilitatis adsumpta libertas sit in persona eius, qui tutor scriptus est? potest igitur et huic fideicommissaria libertas defendi, si voluntas apertissime non refragetur.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXVI. If an estate is not yet entered upon, and the appointment of a guardian is expected under the will disposing of it, the better opinion is that another guardian can be appointed, just as if there was none, nor any expectation of one. 1In testamentary guardianship, the last will of the testator is observed, and if he has appointed several guardians, we accept the last one mentioned. 2Where a man had a son, and a grandson by him, and appointed a guardian for the grandson, there may be a question whether an appointment under such circumstances will not be valid; for example, if one supposes that the son died during the lifetime of his father, and for this reason the grandson will become the heir to his grandfather during the lifetime of the latter. It must be positively held that such a guardianship is confirmed by the Lex Junia Velleia. Pomponius stated in the Sixteenth Book on Sabinus that the appointment of such a guardian is valid. For as the will is valid, the appointment of the guardian made therein will consequently also be valid; that is to say, where the grandson is either appointed heir, or expressly disinherited. 3Where an insane person is appointed a guardian by will, Proculus thinks that the appointment is properly made, if it is stated that he shall act when he ceases to be insane. If, however, he is appointed unconditionally, Proculus denies that the appointment is valid. What Pomponius says is more correct, that is, that the appointment was held to have been properly made, and that the guardian can act when he recovers his reason. 4A slave belonging to another can be appointed a guardian, where it is stated that he shall act if he becomes free. And even if the slave should be appointed without any condition, the acquisition of his freedom is held to be a condition upon which his appointment depends. Where, however, a slave belonging to another is appointed, anyone, however, can maintain that, by doing so, the testator has bequeathed him his freedom by means of a trust. For what difference does it make whether he appoints his own slave, or that of another, since, in the interest of the ward, and in consideration of the public welfare, the freedom of him who is appointed guardian is assumed? Therefore, it can be maintained that freedom through a trust has been conferred upon the slave, unless it is perfectly clear that this was not the intention of the testator.
Dig. 29,1,28Ulpianus libro trigensimo sexto ad Sabinum. Cum filius familias miles decessisset filio impubere herede instituto eique substituisset in avi potestate manenti tutoresque dedisset, divi fratres rescripserunt substitutionem quidem valere, tutoris autem dationem non valere, quia hereditati quidem suae miles qualem vellet substitutionem facere potest, verum tamen alienum ius minuere non potest.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXVI. Where a son under paternal control died while in the army, after having appointed as his heir his son, who had not yet reached the age of puberty, and also appointed a substitute as well as guardians for him while under the control of his grandfather, the Divine Brothers stated in a Rescript that the substitution was valid, but that the appointment of the guardians was not, for the reason that a soldier in disposing of his estate can make any substitution that he desires, but he cannot do anything injuriously affecting the rights of another.
Dig. 50,17,28Ulpianus libro trigensimo sexto ad Sabinum. Divus Pius rescripsit eos, qui ex liberalitate conveniuntur, in id quod facere possunt condemnandos.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXVI. The Divine Pius stated in a Rescript that those who were sued on account of a display of liberality could only have judgment rendered against them for an amount which they were able to pay.
Dig. 50,17,30Ulpianus libro trigensimo sexto ad Sabinum. Nuptias non concubitus, sed consensus facit.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXVI. Consent and not cohabitation constitutes marriage.