Ad Dig. 4,3,37ROHGE, Bd. 10 (1874), S. 336: Ein Dolus kann auch durch wissentlich unwahre Angaben über Eigenschaften des Kaufgegenstandes begangen werden, besondere betrügliche Veranstaltungen setzt er nicht voraus. Lobpreisungen decipiendi animo.Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XLIV. Where a vendor says something in praise of his merchandise, it should be considered that he has neither said nor promised anything; but where he has made such statements with a view to deceive a purchaser, it is justly held that no right of action arises on account of what he has said or promised, but that an action on the ground of fraud may be brought.

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XLIV. Where anyone sells shops used for banking purposes, or others which are built on public land, he does not sell the ground, but only the right; for as these are public shops, the use of them alone belongs to private individuals.

The Same, On Sabinus, Book XLIV. Sabinus says that a dumb person is diseased, for it is evident that to be deprived of speech is a disease. A person who speaks with difficulty, however, is not diseased, any more than one is whom it is hard to understand; and it is clear that one whose words are without any meaning is diseased.

The Same, On Sabinus, Book XLIV. It makes no difference whether garments or clothing is bequeathed. 1Under the term “clothing” are included all goods made of wool, flax, silk, or cotton, which are intended to be worn or used as garments, girdles, cloaks, wraps, carpets, or coverlets, and any designs, stripes, or embroidery sewed to such articles, are classed as accessories of the same. 2Clothing is either intended for the use of men, women, or children, or is common to both sexes, or is used by slaves. That peculiar to men is such as is designed for the use of the head of the household, for instance, togas, tunics, small capes, mantles, military cloaks, and other things of this description. Garments peculiar to children, are such as are used for no other purpose, as for example, the toga prætexta, short tunics, Greek cloaks, and capes such as we purchase for our offspring. Women’s clothing is that intended for the use of the mother of the family, and which a man cannot readily wear without censure; as for instance, gowns, mantles, tunics, capes, belts, and hoods, which are designed rather to protect the head than for the purpose of ornament, veils, and travelling cloaks. Those are common to both sexes which both women and men use indiscriminately, such as cloaks, capes, and other garments of this kind, which either a man or his wife can wear without rendering themselves liable to unfavorable comment. The garments of slaves are such as are intended to clothe them, for example, capes, tunics, linen gowns, cloaks, wraps, smock frocks, and other articles of this description. 3Where clothing is bequeathed, it may also consist of furs;

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XLIV. This is proved by the fact that certain nations, for instance the Sarmatians, clothe themselves in skins. 1Aristo says that receptacles for clothing, and the coverings of seats, are also included in a legacy of this kind. 2Fillets set with pearls, as well as buckles, should rather be classed as ornaments than clothing. 3Tapestry which is either used to recline upon, or as a covering, is also embraced in a bequest of clothing. I do not think that the cloths and housings used for horses should be considered as clothing. 4Cloths with which to wrap the thighs or legs and felt caps are included under the term clothing, because by means of them a portion of the body is clad. Felt socks are also included, because they are used to protect the feet. 5Pillows are also included in the term clothing. 6Where anyone makes use of the expression “His clothing” it is evident that he means that which he himself has for his own use. 7Mattresses are also clothing. 8The skins of goats and lambs are clothing. 9Pomponius, in the Twenty-second Book on Sabinus, very properly says that where the wardrobe of a woman is bequeathed the garments of female infants and young girls are also included, for the term “woman” means all persons of the feminine sex. 10Ornaments peculiar to woman are those with which she decorates herself, as, for instance, earrings, bracelets, necklaces, rings (with the exception of those used for seals), and all articles which are designed for no other purpose but the adornment of the body, to which class also belong trinkets of gold, jewels, and precious stones, for the reason that they themselves have no other use. Toilet-articles consist of those things by the use of which a woman becomes more neat and clean. Among them are included mirrors, urinals, ointments, vessels to contain the latter, and other articles of the same kind, bathing utensils, and chests. The following are classed as ornaments, namely, fillets, coifs, small hoods, head dresses, pins set with pearls which women are accustomed to have, and small nets for the hair. A woman can be clean and still not be adorned, as is the case with those who have washed themselves clean in the bath, and have not yet put on their ornaments; and, on the other hand, a woman may arise from her sleep decorated with her ornaments, but still she will not be clean. 11Pearls, where they are not unstrung, or any other precious stones where they can be readily detached from their settings, may be said to be included among ornaments. Where, however, precious stones, pearls, or jewels are still rough, they will not be considered as ornaments, unless the intention of the testator was otherwise, when he desired articles of this kind intended for adornment to be included in the class and under the name of ornaments. 12Ointments, such as are used in illness, do not come under the head of toilet-articles.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XLIV. Quintus Mucius, in the Second Book on the Civil Law, says that silver plate should be classed as manufactured silver. 1The question arises where a bequest of all the silver of a testator is made whether his silver coin should also be held to be included in the legacy. I think that this should not be done, for no one ordinarily classes his money as silver-ware. Likewise, where manufactured silver is bequeathed, I do not think that coins are included, unless it plainly appears that the intention of the testator was otherwise. 2Where all the silver of the testator was bequeathed, there is no doubt that any which may have been placed with him for safe-keeping will not be due to the legatee, for the reason that what he cannot claim as his own is not considered to belong to him. 3Where a legacy of manufactured gold or silver is bequeathed to anyone, and it has been broken or damaged, it will not be included in the legacy; for Servius is of the opinion that manufactured gold or silver should be held to be such as we can conveniently use, but that silver vessels which are broken or damaged, do not come under this head, and should be classed as manufactured silver. 4Where a bequest is made to anyone of all the gold which may belong to the testator at his death, he can claim all the gold which the latter had at that time. Where, however, a distribution of his articles of gold was made by the testator, it then becomes a matter of importance to ascertain in what terms the legacy was expressed. If manufactured gold is bequeathed, where anything has been made out of the gold it will all belong to him to whom the legacy was left, whether it was intended for the use of the testator, or for that of someone else; as, for instance, gold vases, ornaments, seals, jewels for women, and all other articles of this description. When, however, unmanufactured gold is bequeathed, which is of such a character that it cannot be made use of without being worked up, and which the testator regarded as unmanufactured gold, it will be considered to have been bequeathed. But if engraved gold or silver is bequeathed, the testator will be held to have left by his will that on which any design is traced, as, for instance, articles made at Philippi, and also medals, and other things of this kind. 5Where silver is bequeathed, I do not think that vessels used as receptacles for discharges from the bowels are included, because they are not classed as silver ware. 6Anyone may properly define manufactured silver to be such as is not in bulk or in sheets, or which does not consist of inlaid pieces, or of furniture, toilet articles, or personal ornaments.

The Same, On Sabinus, Book XLIV. A son under paternal control cannot make a donation even if he has free administration of his peculium, for this is not granted him in order that he may lose his property. 1But what if, induced by some good reason, he makes a donation? Can it be said that there is legal ground for making it? The latter is the better opinion. 2Again, let us see if anyone should grant a son under paternal control the free administration of his peculium, and should add specifically that this is done to enable him to make a donation; will the donation be valid? I do not doubt that he can make a valid donation under such circumstances. 3Sometimes the power to make a donation may be inferred from the rank of the person; for suppose that the son was of Senatorial rank, or had been promoted to some other portion, why can it not be said that his father, when he gave him the free administration of his peculium, granted him also the privilege of making a donation of it, unless he expressly deprived him of the power of doing so? 4For the same reason that a son under paternal control is forbidden to make a donation inter vivos, he is also forbidden to make one mortis causa. For although he can make a donation mortis causa with the consent of his father, he is prohibited doing so if his consent is not given. 5It must, however, be remembered that if anyone is permitted to make a donation without it being specified that he can make one mortis causa, he cannot do so. 6All these regulations apply to persons in civil life. Where, however, soldiers have a castrense or a quasi castrense peculium, they are in such a position that they can make a donation mortis causa as well as a donation inter vivos, since they have testamentary capacity.

The Same, On Sabinus, Book XLIV. Where a woman fraudulently asks to be placed in possession of an estate in the name of her unborn child, and receives money on this account, in order to favor a substitute, or to exclude the appointed heir, for some reason or other, Julianus frequently stated that she obtained this money mortis causa.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XLIV. It is provided by the Julian Law on Peculation, that: “No one shall intercept, or appropriate for his own use, or do anything, by means of which another can remove, intercept, or employ for his own benefit, any money derived from sacred, religious, or public sources, unless he is authorized to do so by law; and no one shall add to, or mix anything with, gold, silver, or copper belonging to the government; or knowingly and fraudulently commit any act by means of which anything may be added to, or mixed with, the same, through which its value may be diminished.”