De pecunia constituta
(Concerning the action for money promised.)
1 Ulpianus libro vicensimo septimo ad edictum. Hoc edicto praetor favet naturali aequitati: qui constituta ex consensu facta custodit, quoniam grave est fidem fallere. 1Ait praetor: ‘Qui pecuniam debitam constituit’. ‘qui’ sic accipiendum est ‘quaeve’, nam et mulieres de constituta tenentur, si non intercesserint. 2De pupillo etsi nihil sit expressum edicto, attamen sine tutoris auctoritate constituendo non obligatur. 3Sed si filius familias constituerit, an teneatur, quaeritur: sed puto verum et ipsum constituentem teneri et patrem de peculio. 4Eum, qui inutiliter stipulatus est, cum stipulari voluerit, non constitui sibi, dicendum est de constituta experiri non posse, quoniam non animo constituentis, sed promittentis factum sit. 5An potest aliud constitui quam quod debetur, quaesitum est. sed cum iam placet rem pro re solvi posse, nihil prohibet et aliud pro debito constitui: denique si quis centum debens frumentum eiusdem pretii constituat, puto valere constitutum. 6Debitum autem ex quacumque causa potest constitui, id est ex quocumque contractu sive certi sive incerti, et si ex causa emptionis quis pretium debeat vel ex causa dotis vel ex causa tutelae vel ex quocumque alio contractu. 7Debitum autem vel natura sufficit. 8Sed et is, qui honoraria actione, non iure civili obligatus est, constituendo tenetur: videtur enim debitum et quod iure honorario debetur. et ideo et pater et dominus de peculio obstricti si constituerint, tenebuntur usque ad eam quantitatem, quae tunc fuit in peculio, cum constituebatur: ceterum si plus suo nomine constituit, non tenebitur in id quod plus est.
1 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXVII. In this Edict the Prætor favors natural equity, as he protects promises made by consent, since a breach of good faith is a serious matter. 1The Prætor says, “Where a person makes a promise for a sum of money which is due.” The term “person” must be understood to mean anyone at all, for women also are liable for promises to pay, if they do not act as sureties. 2Although nothing is stated in this Edict with reference to a minor, still, he is not liable for a promise without the authority of his guardian. 3The question arises whether, if a son under paternal control makes such a promise, he will be liable? I think that it is true that he will be liable, and that his father also will be liable to the extent of his son’s peculium. 4Where anyone makes a stipulation which is void, but intended to make a stipulation and not a promise to pay; it must be held that the creditor cannot institute proceedings on account of a promise made, because the debtor did not act with the intention of making a promise, but of entering into a stipulation. 5The question has been asked whether a promise can be made for something else than what is due? But since it. has already been established that one thing can be delivered instead of another, there is nothing which prevents a promise being made for something else than what was due; for example, where a party who owes a hundred aurei promises grain of that value, I think that the promise is valid. 6The payment of a debt can be promised, no matter what the consideration may be; that is to say, no matter what the contract is, whether it is for a certain or an uncertain amount, and whether the party owes the purchase-money due on a sale, or money owing on account of a dowry, or on account of guardianship, or by reason of any other contract whatsoever. 7Even a debt due by natural law is sufficient. 8A person who is liable to a prætorian action, but not under the Civil Law, is liable for a promise; for it is held that what is due by Prætorian Law is a debt. Therefore, if a father or the owner of a slave makes a promise for which an action De peculio can be brought against him, he will be liable for the amount which there was in the peculium at the time when the promise was made; but if he promised more than that in his own name, he will not be bound for the excess.
2 Iulianus libro undecimo digestorum. Quod si filii nomine constituerit se decem soluturum, quamvis in peculio quinque fuerint, de constituta in decem tenebitur.
2 Julianus, Digest, Book XI. But if he promises in behalf of his son that he will pay ten aurei, even though only five should be in the peculium, he will be liable for ten on the promise.
3 Ulpianus libro vicensimo septimo ad edictum. Quod si maritus plus constituit ex dote quam facere poterat, quia debitum constituerit, in solidum quidem tenetur, sed mulieri in quantum facere potest condemnatur. 1Si quis autem constituerit quod iure civili debebat, iure praetorio non debebat, id est per exceptionem, an constituendo teneatur, quaeritur: et est verum, ut et Pomponius scribit, eum non teneri, quia debita iuribus non est pecunia quae constituta est. 2Si is, qui et iure civili et praetorio debebat, in diem sit obligatus, an constituendo teneatur? et Labeo ait teneri constitutum, quam sententiam et Pedius probat: et adicit Labeo vel propter has potissimum pecunias, quae nondum peti possunt, constituta inducta: quam sententiam non invitus probarem: habet enim utilitatem, ut ex die obligatus constituendo se eadem die soluturum teneatur.
3 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXVII. Where a husband promised a larger dowry than he is able to give, as he contracts a debt he is liable for all that he promises; but judgment shall be rendered in favor of the wife for the amount that he is able to pay. 1If anyone promises a sum of money which he owes by the Civil Law but does not owe by Prætorian Law, that is, because he is entitled to an exception; the question arises whether he is liable on account of the promise? It is true (as Pomponius states) that he is not liable, because the money which was promised is not due under Prætorian Law. 2Where anyone who owes money under both the Civil and Prætorian Law is bound by an obligation which is to become operative at some future time, will he be liable under a promise? Labeo says that he will be, and Pedius approves of his opinion. Labeo adds that this kind of promise was introduced mainly on account of those pecuniary obligations for which actions could not yet be brought, and I am not unwilling to adopt this opinion; for the principle is advantageous that a party who is bound from a certain time, by promising to make payment at that time will be liable.
4 Paulus libro vicensimo nono ad edictum. Sed et si citeriore die constituat se soluturum, similiter tenetur.
4 Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXIX. But if he promises to pay before that time, he will also be liable.
5 Ulpianus libro vicensimo septimo ad edictum. Eum, qui Ephesi promisit se soluturum, si constituat alio loco se soluturum, teneri constat. 1Iulianus legatum Romae constituentem, quod in provincia acceperat, putat conveniri debere, quod et verum est. sed et si non cum Romae esset, sed in provincia adhuc, constituit se Romae soluturum, denegatur in eum actio de constituta. 2Quod exigimus, ut sit debitum quod constituitur, in rem exactum est, non utique ut is cui constituitur creditor sit: nam et quod ego debeo tu constituendo teneberis, et quod tibi debetur si mihi constituatur, debetur. 3Iulianus quoque libro undecimo scribit: Titius epistulam ad me talem emisit: ‘Scripsi me secundum mandatum Seii, si quid tibi debitum adprobatum erit me tibi cauturum et soluturum sine controversia.’ tenetur Titius de constituta pecunia. 4Sed si quis constituerit alium soluturum, non se pro alio, non tenetur: et ita Pomponius libro octavo scribit. 5Item si mihi constituas te soluturum, teneberis: quod si mihi constitueris Sempronio te soluturum, non teneberis. 6Iulianus libro undecimo digestorum scribit procuratori constitui posse: quod Pomponius ita interpretatur, ut ipsi procuratori constituas te soluturum, non domino. 7Item tutori pupilli constitui potest et actori municipum et curatori furiosi: 8sed et ipsi constituentes tenebuntur. 9Si actori municipum vel tutori pupilli vel curatori furiosi vel adulescentis ita constituatur municipibus solvi vel pupillo vel furioso vel adulescenti, utilitatis gratia puto dandam municipibus vel pupillo vel furioso vel adulescenti utilem actionem. 10Servo quoque constitui posse constat et, si servo constituatur domino solvi vel ipsi servo, qualemqualem servum domino adquirere obligationem.
5 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXVII. Where anyone promises to pay at Ephesus, and also promises to pay at some other place, it is settled that he will be liable. 1Julianus thinks that an envoy who promised to repay at Rome something which he had received in a province can be sued there, and this opinion is correct; but if he promised to make payment at Rome, not while he was there, but while he was still in the province, an action on the promise will be refused. 2What we have stated, namely, that where a debt is owing a promise to pay it must have reference to the very property itself, does not by any means require that the party to whom the promise was made should be already a creditor; for if you promise to pay what I owe, you will be liable, and if a promise is made to me to pay what is due to you, an obligation arises. 3Julianus also says in the Eleventh Book: “Titius wrote me a letter as follows, ‘I have stated in writing under the direction of Seius, that, if it should be proved that he owes you anything, I will give you security for the debt, and will pay it without any dispute.’” Titius, then, is liable for the payment of money promised. 4But where anyone promises that another will make payment, and not that he will do so for another, he is not liable; and this Pomponius states in the Eighth Book. 5Moreover, if you promise that you will pay me, you will be liable; but if you promise me that you will pay Sempronius, you will not be liable. 6Julianus says in the Eleventh Book of the Digest that a promise can be made to an agent; and this Pomponius holds must be understood to signify that you may promise to pay the agent, but not the principal. 7Moreover, a promise can be made to the guardian of a ward and to the representative of a municipality, as well as to the curator of an insane person. 8These persons will also be liable on any promises which they themselves make. 9Where a promise is made to the representative of a municipality, or to the guardian of a ward, or to the curator of an insane person or of a minor, in such a way that payment shall be made to the municipality, or the ward, or the insane person, or the minor; I am of the opinion that an equitable action should be granted to the municipality, or the ward, or the insane person, or the minor aforesaid. 10It is also established that a promise can be made even to a slave, and if this is done to the effect that payment shall be made either to the owner of the slave or to the slave himself, the slave will acquire a certain obligation for his master.
6 Paulus libro secundo sententiarum. Idem est et si ei qui bona fide mihi servit constitutum fuerit.
6 Paulus, Sentences, Book II. The same rule applies where a promise is made to some one who is serving me as a slave in good faith.
7 Ulpianus libro vicensimo septimo ad edictum. Sed et si filio familias constituatur, valet constitutum. 1Si mihi aut Titio stipuler, Titio constitui suo nomine non posse Iulianus ait, quia non habet petitionem, tametsi solvi ei possit.
7 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXVII. Even where a promise is made to a son under parental control it is valid. 1If I stipulate for payment to be made to me or to Titius, Julianus says that a promise cannot be made to Titius on his own account, because he has no right of action to recover the money, although payment can be made to him.
8 Paulus libro vicensimo nono ad edictum. Si vero mihi aut Titio constitueris te soluturum, mihi competit actio: quod si, posteaquam soli mihi te soluturum constituisti, solveris Titio, nihilo minus mihi teneberis.
8 Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXIX. If, however, you promise to pay either me or Titius, I have a right to bring an action; although, after you have made the promise that you will pay me alone you pay Titius, you will, nevertheless, be liable to me.
9 Papinianus libro octavo quaestionum. Titius tamen indebiti condictione tenebitur, ut quod ei perperam solutum est ei qui solvit reddatur.
9 Papinianus, Questions, Book VIII. Titius, however, will be liable to a personal action for the recovery of money not due, in order that what has been wrongfully paid to him may be refunded to the party who paid it.
10 Paulus libro vicensimo nono ad edictum. Idem est et si ex duobus reis stipulandi post alteri constitutum, alteri postea solutum est, quia loco eius, cui iam solutum est haberi debet is cui constituitur.
10 Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXIX. The same rule applies where there are two creditors under a stipulation, and a promise to pay is made to one of them, and payment is subsequently made to the other; because the party to whom the promise is made should be considered to be in the position of one who has been already paid.
11 Ulpianus libro vicensimo septimo ad edictum. Hactenus igitur constitutum valebit, si quod constituitur debitum sit, etiamsi nullus apparet, qui interim debeat: ut puta si ante aditam hereditatem debitoris vel capto eo ab hostibus constituat quis se soluturum: nam et Pomponius scribit valere constitutum, quoniam debita pecunia constituta est. 1Si quis centum aureos debens ducentos constituat, in centum tantummodo tenetur, quia ea pecunia debita est: ergo et is, qui sortem et usuras quae non debebantur constituit, tenebitur in sortem dumtaxat.
11 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXVII. Therefore, a promise will also be valid so long as what is promised is actually due, even though, in the meantime, no one should appear who owes anything; as, for example, where, before the estate of the debtor is entered upon, or while he is held captive by the enemy, some one promises that he will make payment; for Pomponius states that a promise of this kind is valid since the money which is promised is in fact due. 1Where a man owing a hundred aurei promises to pay two hundred, he will only be liable for a hundred, because that is the amount of the money due; and therefore if anyone makes a promise to pay the principal together with the interest which is not due, he will be liable only for the principal.
12 Paulus libro tertio decimo ad edictum. Sed et si decem debeantur et decem et Stichum constituat, potest dici decem tantummodo nomine teneri.
12 Paulus, On the Edict, Book XIII. Moreover, if ten aurei are due, and the party promises to pay ten and deliver Stichus, it can be said that he is only liable for the ten aurei.
13 Idem libro vicensimo nono ad edictum. Sed si quis viginti debens decem constituit se soluturum, tenebitur.
13 The Same, On the Edict, Book XXIX. Where anyone who owes twenty aurei promises to pay ten, he will be liable.
14 Ulpianus libro vicensimo septimo ad edictum. Qui autem constituit se soluturum, tenetur, sive adiecit certam quantitatem sive non. 1Si quis constituerit se pignus daturum: cum utilitas pignorum inrepserit, debet etiam hoc constitutum admitti. 2Sed et si quis certam personam fideiussuram pro se constituerit, nihilo minus tenetur, ut Pomponius scribit. quid tamen si ea persona nolit fideiubere? puto teneri eum qui constituit, nisi aliud actum est. quid si ante decessit? si mora interveniente, aequum est teneri eum qui constituit vel in id quod interest vel ut aliam personam non minus idoneam fideiubentem praestet: si nulla mora interveniente, magis puto non teneri. 3Constituere autem et praesentes et absentes possumus, sicut pacisci, et per nuntium et per nosmet ipsos, et quibuscumque verbis.
14 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXVII. Where a man promises to pay he will be liable, whether he specifies a certain amount or not. 1If anyone promises that he will give a pledge, then, if necessity for a pledge arises, even a promise of this kind must be admitted. 2Where anyone promises that some certain person will act as his surety, Pomponius states that he will, nevertheless, be liable; but what if the party refuses to act as surety? I think that he who made the promise will be liable, unless there was some other understanding, but what if the surety should die beforehand? If there should be a default, it is only just that the party who made the promise should be liable either to the amount of the interest of the creditor, or to offer as surety some other person not less solvent; but where there was no default, I rather think that he will not be liable. 3We can make a promise for payment whether we are present or absent; just as we can make an agreement by a messenger or in our own proper persons, and in any terms that we may choose.
15 Paulus libro vicensimo nono ad edictum. Et licet libera persona sit, per quam tibi constitui, non erit impedimentum, quod per liberam personam adquirimus, quia ministerium tantummodo hoc casu praestare videtur.
15 Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXIX. And although the party through whom I make you a promise to pay may be free, this will be no obstacle, as we can acquire property through a person who is free, because in this instance the party is considered only to offer his services.
16 Ulpianus libro vicensimo septimo ad edictum. Si duo quasi duo rei constituerimus, vel cum altero agi poterit in solidum. 1Sed et certo loco et tempore constituere quis potest, nec solum eo loci posse eum petere, ubi ei constitutum est, sed exemplo arbitrariae actionis ubique potest. 2Ait praetor: ‘si appareat eum qui constituit neque solvere neque fecisse neque per actorem stetit, quo minus fieret quod constitutum est.’ 3Ergo si non stetit per actorem, tenet actio, etiamsi per rerum naturam stetit: sed magis dicendum est subveniri reo debere. 4Haec autem verba praetoris ‘neque fecisse reum quod constituit’ utrum ad tempus constituti pertinent an vero usque ad litis contestationem trahimus, dubitari potest: et puto ad tempus constituti.
16 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXVII. Where two of us make a promise for payment as two principal debtors, an action can be brought for the entire amount against either of us. 1Anyone can make a promise to pay at a certain place or time, and suit may be brought not only at the place mentioned in the promise but anywhere, as in the case of an arbitrarian action. 2The Prætor says: “If it should be apparent that the party who made the promise neither paid the debt nor did what he should have done, and the plaintiff was not to blame because the act which was promised was not performed.” 3Therefore, if it was not the plaintiff’s fault, a right of action will exist, even though he was prevented by the nature of the circumstances; but the better opinion is that the defendant is entitled to relief. 4There is some occasion for doubt with reference to the words of the Prætor, “The debtor did not do what he should have done,” whether his words relate to the time mentioned in the promise, or whether we should refer them to the date when issue was joined; and I think that they refer to the time mentioned in the promise.
17 Paulus libro vicensimo nono ad edictum. Sed et si alia die offerat nec actor accipere voluit nec ulla causa iusta fuit non accipiendi, aequum est succurri reo aut exceptione aut iusta interpretatione, ut factum actoris usque ad tempus iudicii ipsi noceat: ut illa verba ‘neque fecisset’ hoc significent, ut neque in diem in quem constituit fecerit neque postea.
17 Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXIX. But where he offers to make payment on another day, and the plaintiff is unwilling to receive it, although he has no good reason for refusing, it is but just that relief should be granted the defendant, either by an exception or by a proper interpretation, so that, up to the time of trial, the act of the plaintiff will injure himself; and that the construction of the words, “Did not do,” may be that he did not perform what he promised up to the date which he mentioned, or at any time subsequently.
18 Ulpianus libro vicensimo septimo ad edictum. Item illa verba praetoris ‘neque per actorem stetisse’ eandem recipiunt dubitationem. et Pomponius dubitat, si forte ad diem constituti per actorem non steterit, ante stetit vel postea. et puto et haec ad diem constituti referenda. proinde si valetudine impeditus aut vi aut tempestate petitor non venit, ipsi nocere Pomponius scribit. 1Quod adicitur: ‘eamque pecuniam cum constituebatur debitam fuisse’, interpretationem pleniorem exigit. nam primum illud efficit, ut, si quid tunc debitum fuit cum constitueretur, nunc non sit, nihilo minus teneat constitutum, quia retrorsum se actio refert. proinde temporali actione obligatum constituendo Celsus et Iulianus scribunt teneri debere, licet post constitutum dies temporalis actionis exierit. quare et si post tempus obligationis se soluturum constituerit, adhuc idem Iulianus putat, quoniam eo tempore constituit, quo erat obligatio, licet in id tempus quo non tenebatur. 2E re autem est hic subiungere, utrum poenam contineat haec actio an rei persecutionem: et magis est, ut etiam Marcellus putat, ut rei sit persecutio. 3Vetus fuit dubitatio, an qui hac actione egit sortis obligationem consumat. et tutius est dicere solutione potius ex hac actione facta liberationem contingere, non litis contestatione, quoniam solutio ad utramque obligationem proficit.
18 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXVII. Again, the words of the Prætor, “The plaintiff was not to blame,” also raise some doubt. Pomponius is uncertain, where the plaintiff was not responsible for the promise not being fulfilled at the time indicated, but was, either before or afterwards. I am of the opinion that these words also should be deemed to refer to the time mentioned in the promise. Thus, if the plaintiff having been prevented by violence, by illness, or by bad weather, does not appear; Pomponius states that he himself must suffer the consequences. 1With reference to what is added, namely: “And that the money for which payment was promised was actually due,” this requires a more complete explanation; for, in the first place, it means that if a debt was due at the time when the promise was made, but not now, the promise will, nevertheless, hold, because the right of action is retroactive. Hence as Celsus and Julianus state, where a party is bound by an obligation on which suit can be brought against him only during a certain time and he promises payment, he should be held liable; even though the time during which suit could be brought has elapsed after the promise was made. Therefore, even if he promises that he will pay after the time of his obligation has expired, Julianus still thinks that the same rule will apply; since at the time when he made the promise he was under an obligation, although he referred it to a date when he would not have been liable. 2It is proper here to consider whether this action includes a penalty or is merely for the collection of the claim, and the better opinion is, as Marcellus himself thinks, that it is brought only for the collection of the claim. 3It was formerly a matter of doubt whether a party who brought this suit lost his right of action for the principal claim; and the safest opinion is that, when payment is made in a case of this kind, there will be a release from liability, rather than when issue is joined, since payment will benefit both obligations.
19 Paulus libro vicensimo nono ad edictum. Id quod sub condicione debetur, sive pure sive certo die constituatur, eadem condicione suspenditur, ut existente condicione teneatur deficiente utraque actio depereat. 1Sed is qui pure debet si sub condicione constituat, inquit Pomponius in hunc utilem actionem esse. 2Si pater vel dominus constituerit se soluturum quod fuit in peculio, non minueretur peculium eo, quod ex ea causa obstrictus esse coeperit: et licet interierit peculium, non tamen liberatur.
19 Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXIX. Where something is due under a condition, and the promise is made which renders it payable either absolutely or at a certain time, it will remain in abeyance under the same condition; so that if the condition is complied with the party will be liable, but if it is not, both rights of action will be extinguished. 1But where anyone owes a debt absolutely, and makes a promise for payment under a condition, Pomponius says that an equitable action can be brought against him. 2Where a father or the owner of a slave promises to make payment to the amount of what is contained in the peculium, the peculium will not be diminished for the reason that he obligated himself in this way; and even though the peculium may have been lost, he will, nevertheless, not be released from liability:
20 Idem libro quarto ad Plautium. Nec enim quod crescit peculium aut decrescit, pertinet ad constitutoriam actionem.
20 The Same, On Plautius, Book IV. For neither the increase nor the decrease of the peculium will affect the right of action on the promise.
21 Idem libro vicensimo nono ad edictum. Promissor Stichi post moram ab eo factam mortuo Sticho si constituerit se pretium eius soluturum, tenetur. 1Si sine die constituas, potest quidem dici te non teneri, licet verba edicti late pateant: alioquin et confestim agi tecum poterit, si statim ut constituisti non solvas: sed modicum tempus statuendum est non minus decem dierum, ut exactio celebretur. 2Constituto satis non facit, qui soluturum se constituit, si offerat satisfactionem. si quis autem constituat se satisdaturum, fideiussorem vel pignora det, non tenetur, quia nihil intersit, quemadmodum satisfaciat.
21 The Same, On the Edict, Book XXIX. Where a party promises to deliver Stichus, and Stichus dies after he is in default, if he promises to pay his value, he will be liable. 1If you make a promise without mentioning the time of payment, it may be said that you will not be liable, although the terms of the Edict are susceptible of a broad interpretation; otherwise, proceedings may be instituted without delay, unless you have prepared to make payment just as soon as you promised to do so, but a reasonable time should be granted, for instance, not less than ten days, before the claim can be collected. 2In this action, as in other bona fide actions, the same oath shall charge his obligation if he merely tenders security; but where he promises that he will give security and he offers a surety or a pledge, he will not be liable, because it makes no difference in what way he provides security.
22 Idem libro sexto brevium. Si post constitutam tibi pecuniam hereditatem ex senatus consulto Trebelliano restitueris, quoniam sortis petitionem transtulisti ad alium, deneganda est tibi pecuniae constitutae actio. idem est in hereditatis possessore post evictam hereditatem. sed magis est, ut fideicommissario vel ei qui vicit decernenda esset actio.
22 The Same, Abridgments, Book VI. If after a sum of money has been promised to you, you deliver the estate under the Trebellian Decree of the Senate; then, since you transferred to another the right to bring suit for the original debt, you will be refused an action for the money due to you under the promise. The same rule applies where the possessor of an estate loses it to one who has a better title; but the action in this case should preferably be granted to the beneficiary of the trust or to the party who gained the suit.
23 Iulianus libro undecimo digestorum. Promissor hominis homine mortuo, cum per eum staret quo minus traderetur, etsi hominem daturum se constituerit, de constituta pecunia tenebitur, ut pretium eius solvat.
23 Julianus, Digest, Book XI. Where a promisor agrees to deliver a slave and the slave dies when the former was to blame for his not having been delivered; even though he promised to deliver a slave, he will still be liable for a promise for the payment of money, and hence he must pay the value of the slave.
24 Marcellus libro singulari responsorum. Titius Seio epistulam emisit in haec verba: ‘Remanserunt apud me quinquaginta ex credito tuo ex contractu pupillorum meorum, quos tibi reddere debebo idibus maiis probos: quod si ad diem supra scriptum non dedero, tunc dare debebo usuras tot.’ quaero, an Lucius Titius in locum pupillorum hac cautione reus successerit. Marcellus respondit si intercessisset stipulatio, successisse. item quaero, an, si non successisset, de constituta teneatur. Marcellus respondit in sortem teneri: est enim humanior et utilior ista interpretatio.
24 Marcellus, Opinions. Titius sent a letter to Seius in the following words: “There remain in my hands fifty aurei of your loan on account of a contract of my wards, which I shall be obliged to pay you in current money on the Ides of May, and if I do not pay the said sum on the above mentioned day I shall then owe you so much as interest.” I ask whether Lucius Titius has, by this bond, taken the place of his wards as debtor? Marcellus answered that, if a stipulation had been entered into, he would have taken it. I also desire to know if he did not do this, whether he is liable on his promise to pay? Marcellus answers that he is liable for the principal; as this is the more liberal and advantageous interpretation.
25 Papinianus libro octavo quaestionum. Illud aut illud debuit et constituit alterum: an vel alterum quod non constituit solvere possit, quaesitum est. dixi non esse audiendum, si velit hodie fidem constitutae rei frangere. 1Si iureiurando delato deberi tibi iuraveris, cum habeas eo nomine actionem, recte de constituta agis. sed et si non ultro detulero iusiurandum, sed referendi necessitate compulsus id fecero, quia nemo dubitat modestius facere qui referat, quam ut ipse iuret, nulla distinctio adhibetur, tametsi ob tuam facilitatem ac meam verecundiam subsecuta sit referendi necessitas.
25 Papinianus, Questions, Book VIII. A certain person owed me either one of two things, and promised to deliver one of them; the question arose whether he could deliver the one which he did not promise? I answered that he should not be heard if he now desired to break faith with reference to what had been promised. 1Where an oath has been tendered to you, and you swear that something is due to you, when you already have a right of action on account of it, you can properly proceed on the ground of a promise to pay; but if I did not voluntarily tender the oath, but did so being compelled by the necessity of tendering it back to you, no distinction exists, even though the necessity of tendering it back arose on account of your willingness and my respect; for no one doubts that a party acts with greater moderation when he tenders an oath back, than he does when he himself makes it.
26 Scaevola libro primo responsorum. Quidam ad creditorem litteras eiusmodi fecit: ‘Decem, quae Lucius Titius ex arca tua mutua acceperat, salva ratione usurarum habes penes me, domine.’ respondit secundum ea quae proponerentur actione de constituta pecunia eum teneri.
26 Scævola, Opinions, Book I. A certain man wrote a letter to his creditor as follows: “The ten aurei which Lucius Titius received as a loan from your chest are in my possession, and at your disposal, with the exception of the amount of interest.” The answer was that, according to the facts stated, the party was liable to an action based on money promised.
27 Ulpianus libro quarto decimo ad edictum. Utrum praesente debitore an absente constituat quis, parvi refert. hoc amplius etiam invito constituere eum posse Pomponius libro trigensimo quarto scribit: unde falsam putat opinionem Labeonis existimantis, si, postquam quis constituit pro alio, dominus ei denuntiet ne solvat, in factum exceptionem dandam: nec immerito Pomponius: nam cum semel sit obligatus qui constituit, factum debitoris non debet eum excusare.
27 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XIV. It makes but little difference whether anyone promises to pay in the presence or in the absence of the debtor. Pomponius goes still farther in the Thirty-fourth Book, and states that anyone can make a promise for payment even without the consent of the debtor, and, therefore, he considers the opinion of Labeo to be incorrect, who thinks that if, after a party has made a promise on account of someone else, the principal should notify him not to pay, he ought to be granted an exception in factum; and Pomponius is not unreasonable in this; for when the party who made the promise is once bound, the act of the debtor should not enable him to avoid liability.
28 Gaius libro quinto ad edictum provinciale. Ubi quis pro alio constituit se soluturum, adhuc is, pro quo constituit, obligatus manet.
28 Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book IV. Where anyone has promised that he will make payment, in behalf of another, he in whose behalf he made this promise will still remain bound.
29 Paulus libro vicensimo quarto ad edictum. Qui iniuriarum vel furti vel vi bonorum raptorum tenetur actione, constituendo tenetur.
29 Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXIV. A person who is liable to an action for either injury, theft, or robbery, will be liable under a promise to pay.
30 Idem libro secundo sententiarum. Si quis duobus pecuniam constituerit tibi aut Titio, etsi stricto iure propria actione pecuniae constitutae manet obligatus, etiamsi Titio solverit, tamen per exceptionem adiuvatur.
30 The Same, Sentences, Book II. Where anyone promises to pay money to one of two persons, for instance, to you or to Titius; then, although in strict law he remains bound by the proper action for the money promised, even if he should pay Titius, he will still have the right to an exception.
31 Scaevola libro quinto digestorum. Lucius Titius Seiorum debitor decessit: hi persuaserunt Publio Maevio, quod hereditas ad eum pertineret et fecerunt, ut epistulam in eos exponat debitorem sese esse quasi heredem patrui sui confitentem, qui et addidit epistulae suae, quod in rationes suas eadem pecunia pervenit. quaesitum est, cum ad Publium Maevium ex hereditate Lucii Titii nihil pervenerit, an ex scriptura proposita de constituta pecunia conveniri possit et an doli exceptione uti possit. respondit nec civilem eo nomine actionem competere: sed nec de constituta secundum ea quae proponerentur. idem quaesiit, usurarum nomine quod ex causa supra scripta datum sit, an repeti possit. respondit secundum ea quae proponerentur posse.
31 Scævola, Digest, Book V. Lucius Titius died while debtor to the Seii, and they persuaded Publius Mævius that the estate belonged to him, and caused him to write a letter to them in which he stated that he was their debtor in such a way as to admit that he was the heir of his paternal uncle; and in this letter he added that the amount due had been entered in his accounts. The question arose whether since nothing had come into the hands of Publius Mævius out of the estate of Lucius Titius, whether he could be sued for money promised in the letter aforesaid, and whether he could make use of an exception on the ground of fraud? The answer was that no civil action would lie on that ground, but that an action to collect money promised would not lie either, according to the facts stated. The inquiry was also made whether suit could be brought for the recovery of the interest which had been paid on the ground above-mentioned? The answer was that, in accordance with the facts stated, it could be.