De in litem iurando
(Concerning an oath made in court.)
1 Ulpianus libro quinquagensimo primo ad Sabinum. Rem in iudicio deductam non idcirco pluris esse opinamur, quia crescere condemnatio potest ex contumacia non restituentis per iusiurandum in litem: non enim res pluris fit per hoc, sed ex contumacia aestimatur ultra rei pretium.
1 Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book LI. Where property is the subject of legal proceedings and an oath is taken with reference to the claim, we do not consider its value to be greater because the judgment may be for a larger amount on account of the contumacy of the defendant in not surrendering the property, as it does not by this means become more valuable; but its value is increased above what it is worth on account of the contumacy of the defendant :
2 Paulus libro tertio decimo ad Sabinum. Sive nostrum quid petamus sive ad exhibendum agatur, interdum quod intersit agentis solum aestimatur, veluti cum culpa non restituentis vel non exhibentis punitur: cum vero dolus aut contumacia non restituentis vel non exhibentis, quanti in litem iuraverit actor.
2 Paulus, On Sabinus, Book XIII. Whether we sue for something which is ours or whether proceedings are instituted for production. Sometimes the appraisement is made only with reference to the interest of the plaintiff in the action; for instance, where the negligence of the defendant in not surrendering or producing the property is to be punished; but when the fraud or contumacy of the party who does not surrender the property or produce it is to be punished, the value must be estimated in accordance with the amount which the plaintiff swore to in court with reference to the claim.
3 Ulpianus libro trigensimo ad edictum. Nummis depositis iudicem non oportet in litem iusiurandum deferre, ut iuret quisque quod sua interfuit, cum certa sit nummorum aestimatio. nisi forte de eo quis iuret, quod sua interfuit nummos sibi sua die redditos esse: quid enim, si sub poena pecuniam debuit? aut sub pignore, quod, quia deposita ei pecunia adnegata est, distractum est?
3 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXX. Where money has been deposited, the judge should not tender the oath in order that the party may swear to the amount of his interest, since the value of the coins is certain; unless he should swear as to what his interest was to have the money returned to him on the appointed day; for what if he had to pay a sum of money under a penalty, or on account of a pledge, and the pledge was sold because the other party had refused to pay the money which had been deposited with him?
4 Idem libro trigensimo sexto ad edictum. Videamus in tutelari causa quis iurare et adversus quem possit. et quidem ipse pupillus, si impubes est, non potest: hoc enim saepissime rescriptum est. sed nec tutorem cogendum vel matrem pupilli admittendam, etsi parata esset iurare, divi fratres rescripserunt: grave enim videbatur et ignorantes et invitos tutores sub alieni compendii emolumento etiam periurium anceps subire. curatores quoque pupilli vel adulescentis non esse cogendos in litem iurare rescriptis imperatoris nostri et divi patris eius continetur. si tamen tantam affectionem pupillo suo vel adulescenti tutores vel curatores praestare volunt, auctoritas iuris non refragabitur, quin iudicio, quod inter ipsos acceptum est, finis eiusmodi possit adhiberi. non enim ad suam utilitatem iurisiurandi referenda aestimatio est, sed ad domini, cuius nomine tutelae ratio postulatur. adulescens vero si velit iurare potest. 1Deferre autem iusiurandum iudicem oportet: ceterum si alius detulerit iusiurandum vel non delato iuratum sit, nulla erit religio nec ullum iusiurandum: et ita constitutionibus expressum est imperatoris nostri et divi patris eius. 2Iurare autem in infinitum licet. sed an iudex modum iuriiurando statuere possit, ut intra certam quantitatem iuretur, ne arrepta occasione in immensum iuretur, quaero. et quidem in arbitrio esse iudicis deferre iusiurandum nec ne constat: an igitur qui possit iusiurandum non deferre, idem possit et taxationem iuriiurando adicere, quaeritur: arbitrio tamen bonae fidei iudicis etiam hoc congruit. 3Item videndum, an possit iudex, qui detulit iusiurandum, non sequi id, sed vel prorsus absolvere vel etiam minoris condemnare quam iuratum est: et magis est, ut ex magna causa et postea repertis probationibus possit. 4Ex culpa autem non esse iusiurandum deferendum constat, sed aestimationem a iudice faciendam.
4 The Same, On the Edict, Book XXXVI. Let us consider who can take this oath where proceedings are instituted against the guardian, and against whom he can do so. The ward himself, indeed, cannot take it if he has not arrived at puberty, for this has very frequently been published in rescripts. The Divine Brothers stated in a Rescript that the guardian himself cannot be compelled to swear, or the mother of the ward be permitted to do so, even though she be ready to make oath; for it was held to be a serious matter for guardians who are ignorant of the facts, to incur the risk of perjury for the benefit of another, against their consent. It was also established by our Divine Emperor and his father that the curators of a ward or a minor could not be compelled to make oath with reference to a claim; but, where guardians or curators wish to manifest so much affection for the wards or minors under their charge, the authority of the law will not prevent trials from being ended in this way where issue has been joined between the parties; since the appraisement established by oath must be made, not with reference to the advantage of the party who is sworn, but to that of his principal in whose behalf an account of guardianship must be rendered. The minor, however, can be sworn if he wishes. 1The judge must tender the oath, but if anyone else should tender it, or if it should be taken without being tendered, it has no sanctity, and, in fact, is no oath at all; and this is stated in the Constitutions of our Emperor and his Divine Father. 2Any sum may be sworn to; but, I ask, can the judge fix a limit to the oath so as to restrict it to a certain amount, in order to prevent the party from taking the opportunity to swear to an immense sum? It is settled that it is in the discretion of the judge to tender the oath or not to do so; and therefore the question arises whether anyone who can refuse to tender the oath cannot also limit the amount to be sworn to; and this also is in the discretion of a judge acting in good faith. 3Moreover, it should be considered whether the judge who has tendered an oath is not entitled to refuse to follow it, and either to dismiss the case entirely, or to render judgment for a smaller amount than has been sworn to; and the better opinion is that where some unusually good cause exists, and new evidence has been discovered he can do so. 4It is well established that where negligence has been committed, the oath should not be tendered, but a valuation should be made by the judge.
5 Marcianus libro quarto regularum. In actionibus in rem et in ad exhibendum et in bonae fidei iudiciis in litem iuratur. 1Sed iudex potest praefinire certam summam, usque ad quam iuretur: licuit enim ei a primo nec deferre. 2Item et si iuratum fuerit, licet iudici vel absolvere vel minoris condemnare. 3Sed in his omnibus ob dolum solum in litem iuratur, non etiam ob culpam: haec enim iudex aestimat. 4Plane interdum et in actione stricti iudicii in litem iurandum est, veluti si promissor Stichi moram fecerit et Stichus decesserit, quia iudex aestimare sine relatione iurisiurandi non potest rem quae non extat:
5 Marcianus, Rules, Book IV. In actions in rem and in those for production, as well as in bona fide proceedings, an oath is taken with reference to the claim. 1The judge, however, can fix a certain amount up to which the party may swear; for he had a right in the first place not to tender him the oath. 2Moreover, where the oath is taken, the judge has a right either to dismiss the case, or to render judgment against the defendant for a smaller amount. 3In all these instances, however, the oath with reference to the claim can be taken only where fraud exists, and not on account of negligence; for the judge makes an estimate of what comes under the latter. 4There is no question that sometimes an oath is taken with reference to the claim in an action of strict law; for example, where a party who promised to deliver Stichus makes default, and Stichus dies; as the judge cannot make an estimate of the value of property which no longer exists, without tendering an oath.
6 Paulus libro vicensimo sexto ad edictum. alias, si ex stipulatu vel ex testamento agatur, non solet in litem iurari.
6 Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXVI. It is otherwise where proceedings are taken on a stipulation or under a will, for then it is not customary for the claim to be sworn to.
7 Ulpianus libro octavo ad edictum. Volgo praesumitur alium in litem non debere iurare quam dominum litis: denique Papinianus ait alium non posse iurare quam eum, qui litem suo nomine contestatus est.
7 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book VIII. It is generally taken for granted that no one but the party who has control of the case can make oath with reference to the claim; for Papinianus says that no one but a party who has joined issue in his own behalf can do so.
8 Marcellus libro octavo digestorum. Tutor rem adulti, quam possidet, restituere ei non vult: quaero, utrum quanti res est an quanti in litem iuratum fuerit condemnari debet, respondi: non est aequum pretio, id est quanti res est, litem aestimari, cum et contumacia punienda sit et arbitrio potius domini rei pretium statuendum sit potestate petitori in litem iurandi concessa.
8 Marcellus, Digest, Book VIII. Where a guardian who is in possession of the property of a person who has attained his majority refuses to surrender it to him; I ask whether judgment should be rendered against him for what the property is worth, or for the amount of the claim sworn to by the plaintiff? I answered that it is not just that the value, (that is what the property is worth), alone should be estimated, but that the contumacy displayed must be punished; and that the value of the property should rather be left to the judgment of the owner of the same by the power of making oath to the claim being granted to the plaintiff.
9 Iavolenus libro quinto decimo ex Cassio. Cum furti agitur, iurare ita oportet ‘tanti rem fuisse cum furtum factum sit’, non adici ‘eo plurisve’, quia quod res pluris est, utique tanti est.
9 Javolenus, On Cassius, Book XV. Where proceedings for theft are instituted, the value of the property at the time when the theft was committed must be sworn to, without adding the words, “Or more,” because where property is worth more, it is, at all events, worth as much.
10 Callistratus libro primo quaestionum. In instrumentis, quae quis non exhibet, actori permittitur in litem iurare, quanti sua interest ea proferri, ut tanti condemnetur reus: idque etiam divus Commodus rescripsit.
10 Callistratus, Questions, Book I. Where anyone does not produce documents, the plaintiff is permitted to swear to the claim, so that judgment may be rendered against the defendant for an amount of damages equal to the interest the plaintiff has in having the documents produced; and this the Divine Commodus stated in a Rescript.
11 Paulus libro tertio responsorum. De periurio eius, qui ex necessitate iuris in litem iuravit, quaeri facile non solere.
11 Paulus, Opinions, Book III. Inquiry is not readily permitted where a party commits perjury in a case in which he is compelled by law to swear to a claim.