Corpus iurisprudentiae Romanae

Repertorium zu den Quellen des römischen Rechts

Digesta Iustiniani Augusti

Recognovit Mommsen (1870) et retractavit Krüger (1928)
Convertit in Anglica lingua Scott (1932)
Dig. XIII7,
De pigneraticia actione vel contra
Liber tertius decimus
VII.

De pigneraticia actione vel contra

(Concerning the Action on Pledge and the Counter Action.)

1Ul­pia­nus li­bro qua­dra­gen­si­mo ad Sa­binum. Pig­nus con­tra­hi­tur non so­la tra­di­tio­ne, sed et­iam nu­da con­ven­tio­ne, et­si non tra­di­tum est. 1Si igi­tur con­trac­tum sit pig­nus nu­da con­ven­tio­ne, vi­dea­mus, an, si quis au­rum os­ten­de­rit qua­si pig­no­ri da­tu­rus et aes de­de­rit, ob­li­ga­ve­rit au­rum pig­no­ri: et con­se­quens est ut au­rum ob­li­ge­tur, non au­tem aes, quia in hoc non con­sen­se­rint. 2Si quis ta­men, cum aes pig­no­ri da­ret, ad­fir­ma­vit hoc au­rum es­se et ita pig­no­ri de­de­rit, vi­den­dum erit, an aes pig­no­ri ob­li­ga­ve­rit et num­quid, quia in cor­pus con­sen­sum est, pig­no­ri es­se vi­dea­tur: quod ma­gis est. te­ne­bi­tur ta­men pig­ne­ra­ti­cia con­tra­ria ac­tio­ne qui de­dit, prae­ter stel­lio­na­tum quem fe­cit.

1Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XL. A pledge can be contracted not only by delivery, but also by mere agreement, even if no delivery is made. 1Let us therefore consider where a pledge has been contracted by mere agreement, whether, when anyone exhibits some gold as if he intended to deliver it by way of pledge, and he delivers brass, he will bind himself to pledge the gold? If follows that he will bind himself for the gold, but not for the brass, as the parties did not make an agreement with reference to the latter. 2However, where anyone when he delivers brass by way of pledge, states that it is gold, and gives it in pledge, it should be considered whether he does not make the brass a pledge, and whether as an agreement was made as to what was to be given, it may not be held to be pledged? This is the better opinion; still, the party who gave it will be liable to a counter action on pledge, without taking into account the fraud which he perpetrated.

2Pom­po­nius li­bro sex­to ad Sa­binum. Si de­bi­tor rem pig­no­ri da­tam ven­di­dit et tra­di­dit tu­que ei num­mos cre­di­dis­ti, quos il­le sol­vit ei cre­di­to­ri, cui pig­nus de­de­rat, ti­bi­que cum eo con­ve­nit, ut ea res, quam iam ven­di­de­rat, pig­no­ri ti­bi es­set, ni­hil te egis­se con­stat, quia rem alie­nam pig­no­ri ac­ce­pe­ris: ea enim ra­tio­ne emp­to­rem pig­nus li­be­ra­tum ha­be­re coe­pis­se ne­que ad rem per­ti­nuis­se, quod tua pe­cu­nia pig­nus sit li­be­ra­tum.

2Ad Dig. 13,7,2Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 233b, Note 2.Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book VI. Where a debtor sold and delivered property which he had pledged, and you lent him money which he paid to the creditor to whom he gave the pledge, and you entered into an agreement with him that the article which he had already sold should be pledged to you; it is established that your act is void, because you accepted in pledge property which belonged to another; for, according to this arrangement, the purchaser has come to have in his possession an article which has been released from the pledge; and it makes no difference that the property pledged was released by the use of your money.

3Idem li­bro oc­ta­vo de­ci­mo ad Sa­binum. Si qua­si re­cep­tu­rus a de­bi­to­re tuo com­mi­nus pe­cu­niam red­di­dis­ti ei pig­nus is­que per fe­nes­tram id mi­sit ex­cep­tu­ro eo, quem de in­du­stria ad id po­sue­rit, La­beo ait fur­ti te age­re cum de­bi­to­re pos­se et ad ex­hi­ben­dum: et, si agen­te te con­tra­ria pig­ne­ra­ti­cia ex­ci­piat de­bi­tor de pig­no­re si­bi red­di­to, re­pli­ca­bi­tur de do­lo et frau­de, per quam nec red­di­tum, sed per fal­la­ciam ab­la­tum id in­tel­le­gi­tur.

3The Same, On Sabinus, Book XVIII. When, having been assured by your debtor that you will receive the money he owes you immediately, you return him the property pledged, and he passes it out a window to some one whom he purposely stationed there to receive it; Labeo says that you can bring an action for theft, and also one for production against your debtor; and if you bring a counter action on pledge, and the debtor interposes an exception on the ground that the property pledged has been returned, a replication can be filed based on bad faith and fraud; since it is understood that the article was not returned but was removed by artifice.

4Ul­pia­nus li­bro qua­dra­gen­si­mo pri­mo ad Sa­binum. Si con­ve­nit de dis­tra­hen­do pig­no­re si­ve ab in­itio si­ve post­ea, non tan­tum ven­di­tio va­let, ve­rum in­ci­pit emp­tor do­mi­nium rei ha­be­re. sed et­si non con­ve­ne­rit de dis­tra­hen­do pig­no­re, hoc ta­men iu­re uti­mur, ut li­ceat dis­tra­he­re, si mo­do non con­ve­nit, ne li­ceat. ubi ve­ro con­ve­nit, ne dis­tra­he­re­tur, cre­di­tor, si dis­tra­xe­rit, fur­ti ob­li­ga­tur, ni­si ei ter fue­rit de­nun­tia­tum ut sol­vat et ces­sa­ve­rit.

4Ad Dig. 13,7,4Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 137, Note 5.Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XLI. Where an agreement is made with reference to the sale of the property pledged, either in the first place or afterwards; then, not only is the sale valid, but the purchaser immediately obtains the ownership of the property. But, although nothing was agreed upon with reference to the sale of the property pledged, still, the law is that it can be sold, provided no agreement was entered into preventing it; but if an agreement was made that it should not be sold, and the creditor then sells it, he will be liable to an action for theft, unless the debtor was thrice notified to make payment, and did not do so.

5Pom­po­nius li­bro no­no de­ci­mo ad Sa­binum. Id­que iu­ris est, si­ve om­ni­no fue­rint pac­ti, ne ven­eat, si­ve in sum­ma aut con­di­cio­ne aut lo­co con­tra pac­tio­nem fac­tum sit.

5Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XIX. The same rule of law applies whether it was agreed that no sale should be made at all, or where something has been done in violation of the agreement, either with reference to the amount, the condition, or the place where the property was to be sold.

6Idem li­bro tri­gen­si­mo quin­to ad Sa­binum. Quam­vis con­ve­ne­rit, ut fun­dum pig­ne­ra­ti­cium ti­bi ven­de­re li­ce­ret, ni­hi­lo ma­gis co­gen­dus es ven­de­re, li­cet sol­ven­do non sit is qui pig­nus de­de­rit, quia tua cau­sa id ca­vea­tur. sed Ati­li­ci­nus ex cau­sa co­gen­dum cre­di­to­rem es­se ad ven­den­dum di­cit: quid enim si mul­to mi­nus sit quod de­bea­tur et ho­die plu­ris venire pos­sit pig­nus quam post­ea? me­lius au­tem est di­ci eum, qui de­de­rit pig­nus, pos­se ven­de­re et ac­cep­ta pe­cu­nia sol­ve­re id quod de­bea­tur, ita ta­men, ut cre­di­tor ne­ces­si­ta­tem ha­beat os­ten­de­re rem pig­ne­ra­tam, si mo­bi­lis sit, prius ido­nea cau­te­la a de­bi­to­re pro in­dem­ni­ta­te ei prae­stan­da. in­vi­tum enim cre­di­to­rem co­gi ven­de­re sa­tis in­hu­ma­num est. 1Si cre­di­tor plu­ris fun­dum pig­ne­ra­tum ven­di­de­rit, si id fae­ne­ret, usu­ram eius pe­cu­niae prae­sta­re de­bet ei, qui de­de­rit pig­nus: sed et si ip­se usus sit ea pe­cu­nia, usu­ram prae­sta­ri opor­tet. quod si eam de­po­si­tam ha­bue­rit, usu­ras non de­bet.

6The Same, On Sabinus, Book XXXV. Although an agreement may be entered into that you shall be at liberty to sell land which is pledged to you, nevertheless, you cannot be forced to sell it, although the person who gave it to you in pledge may be insolvent; because the security was given on your account. Atilicinus, however, says that where proper cause is shown, the creditor can be compelled to sell; for what if the amount which is due is much less than the value of the property pledged, and the latter can be sold at present for more than it will bring hereafter? It would be better, however, to say that the person who gave the pledge could sell it and pay what he owed when he has received the purchase-money; provided the creditor can be required to exhibit the property pledged, in case it is movable, if the debtor previously furnished him with sufficient security to indemnify him; for it would be oppressive for a creditor to be compelled to sell the property against his will. 1Where the creditor sells land which has been pledged with him for a larger amount than the debt, and lends the excess at interest, he must pay the interest received on this money to the party who gave him the pledge; and if he, himself, makes use of the excess he must also pay interest on the same; but if he retains it as a deposit, he will not be required to do so.

7Pau­lus li­bro se­cun­do sen­ten­tia­rum. Si au­tem tar­dius su­per­fluum re­sti­tuat cre­di­tor id quod apud eum de­po­si­tum est, ex mo­ra et­iam usu­ras de­bi­to­ri hoc no­mi­ne prae­sta­re co­gen­dus est.

7Paulus, Sentences, Book II. Where a creditor, after the lapse of some time, restores the surplus, which he held on deposit, then, on account of his default, he should be compelled to pay the debtor interest on the same because of the delay.

8Pom­po­nius li­bro tri­cen­si­mo quin­to ad Sa­binum. Si ne­ces­sa­rias im­pen­sas fe­ce­rim in ser­vum aut in fun­dum, quem pig­no­ris cau­sa ac­ce­pe­rim, non tan­tum re­ten­tio­nem, sed et­iam con­tra­riam pig­ne­ra­ti­ciam ac­tio­nem ha­be­bo: fin­ge enim me­di­cis, cum ae­gro­ta­ret ser­vus, de­dis­se me pe­cu­niam et eum de­ces­sis­se, item in­su­lam ful­sis­se vel re­fe­cis­se et post­ea de­us­tam es­se, nec ha­be­re quod pos­sem re­ti­ne­re. 1Si pig­no­ri plu­ra man­ci­pia da­ta sint, et quae­dam cer­tis pre­tiis ita ven­di­de­rit cre­di­tor ut evic­tio­nem eo­rum prae­sta­ret, et cre­di­tum suum ha­beat, re­li­qua man­ci­pia pot­est re­ti­ne­re, do­nec ei ca­vea­tur, quod evic­tio­nis no­mi­ne pro­mi­se­rit, in­dem­nem eum fu­tu­rum. 2Si unus ex he­redi­bus de­bi­to­ris por­tio­nem suam sol­ve­rit, ta­men to­ta res pig­no­ri da­ta venire pot­erit, quem­ad­mo­dum si ip­se de­bi­tor por­tio­nem sol­vis­set. 3Si an­nua bi­ma tri­ma die tri­gin­ta sti­pu­la­tus ac­ce­pe­rim pig­nus pac­tus­que sim, ut ni­si sua qua­que die pe­cu­nia so­lu­ta es­set, ven­de­re eam mi­hi li­ce­ret, pla­cet, an­te­quam om­nium pen­sio­num dies veniret, non pos­se me pig­nus ven­de­re, quia eis ver­bis om­nes pen­sio­nes de­mons­tra­ren­tur: nec ve­rum est sua qua­que die non so­lu­tam pe­cu­niam, an­te­quam om­nes dies venirent. sed om­ni­bus pen­sio­ni­bus prae­teritis, et­iam­si una por­tio so­lu­ta non sit, pig­nus pot­est venire. sed si ita scrip­tum sit: ‘si qua pe­cu­nia sua die so­lu­ta non erit’, sta­tim com­pe­tit ei pac­ti con­ven­tio. 4De ven­den­do pig­no­re in rem pac­tio con­ci­pien­da est, ut om­nes con­ti­nean­tur: sed et si cre­di­to­ris dum­ta­xat per­so­na fue­rit com­pre­hen­sa, et­iam he­res eius iu­re ven­det, si ni­hil in con­tra­rium ac­tum est. 5Cum pig­nus ex pac­tio­ne venire pot­est, non so­lum ob sor­tem non so­lu­tam venire pot­erit, sed ob ce­te­ra quo­que, vel­uti usu­ras et quae in id im­pen­sa sunt.

8Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XXXV. If I incur some necessary expense on account of a slave or a tract of land which I received by way of pledge, I shall be entitled not only to retain the same, but also to bring a counter action on pledge; for suppose that the slave was ill, and I paid out money to physicians, and the slave died; or suppose that I propped up a building or repaired it, and afterwards it was destroyed by fire, and I had nothing which I could hold as a lien. 1Where several slaves are given in pledge, and the creditor sells some of them for a certain amount of money, with the understanding that he will guarantee their title to the purchaser, and he pays his debt with the proceeds; he can retain the remaining slaves until he has been furnished security that he will be indemnified with reference to what he promised the purchaser by way of guarantee of the title to the other slaves. 2Where one of the heirs of a debtor pays his share of the debt, the entire property given in pledge can still be sold, just as if the debtor himself had paid a portion of the debt. 3If I stipulate for payment at the end of one, two, and three years, and I receive a pledge, and agree that unless the money is paid at each of the times specified I shall have the right to sell the property pledged; it is settled that I cannot sell it before the day when all the sums are due; and this is the case because by these words all the payments are indicated, and it is not true that the money is not paid on each day appointed for it, until all the days have arrived. But when all the times for payment have passed, then, even if only one portion should not be paid, the property pledged can be sold. But where it was stated in writing, “That if any one payment should not be made on the day appointed for the same,” suit on the agreement can then be brought at once by the creditor. 4An agreement relating to the sale of property held in pledge should be drawn up in such a way that all the parties will be included in it; but if it only should have reference to the creditor himself, his heir also may legally sell the property, if nothing has been agreed upon to the contrary. 5Where a pledge can be sold on account of an agreement, this may be done not only on account of the unpaid principal, but also on account of other matters, as, for instance, interest and money expended on the property.

9Ul­pia­nus li­bro vi­cen­si­mo oc­ta­vo ad edic­tum. Si rem alie­nam mi­hi de­bi­tor pig­no­ri de­dit aut ma­li­tio­se in pig­no­re ver­sa­tus sit, di­cen­dum est lo­cum ha­be­re con­tra­rium iu­di­cium. 1Non tan­tum au­tem ob pe­cu­niam, sed et ob aliam cau­sam pig­nus da­ri pot­est, vel­uti si quis pig­nus ali­cui de­de­rit, ut pro se fi­de­iu­beat. 2Pro­prie pig­nus di­ci­mus, quod ad cre­di­to­rem trans­it, hy­po­the­cam, cum non trans­it nec pos­ses­sio ad cre­di­to­rem. 3Om­nis pe­cu­nia ex­so­lu­ta es­se de­bet aut eo no­mi­ne sa­tis­fac­tum es­se, ut nas­ca­tur pig­ne­ra­ti­cia ac­tio. sa­tis­fac­tum au­tem ac­ci­pi­mus, quem­ad­mo­dum vo­luit cre­di­tor, li­cet non sit so­lu­tum: si­ve aliis pig­no­ri­bus si­bi ca­ve­ri vo­luit, ut ab hoc re­ce­dat, si­ve fi­de­ius­so­ri­bus si­ve reo da­to si­ve pre­tio ali­quo vel nu­da con­ven­tio­ne, nas­ci­tur pig­ne­ra­ti­cia ac­tio. et ge­ne­ra­li­ter di­cen­dum erit, quo­tiens re­ce­de­re vo­luit cre­di­tor a pig­no­re, vi­de­ri ei sa­tis­fac­tum, si ut ip­se vo­luit si­bi ca­vit, li­cet in hoc de­cep­tus sit. 4Is quo­que, qui rem alie­nam pig­no­ri de­dit, so­lu­ta pe­cu­nia pot­est pig­ne­ra­ti­cia ex­per­i­ri. 5Qui an­te so­lu­tio­nem egit pig­ne­ra­ti­cia, li­cet non rec­te egit, ta­men, si of­fe­rat in iu­di­cio pe­cu­niam, de­bet rem pig­ne­ra­tam et quod sua in­ter­est con­se­qui.

9Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXVIII. Where a debtor has given me in pledge property belonging to another, or has acted in bad faith with reference to the pledge, it should be said that the counter action will lie. 1A pledge can not only be given on account of money, but also for any other matter; as, for example, where a party gives a pledge to another that he will become his surety. 2We properly designate as a pledge something which is delivered to the creditor; and where not even possession passes to the creditor we call it hypothecation. 3In order for the action on pledge to be applicable, all the money must have been paid, or satisfaction be given with reference to the same. We understand by “satisfaction,” such satisfaction as the creditor desires, even though no payment may be made; whether he wished that security should be given to him by other pledges so that he may relinquish the one he has, or by sureties, or by providing another debtor, or by the payment of money, or by mere agreement, the action on pledge will arise. And, generally speaking, whenever the creditor is willing to relinquish the pledge, it is considered to be satisfied if he has received such security as he wished, even though he may have been deceived with reference to it. 4Anyone who has given the property of another in pledge can proceed by an action on pledge, if the debt has been paid by him. 5Ad Dig. 13,7,9,5ROHGE, Bd. 5 (1872), S. 289: Voraussetzungen der Klage.ROHGE, Bd. 20 (1877), Nr. 3, S. 7: Verzug des Pfandnehmers in Rückgabe des Pfandes als Folge der Weigerung der Annahme der Pfandschuld.Where a party brings the action on pledge before payment has been made, although he did not proceed properly in doing so, still, if he tenders the money in court, he has a right to recover the property pledged and his interest as well.

10Gaius li­bro no­no ad edic­tum pro­vin­cia­le. Quod si non sol­ve­re, sed alia ra­tio­ne sa­tis­fa­ce­re pa­ra­tus est, for­te si ex­pro­mis­so­rem da­re vult, ni­hil ei prod­est.

10Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book IX. But if he is ready not to pay but to give satisfaction in some other way, for instance, if he wishes to give another debtor in his stead, this will be of no advantage to him.

11Ul­pia­nus li­bro vi­cen­si­mo oc­ta­vo ad edic­tum. So­lu­tum non vi­de­tur, si lis con­tes­ta­ta cum de­bi­to­re sit de ip­so de­bi­to vel si fi­de­ius­sor con­ven­tus fue­rit. 1No­va­ta au­tem de­bi­ti ob­li­ga­tio pig­nus per­emit, ni­si con­ve­nit, ut pig­nus re­pe­ta­tur. 2Si qua­si da­tu­rus ti­bi pe­cu­niam pig­nus ac­ce­pe­ro nec de­de­ro, pig­ne­ra­ti­cia ac­tio­ne te­ne­bor et nul­la so­lu­tio­ne fac­ta: idem­que et si ac­cep­to la­ta sit pe­cu­nia, vel con­di­cio de­fe­cit, ob quam pig­nus con­trac­tum est, vel si pac­tum, cui stan­dum est, de pe­cu­nia non pe­ten­da fac­tum est. 3Si in sor­tem dum­ta­xat vel in usu­ras ob­stric­tum est pig­nus, eo so­lu­to prop­ter quod ob­li­ga­tum est lo­cum ha­bet pig­ne­ra­ti­cia. si­ve au­tem usu­rae in sti­pu­la­tum sint de­duc­tae si­ve non, si ta­men pig­nus et in eas ob­li­ga­tum fuit, quam­diu quid ex his de­be­tur, pig­ne­ra­ti­cia ces­sa­bit. alia cau­sa est ea­rum, quas quis su­pra li­ci­tum mo­dum pro­mi­sit: nam hae pe­ni­tus il­li­ci­tae sunt. 4Si cre­di­to­ri plu­res he­redes ex­sti­te­rint et uni ex his pars eius sol­va­tur, non de­bent ce­te­ri he­redes cre­di­to­ris in­iu­ria ad­fi­ci, sed pos­sunt to­tum fun­dum ven­de­re ob­la­to de­bi­to­ri eo, quod co­he­redi eo­rum sol­vit: quae sen­ten­tia non est si­ne ra­tio­ne. 5So­lu­tam au­tem pe­cu­niam ac­ci­pien­dum non so­lum, si ip­si, cui ob­li­ga­ta res est, sed et si alii sit so­lu­ta vo­lun­ta­te eius, vel ei cui he­res ex­sti­tit, vel pro­cu­ra­to­ri eius, vel ser­vo pe­cu­niis ex­igen­dis prae­po­si­to. un­de si do­mum con­du­xe­ris et eius par­tem mi­hi lo­ca­ve­ris ego­que lo­ca­to­ri tuo pen­sio­nem sol­ve­ro, pig­ne­ra­ti­cia ad­ver­sus te pot­ero ex­per­i­ri (nam Iu­lia­nus scri­bit sol­vi ei pos­se): et si par­tem ti­bi, par­tem ei sol­ve­ro, tan­tun­dem erit di­cen­dum. pla­ne in eam dum­ta­xat sum­mam in­vec­ta mea et il­la­ta te­ne­bun­tur, in quam ce­na­cu­lum con­du­xi: non enim cre­di­bi­le est hoc con­ve­nis­se, ut ad uni­ver­sam pen­sio­nem in­su­lae fri­vo­la mea te­ne­bun­tur. vi­de­tur au­tem ta­ci­te et cum do­mi­no ae­dium hoc con­ve­nis­se, ut non pac­tio ce­na­cu­la­rii pro­fi­ciat do­mi­no, sed sua pro­pria. 6Per li­be­ram au­tem per­so­nam pig­no­ris ob­li­ga­tio no­bis non ad­quiri­tur, ad­eo ut ne per pro­cu­ra­to­rem ple­rum­que vel tu­to­rem ad­quira­tur: et id­eo ip­si ac­tio­ne pig­ne­ra­ti­cia con­ve­nien­tur. sed nec mu­tat, quod con­sti­tu­tum est ab im­pe­ra­to­re nos­tro pos­se per li­be­ram per­so­nam pos­ses­sio­nem ad­quiri: nam hoc eo per­ti­ne­bit, ut pos­si­mus pig­no­ris no­bis ob­li­ga­ti pos­ses­sio­nem per pro­cu­ra­to­rem vel tu­to­rem ad­pre­hen­de­re, ip­sam au­tem ob­li­ga­tio­nem li­be­ra per­so­na no­bis non sem­per ad­quiret. 7Sed si pro­cu­ra­tor meus vel tu­tor rem pig­no­ri de­de­rit, ip­se age­re pig­ne­ra­ti­cia pot­erit: quod in pro­cu­ra­to­re ita pro­ce­dit, si ei man­da­tum fue­rit11Die Großausgabe liest fuit statt fue­rit. pig­no­ri da­re.

11Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXVIII. It is not considered to be payment where issue is joined with the debtor with reference to the debt, or where a surety is sued. 1Where the obligation of the debt is renewed, this destroys the pledge, unless it is agreed that the pledge shall be renewed. 2If I receive a pledge from you with the understanding that I shall pay you money, and I fail to pay it, I will be liable to an action on pledge; although no payment has been made. The same rule will apply where a receipt has been given for the money loaned, or the condition on account of which the pledge was given should not be fulfilled, or a lawful agreement has been entered into that no demand for the money shall be made. 3Ad Dig. 13,7,11,3Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 289, Note 1.If the property was pledged only with reference to the principal or the interest, the action on pledge can be brought where the money with reference to which the property was encumbered has been paid. But whether the interest was expressly mentioned in the stipulation or not, if the property was pledged with reference to it also, the action on pledge will not lie so long as any of it is due. The case is different where a party has promised to pay interest above the lawful rate, for this is absolutely illegal. 4Where the creditor left several heirs, and one of them is paid his share, the other heirs of the creditor should not suffer any injury, but having offered to the debtor what he has paid to their co-heir, they can sell the entire property. This opinion is not unreasonable. 5Ad Dig. 13,7,11,5Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 342, Note 42.The money is understood to be paid not only where it was given to the party to whom the property was pledged, but where it was paid with his consent to someone else, or to one whose heir he is or to his agent, or to a slave appointed for the collection of claims. Therefore, if you rent a house and lease a part of it to me, and I pay the rent to your lessor, I can proceed against you by an action on pledge; for Julianus says that he can be paid. And if I pay a part of the rent to you and a part to him, the same rule must be said to apply. It is evident that the property which I brought into the house will be liable only for the amount of the rent of my room, as it is incredible that an agreement should have been made that my effects of trifling value should be liable for the rent of the entire house. It is held to have been tacitly agreed upon with the owner of the premises that the contract of the proprietor of the lodging-house should not benefit the former but that his own agreement should. 6Ad Dig. 13,7,11,6Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 73, Note 12.An obligation by pledge through a free person is not acquired by us; and to such an extent does this principle apply that it cannot be acquired through an agent or guardian, and therefore they themselves can be sued in an action on pledge. Nor is this changed by what was decreed by our Emperor, namely, that possession may be acquired through a free person; for this is only applicable in order to enable us to obtain possession of property which has been pledged to us, but a free person will not always acquire the obligation itself for us. 7Where, however, my agent or guardian gives property in pledge, he himself can bring the action on pledge, and this applies to an agent if he had already been directed to give a pledge:

12Gaius li­bro no­no ad edic­tum pro­vin­cia­le. vel uni­ver­so­rum bo­no­rum ad­mi­nis­tra­tio ei per­mis­sa est ab eo, qui sub pig­no­ri­bus so­le­bat mu­tuas pe­cu­nias ac­ci­pe­re.

12Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book IX. Or if the management of the entire property or the party who was accustomed to borrow money on pledges has been entrusted to him.

13Ul­pia­nus li­bro tri­gen­si­mo oc­ta­vo ad edic­tum. Si, cum ven­de­ret cre­di­tor pig­nus, con­ve­ne­rit in­ter ip­sum et emp­to­rem, ut, si sol­ve­rit de­bi­tor pe­cu­niam pre­tii emp­to­ri, li­ce­ret ei re­ci­pe­re rem suam, scrip­sit Iu­lia­nus et est re­scrip­tum ob hanc con­ven­tio­nem pig­ne­ra­ti­ciis ac­tio­ni­bus te­ne­ri cre­di­to­rem, ut de­bi­to­ri man­det ex ven­di­to ac­tio­nem ad­ver­sus emp­to­rem. sed et ip­se de­bi­tor aut vin­di­ca­re rem pot­erit aut in fac­tum ac­tio­ne ad­ver­sus emp­to­rem age­re. 1Venit au­tem in hac ac­tio­ne et do­lus et cul­pa, ut in com­mo­da­to: venit et cus­to­dia: vis ma­ior non venit.

13Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXVIII. Ad Dig. 13,7,13 pr.Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 316, Note 2.If, when a creditor was selling a pledge, an agreement was entered into between him and the purchaser that if the debtor should pay the purchase-money to the buyer, he shall be entitled to have his property returned; Julianus says it is also stated in a rescript that, on account of this agreement, the creditor is liable by the action on pledge to transfer to the debtor his action on sale against the purchaser. The debtor himself, however, can bring an action to recover the property, or one in factum against the purchaser. 1Both malice and negligence may be the subject of this action, as in the case of a loan for use. Safe-keeping also is included, but irresistible violence is not within its scope.

14Pau­lus li­bro vi­cen­si­mo no­no ad edic­tum. Ea igi­tur, quae di­li­gens pa­ter fa­mi­lias in suis re­bus prae­sta­re so­let, a cre­di­to­re ex­igun­tur.

14Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXIX. Therefore, the same diligence which a careful head of a household is accustomed to exercise in his own affairs is required of the creditor.

15Ul­pia­nus li­bro vi­cen­si­mo oc­ta­vo ad edic­tum. Cre­di­tor cum pig­nus red­dit, de do­lo de­bet de­bi­to­ri re­pro­mit­te­re: et si prae­dium fuit pig­ne­ra­tum, et de iu­re eius re­pro­mit­ten­dum est, ne for­te ser­vi­tu­tes ces­san­te uti cre­di­to­re amis­sae sint.

15Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXVIII. When the creditor returns the pledge he should give the debtor security against fraud, and if a tract of land was pledged, he must give him security with reference to his title, if servitudes happen to have been lost through the failure of the creditor to make use of them.

16Pau­lus li­bro vi­cen­si­mo no­no ad edic­tum. Tu­tor le­ge non re­fra­gan­te si de­de­rit rem pu­pil­li pig­no­ri, tuen­dum erit, sci­li­cet si in rem pu­pil­li pe­cu­niam ac­ci­piat. idem est et in cu­ra­to­re ad­ules­cen­tis vel fu­rio­si. 1Con­tra­riam pig­ne­ra­ti­ciam cre­di­to­ri ac­tio­nem com­pe­te­re cer­tum est: pro­in­de si rem alie­nam vel alii pig­ne­ra­tam vel in pu­bli­cum ob­li­ga­tam de­dit, te­ne­bi­tur, quam­vis et stel­lio­na­tus cri­men com­mit­tat. sed utrum ita de­mum, si scit, an et si igno­ra­vit? et quan­tum ad cri­men per­ti­net, ex­cu­sat igno­ran­tia: quan­tum ad con­tra­rium iu­di­cium, igno­ran­tia eum non ex­cu­sat, ut Mar­cel­lus li­bro sex­to di­ges­to­rum scri­bit. sed si sciens cre­di­tor ac­ci­piat vel alie­num vel ob­li­ga­tum vel mor­bosum, con­tra­rium ei non com­pe­tit. 2Et­iam vec­ti­ga­le prae­dium pig­no­ri da­ri pot­est: sed et su­per­fi­cia­rium, quia ho­die uti­les ac­tio­nes su­per­fi­cia­riis dan­tur.

16Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXIX. Where a guardian pledges the property of his ward without violation of the law, the pledge must be upheld; that is, if he receives the money for the benefit of the ward. The same rule applies in the case of the curator of a minor or insane person. 1It is certain that the creditor is entitled to a counter action on pledge. Hence, if the debtor gives property belonging to another, or which is pledged to a third party or to the State, he will be liable, although he is also guilty of the crime of swindling. Is this the case only where he is aware of the facts, or also where he was ignorant of them? So far as the offence is concerned, ignorance will be a sufficient excuse; but, with reference to the counter action, Marcellus states in the Sixth Book of the Digest that ignorance does not excuse him. When the creditor knowingly receives property which belongs to some one else, or is pledged to another, or which is damaged, a counter action will not lie in his favor. 2Even land subject to a perpetual lease can be pledged as well as that whose surface only is involved; because, at present, equitable actions are granted to parties in whom surface rights are vested.

17Mar­cia­nus li­bro sin­gu­la­ri ad for­mu­lam hy­po­the­ca­riam. Sa­ne di­vi Se­ve­rus et An­to­ni­nus re­scribse­runt, ut si­ne de­mi­nutio­ne mer­ce­dis so­li ob­li­ga­bi­tur.

17Marcianus, On the Hypothecary Formula. The Divine Severus and Antoninus, however, stated in a Rescript that the pledge will be binding without affecting the rent of the land.

18Pau­lus li­bro vi­cen­si­mo no­no ad edic­tum. Si con­ve­ne­rit, ut no­men de­bi­to­ris mei pig­no­ri ti­bi sit, tuen­da est a prae­to­re haec con­ven­tio, ut et te in ex­igen­da pe­cu­nia et de­bi­to­rem ad­ver­sus me, si cum eo ex­pe­riar, tuea­tur. er­go si id no­men pe­cu­nia­rium fue­rit, ex­ac­tam pe­cu­niam te­cum pen­sa­bis, si ve­ro cor­po­ris ali­cu­ius, id quod ac­ce­pe­ris erit ti­bi pig­no­ris lo­co. 1Si nu­da pro­prie­tas pig­no­ri da­ta sit, usus fruc­tus, qui post­ea ad­cre­ve­rit, pig­no­ri erit: ean­dem cau­sa est al­lu­vio­nis. 2Si fun­dus pig­ne­ra­tus ven­ie­rit, ma­ne­re cau­sam pig­no­ris, quia cum sua cau­sa fun­dus trans­eat: sic­ut in par­tu an­cil­lae, qui post ven­di­tio­nem na­tus sit. 3Si quis ca­ve­rit, ut sil­va si­bi pig­no­ri es­set, na­vem ex ea ma­te­ria fac­tam non es­se pig­no­ri Cas­sius ait, quia aliud sit ma­te­ria, aliud na­vis: et id­eo no­mi­na­tim in dan­do pig­no­re ad­icien­dum es­se ait: ‘quae­que ex sil­va fac­ta na­ta­ve sint’. 4Ser­vus rem pe­cu­lia­rem si pig­no­ri de­de­rit, tuen­dum est, si li­be­ram pe­cu­lii ad­mi­nis­tra­tio­nem ha­buit: nam et alie­na­re eas res pot­est.

18Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXIX. If you and I have agreed that a claim against a debtor of mine shall be pledged to you, this agreement must be sustained by the Prætor, so that he will protect you if you bring suit for the money, and the debtor if I bring suit against him. Therefore, if the obligation was a pecuniary one, you must set off your claim against the money collected; but if it was for any specific property, whatever you receive you will retain instead of a pledge. 1If the mere ownership is pledged, an usufruct which subsequently accrues will be included to the pledge, and the same rule applies to alluvial deposits. 2Ad Dig. 13,7,18,2Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 226a, Note 11.If real-property which is pledged is sold, the condition of the pledge still remains, since the land passes together with what is connected with it; as, for instance, in the case of a child born of a female slave after the sale has been made. 3Ad Dig. 13,7,18,3Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 187, Note 2.Where a party has provided that a wood shall be pledged to him, Cassius says that a ship built of this material cannot be pledged by this agreement, because the material is one thing, and the ship another, and therefore in giving the pledge it should be expressly added, “Whatever is made of or derived from this wood.” 4Where a slave pledges property belonging to his peculium, the transaction must be sustained if he had the free management of the peculium; for he can also alienate such property.

19Mar­cia­nus li­bro sin­gu­la­ri ad for­mu­lam hy­po­the­ca­riam. Ea­dem et de fi­lio fa­mi­lias dic­ta in­tel­le­ge­mus.

19Marcianus, On the Hypothecary Formula. We must understand the same rules to apply to a son under paternal control.

20Pau­lus li­bro vi­cen­si­mo no­no ad edic­tum. Alie­na res pig­no­ri da­ri vo­lun­ta­te do­mi­ni pot­est: sed et si igno­ran­te eo da­ta sit et ra­tum ha­bue­rit, pig­nus va­le­bit. 1Si plu­ri­bus res si­mul pig­no­ri de­tur, ae­qua­lis om­nium cau­sa est. 2Si per cre­di­to­rem ste­tit, quo mi­nus ei sol­va­tur, rec­te agi­tur pig­ne­ra­ti­cia. 3In­ter­dum et­si so­lu­ta sit pe­cu­nia, ta­men pig­ne­ra­ti­cia ac­tio in­hi­ben­da est, vel­uti si cre­di­tor pig­nus suum eme­rit a de­bi­to­re.

20Paulus, On the Edict, Book XX. The property of a third party can be given in pledge with the consent of the owner; and if it is given without his knowledge, and he ratifies the act, the pledge will be valid. 1Where property is pledged to several persons at the same time, they all have an equal right. 2Ad Dig. 13,7,20,2ROHGE, Bd. 20 (1877), Nr. 3, S. 7: Verzug des Pfandnehmers in Rückgabe des Pfandes als Folge der Weigerung der Annahme der Pfandschuld.If the creditor is to blame for not being paid, the action on pledge can properly be brought. 3Sometimes, even if the money has been paid, the action on pledge should be refused; for example, if the creditor had bought his pledge from the debtor.

21Idem li­bro sex­to bre­vium. Do­mo pig­no­ri da­ta et area eius te­ne­bi­tur: est enim pars eius. et con­tra ius so­li se­que­tur ae­di­fi­cium.

21The Same, Abridgments, Book VI. Where a house is given in pledge, the site also is liable, for it is a part of the house; and, on the other hand, the right to the soil follows the building.

22Ul­pia­nus li­bro tri­gen­si­mo ad edic­tum. Si pig­no­re sub­rep­to fur­ti ege­rit cre­di­tor, to­tum, quid­quid per­ce­pit, de­bi­to eum im­pu­ta­re Pa­pi­nia­nus con­fi­te­tur, et est ve­rum, et­iam­si cul­pa cre­di­to­ris fur­tum fac­tum sit. mul­to ma­gis hoc erit di­cen­dum in eo, quod ex con­dic­tio­ne con­se­cu­tus est. sed quod ip­se de­bi­tor fur­ti ac­tio­ne prae­sti­tit cre­di­to­ri vel con­dic­tio­ne, an de­bi­to sit im­pu­tan­dum vi­dea­mus: et qui­dem non opor­te­re id ei re­sti­tui, quod ip­se ex fur­ti ac­tio­ne prae­sti­tit, perae­que re­la­tum est et tra­di­tum, et ita Pa­pi­nia­nus li­bro no­no quaes­tio­num ait. 1Idem Pa­pi­nia­nus ait et si me­tus cau­sa ser­vum pig­ne­ra­tum de­bi­to­ri tra­di­de­rit, quem bo­na fi­de pig­no­ri ac­ce­pe­rat: nam si ege­rit quod me­tus cau­sa fac­tum est et qua­dru­plum sit con­se­cu­tus, ni­hil ne­que re­sti­tuet ex eo quod con­se­cu­tus est nec de­bi­to im­pu­ta­bit. 2Si prae­do rem pig­no­ri de­de­rit, com­pe­tit ei et de fruc­ti­bus pig­ne­ra­ti­cia ac­tio, quam­vis ip­se fruc­tus suos non fa­ciet (a prae­do­ne enim fruc­tus et vin­di­ca­ri ex­tan­tes pos­sunt et con­sump­ti con­di­ci): prod­erit igi­tur ei, quod cre­di­tor bo­na fi­de pos­ses­sor fuit. 3Si post dis­trac­tum pig­nus de­bi­tor, qui pre­ca­rio ro­ga­vit vel con­du­xit pig­nus, pos­ses­sio­nem non re­sti­tuat, con­tra­rio iu­di­cio te­ne­tur. 4Si cre­di­tor, cum ven­de­ret pig­nus, du­plam pro­mi­sit (nam usu hoc eve­ne­rat et con­ven­tus ob evic­tio­nem erat et con­dem­na­tus), an ha­be­ret re­gres­sum pig­ne­ra­ti­ciae con­tra­riae ac­tio­nis? et pot­est di­ci es­se re­gres­sum, si mo­do si­ne do­lo et cul­pa sic ven­di­dit et ut pa­ter fa­mi­lias di­li­gens id ges­sit: si ve­ro nul­lum emo­lu­men­tum ta­lis ven­di­tio at­tu­lit, sed tan­ti ven­de­ret, quan­to ven­de­re po­tuit, et­iam­si haec non pro­mi­sit, re­gres­sum non ha­be­re.

22Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXX. Where a pledge has been stolen, and the creditor brings an action for theft, Papinianus is of the opinion that he must credit on the debt everything that he recovers; and this is correct, even though the theft was committed through the negligence of the creditor. Much more should this be held with reference to what he obtains by a suit for recovery. But let us consider whether what the debtor himself paid to the creditor under an action for theft or one for recovery shall be credited on the debt; and, indeed, it has been frequently stated and handed down that he is not required to restore to him what he himself has paid under an action for theft. Papinianus says the same thing in the Ninth Book of Questions. 1Papinianus also says that, where the creditor, actuated by fear, returned to the debtor a slave who had been pledged, and whom he had received in good faith for that purpose, the same rule applies; for if he institutes proceedings because he had done this on account of duress, and he recovers quadruple damages, he will not return anything out of what he obtained, nor shall he credit it upon the debt. 2If a thief gives property in pledge, an action on pledge as well as for the profits can be brought by him, although he cannot make the profit his own; for a thief can be sued not only for the profits of property which is in existence, but also for the recovery of the value of that which has been consumed; and therefore the fact that the creditor was a bona fide possessor will be an advantage to him. 3If, after the pledge has been sold, the debtor who obtained possession of the property by sufferance, or who leased it, does not relinquish possession, he will be liable to a counter action. 4Where a creditor, when he sold the property pledged, promised double damages (for this is customary, and having been sued in a case of eviction he had judgment rendered against him) would he have a right to a counter action on pledge? It may be said that he would have such a right, provided he made the sale without fraud or negligence, and transacted the business as the diligent head of a household should do. Where, however, a sale of this kind was, in no wise, profitable, but the party sold it for as much as he could have obtained even if he had not given the promise, he cannot have recourse to this action.

23Try­pho­ni­nus li­bro oc­ta­vo dis­pu­ta­tio­num. Nec enim am­plius a de­bi­to­re quam de­bi­ti sum­ma con­se­qui pot­erit. sed si sti­pu­la­tio usu­ra­rum fue­rat et post quin­quen­nium for­te, quam pre­tium ex re ob­li­ga­ta vic­tus eam emp­to­ri re­sti­tuit, et­iam me­dii tem­po­ris usu­ras a de­bi­to­re pe­te­re pot­est, quia ni­hil ei so­lu­tum es­se, ut au­fer­ri non pos­sit, pa­lam fac­tum est: sed si sim­plum prae­sti­tit, do­li ex­cep­tio­ne re­pel­len­dus erit ab usu­ra­rum pe­ti­tio­ne, quia ha­buit usum pe­cu­niae pre­tii, quod ab emp­to­re ac­ce­pe­rat.

23Tryphoninus, Disputations, Book VIII. For he will not be able to recover from the debtor more than the amount of the debt. If, however, there had been an agreement for interest, and, five years, for instance, after having received the price of the property pledged the creditor, having lost his case, makes restitution to the purchaser, he can recover from the debtor interest for the intermediate time, because it is evident that nothing has been paid to him in such a way that it cannot be deprived of it. Where, however, he has only paid the price received, he will be barred by an exception on the ground of fraud from a claim for interest, since he has had the use of the purchase-money which he received from the buyer.

24Ul­pia­nus li­bro tri­gen­si­mo ad edic­tum. Ele­gan­ter apud me quae­si­tum est, si im­pe­tras­set cre­di­tor a Cae­sa­re, ut pig­nus pos­si­de­ret id­que evic­tum es­set, an ha­beat con­tra­riam pig­ne­ra­ti­ciam. et vi­de­tur fi­ni­ta es­se pig­no­ris ob­li­ga­tio et a con­trac­tu re­ces­sum. im­mo uti­lis ex emp­to ac­com­mo­da­ta est, quem­ad­mo­dum si pro so­lu­to ei res da­ta fue­rit, ut in quan­ti­ta­tem de­bi­ti ei sa­tis­fiat vel in quan­tum eius in­ter­sit, et com­pen­sa­tio­nem ha­be­re pot­est cre­di­tor, si for­te pig­ne­ra­ti­cia vel ex alia cau­sa cum eo age­tur. 1Qui re­pro­bos num­mos sol­vit cre­di­to­ri, an ha­bet pig­ne­ra­ti­ciam ac­tio­nem qua­si so­lu­ta pe­cu­nia, quae­ri­tur: et con­stat ne­que pig­ne­ra­ti­cia eum age­re ne­que li­be­ra­ri pos­se, quia re­pro­ba pe­cu­nia non li­be­rat sol­ven­tem, re­pro­bis vi­de­li­cet num­mis red­den­dis. 2Si ven­di­de­rit qui­dem cre­di­tor pig­nus plu­ris quam de­bi­tum erat, non­dum au­tem pre­tium ab emp­to­re ex­ege­rit, an pig­ne­ra­ti­cio iu­di­cio con­ve­ni­ri pos­sit ad su­per­fluum red­den­dum, an ve­ro vel ex­spec­ta­re de­beat, quo­ad emp­tor sol­vat, vel sus­ci­pe­re ac­tio­nes ad­ver­sus emp­to­rem? et ar­bi­tror non es­se ur­guen­dum ad so­lu­tio­nem cre­di­to­rem, sed aut ex­spec­ta­re de­be­re de­bi­to­rem aut, si non ex­spec­tat, man­dan­das ei ac­tio­nes ad­ver­sus emp­to­rem pe­ri­cu­lo ta­men ven­di­to­ris. quod si ac­ce­pit iam pe­cu­niam, su­per­fluum red­dit. 3In pig­ne­ra­ti­cio iu­di­cio venit et si res pig­no­ri da­tas ma­le trac­ta­vit cre­di­tor vel ser­vos de­bi­li­ta­vit. pla­ne si pro ma­le­fi­ciis suis co­er­cuit vel vin­xit vel op­tu­lit prae­fec­tu­rae vel prae­si­di, di­cen­dum est pig­ne­ra­ti­cia cre­di­to­rem non te­ne­ri. qua­re si pro­sti­tuit an­cil­lam vel aliud im­pro­ba­tum fa­ce­re co­egit, ili­co pig­nus an­cil­lae sol­vi­tur.

24Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXX. The nice question has been asked me; if the creditor has obtained from the Emperor a Decree that he shall have possession of the pledge, and has been deprived of it by a better title, will he have a right to a counter action on pledge? It seems to me that the obligation growing out of the pledge is terminated, and that there is a withdrawal from the contract; nay more, there is an equitable action arising from the purchase of which he can avail himself, just as if the property had been given up to him by way of payment, so as to satisfy him for the amount of the debt or of the interest he had in the matter; and the creditor would be entitled to a set-off, if an action on pledge, or one based on any other ground, should be brought against him. 1The question arises whether anyone who has paid the creditor in counterfeit money can bring the action on pledge, because the money has been paid? It is established that he cannot bring an action on pledge, nor will he be released from the debt because counterfeit money does not release the party who pays it; and, indeed, the money should be returned to him. 2Where a creditor sells a pledge for more than was due, but has not yet recovered the price from the purchaser, can he be sued in an action on pledge for payment of the surplus? Or must the debtor wait until the purchaser pays, or have a transfer of the rights of action against the latter made to him? I am of the opinion that the creditor should not be compelled to make payment, but that the debtor should wait, or, if he does not do so, that the rights of action against the purchaser should be assigned to him, but at the risk of the vendor. Where, however, he has already received the money he must surrender the surplus. 3Where the creditor has maltreated property which was pledged or has injured slaves, this must be taken into consideration in the action on pledge. It is evident, however, that, if he has employed force against them on account of their bad behavior, or has placed them in chains, or has brought them before the Prefect or the Governor; it must be said that the creditor is not liable to the action on pledge, therefore, if he has prostituted a female slave, or compelled her to perform any other improper act, the pledge of this slave is at once released.

25Idem li­bro tri­gen­si­mo pri­mo ad edic­tum. Si ser­vos pig­ne­ra­tos ar­ti­fi­ciis in­stru­xit cre­di­tor, si qui­dem iam im­bu­tos vel vo­lun­ta­te de­bi­to­ris, erit ac­tio con­tra­ria: si ve­ro ni­hil ho­rum in­ter­ces­sit, si qui­dem ar­ti­fi­ciis ne­ces­sa­riis, erit ac­tio con­tra­ria, non ta­men sic, ut co­ga­tur ser­vis ca­re­re pro quan­ti­ta­te sump­tuum de­bi­tor. sic­ut enim neg­le­ge­re cre­di­to­rem do­lus et cul­pa quam prae­stat non pa­ti­tur, ita nec ta­lem ef­fi­ce­re rem pig­ne­ra­tam, ut gra­vis sit de­bi­to­ri ad re­ci­pe­ran­dum: pu­ta sal­tum gran­dem pig­no­ri da­tum ab ho­mi­ne, qui vix lue­re pot­est, ne­dum ex­co­le­re, tu ac­cep­tum pig­no­ri ex­co­luis­ti sic, ut mag­ni pre­tii fa­ce­res. alio­quin non est ae­quum aut quae­re­re me alios cre­di­to­res aut co­gi dis­tra­he­re quod ve­lim re­cep­tum aut ti­bi pae­n­u­ria co­ac­tum de­relin­que­re. me­die igi­tur haec a iu­di­ce erunt di­spi­cien­da, ut ne­que de­li­ca­tus de­bi­tor ne­que one­ro­sus cre­di­tor au­dia­tur.

25The Same, On the Edict, Book XXXI. Where a creditor has instructed pledged slaves in various trades, a counter action will lie if they have already acquired knowledge in these matters, or if the instruction was given with the consent of the debtor. But if neither of these was the case, and the trades were necessary, the counter action will lie, but not to the extent that the debtor will be compelled to lose the slaves on account of the amount of the expense; for, just as the creditor is not suffered to neglect the property through malice and negligence, so also he is not permitted to place what is pledged in such a condition that its recovery would be onerous to the debtor; as, for instance, where a large tract of land is given in pledge by a man who can hardly redeem it, and not even cultivate it, and you, having received it in pledge, cultivate it in such a way as to render it of great value; as, in fact, it is not just that I should be compelled to look for other creditors, or to sell what I wished to recover, or to leave it in your hands through the force of poverty. These matters should be considered by the judge, who should take a middle course, so as not to listen to the trifling objections of the debtor, or to the oppressive claims of the creditor.

26Idem li­bro ter­tio dis­pu­ta­tio­num. Non est mi­rum, si ex qua­cum­que cau­sa ma­gis­tra­tus in pos­ses­sio­nem ali­quem mi­se­rit, pig­nus con­sti­tui, cum tes­ta­men­to quo­que pig­nus con­sti­tui pos­se im­pe­ra­tor nos­ter cum pa­tre sae­pis­si­me re­scrip­sit. 1Scien­dum est, ubi ius­su ma­gis­tra­tus pig­nus con­sti­tui­tur, non alias con­sti­tui, ni­si ven­tum fue­rit in pos­ses­sio­nem.

26The Same, Disputations, Book III. There is nothing surprising that a pledge is created where, for any cause whatsoever, a magistrate places the party in possession; since our Emperor, together with his father, stated very frequently in Rescripts that a pledge can also be created by will. 1It should be remembered that where a pledge is created by order of a magistrate, this is not legally done until the property has actually come into possession.

27Idem li­bro sex­to opi­nio­num. Pe­ten­ti mu­tuam pe­cu­niam cre­di­to­ri, cum prae ma­nu de­bi­tor non ha­be­ret, spe­cies au­ri de­dit, ut pig­no­ri apud alium cre­di­to­rem po­ne­ret. si iam so­lu­tio­ne li­be­ra­tas re­cep­tas­que eas is qui sus­ce­pe­rat te­net, ex­hi­be­re iu­ben­dus est: quod si et­iam nunc apud cre­di­to­rem cre­di­to­ris sunt, vo­lun­ta­te do­mi­ni ne­xae vi­den­tur, sed ut li­be­ra­tae tra­dan­tur, do­mi­no ea­rum pro­pria ac­tio ad­ver­sus suum cre­di­to­rem com­pe­tit.

27The Same, Opinions, Book VI. In the case where a creditor made a demand for money which had been loaned, and the debtor did not have the money on hand, he gave him certain articles of gold, in order that he might place them in pledge with another creditor. If the party who received them from the debtor holds them after they have been released by payment, he can be ordered to produce them; but if they are still in possession of the creditor, they are held to be liable with the consent of the owner; but the proper action can be brought by the owner of the property against his creditor to compel them to be delivered, as soon as they are released.

28Iu­lia­nus li­bro un­de­ci­mo di­ges­to­rum. Si cre­di­tor, qui rem pig­no­ri ac­ce­pe­rat, amis­sa eius pos­ses­sio­ne Ser­via­na ac­tio­ne pe­tie­rit et li­tis aes­ti­ma­tio­nem con­se­cu­tus sit, post­ea de­bi­tor ean­dem rem pe­tens ex­cep­tio­ne sum­mo­ve­tur, ni­si of­fe­rat ei de­bi­tor, quod pro eo so­lu­tum est. 1Si ser­vus pro pe­cu­lia­ri no­mi­ne pig­nus ac­ce­pe­rit, ac­tio pig­ne­ra­ti­cia ad­ver­sus do­mi­num de­bi­to­ri com­pe­tit.

28Julianus, Digest, Book XI. Where a creditor has received property in pledge and having lost possession of it proceeds by means of the Servian Action, and recovers damages; and the debtor afterwards brings suit for the same property, he will be barred by an exception, unless he offers him what was paid for it. 1Where a slave receives a pledge on account of his peculium, an action on pledge can be brought by the debtor against his master.

29Idem li­bro qua­dra­gen­si­mo quar­to di­ges­to­rum. Si rem alie­nam bo­na fi­de eme­ris et mi­hi pig­no­ri de­de­ris ac pre­ca­rio ro­ga­ve­ris, de­in­de me do­mi­nus he­redem in­sti­tue­rit, de­si­nit11Die Großausgabe liest de­si­net statt de­si­nit. pig­nus es­se et so­la pre­ca­rii ro­ga­tio su­per­erit: id­cir­co usu­ca­pio tua in­ter­pel­la­bi­tur.

29The Same, Digest, Book XLIV. If you purchase the property of another in good faith, and give it to me in pledge, and request its return to be held by sufferance; and then the owner of said property appoints me his heir, it ceases to be a pledge, and merely the claim by sufferance will survive; and therefore your usucaption will be interrupted.

30Pau­lus li­bro quin­to epi­to­ma­rum Al­fe­ni Va­ri di­ges­to­rum. Qui ra­tia­rio cre­di­de­rat, cum ad diem pe­cu­nia non sol­ve­re­tur, ra­tem in flu­mi­ne sua auc­to­ri­ta­te de­ti­nuit: post­ea flu­men cre­vit et ra­tem abs­tu­lit. si in­vi­to ra­tia­rio re­ti­nuis­set, eius pe­ri­cu­lo ra­tem fuis­se re­spon­dit: sed si de­bi­tor sua vo­lun­ta­te con­ces­sis­set, ut re­ti­ne­ret, cul­pam dum­ta­xat ei prae­stan­dam, non vim ma­io­rem.

30Paulus, Epitomes of the Digest of Alfenus Verus, Book V. A party who had lent money to the owner of a boat, detained the boat in the river on his own authority, as the money was not paid at the appointed time; and the river afterwards rose and carried away the boat. The opinion was that, if the creditor had retained the boat against the consent of the owner, the boat was at his risk; but if the debtor had voluntarily agreed that he should retain it, he should only be indemnified for negligence, and not for superior force.

31Afri­ca­nus li­bro oc­ta­vo quaes­tio­num. Si ser­vus pig­no­ri da­tus cre­di­to­ri fur­tum fa­ciat, li­be­rum est de­bi­to­ri ser­vum pro no­xae de­di­tio­ne re­lin­que­re: quod si sciens fu­rem pig­no­ri de­de­rit, et­si pa­ra­tus fue­rit pro no­xae de­di­to apud me re­lin­que­re, ni­hi­lo mi­nus ha­bi­tu­rum me pig­ne­ra­ti­ciam ac­tio­nem, ut in­dem­nem me prae­stet. ea­dem ser­van­da es­se Iu­lia­nus ait et­iam cum de­po­si­tus vel com­mo­da­tus ser­vus fur­tum fa­ciat.

31Africanus, Questions, Book VIII. Where a slave given in pledge commits a theft against the creditor, the debtor has a right to relinquish the slave by surrendering him for reparation. But if he gave him to me in pledge, knowing him to be a thief, although he may be ready to surrender him to me by way of reparation, I will, nevertheless, be entitled to an action on pledge, in order that I may be indemnified. Julianus says that the same rules must be observed where a slave is deposited or lent, and commits theft.

32Mar­cia­nus li­bro quar­to re­gu­la­rum. Cum de­bi­to­re, qui alie­nam rem pig­no­ri de­dit, pot­est cre­di­tor con­tra­ria pig­ne­ra­ti­cia age­re, et­si sol­ven­do de­bi­tor sit.

32Marcianus, Rules, Book IV. A creditor can bring a counter action on pledge against a debtor who has pledged the property of another, even though the debtor may be solvent.

33Idem li­bro sin­gu­la­ri ad for­mu­lam hy­po­the­ca­riam. Si pe­cu­niam de­bi­tor sol­ve­rit, pot­est pig­ne­ra­ti­cia ac­tio­ne uti ad re­ci­pe­ran­dam ἀντίχρησιν: nam cum pig­nus sit hoc ver­bo pot­erit uti.

33The Same, On the Hypothecary Formula. Where a debtor has paid the money, he can make use of the action on pledge to recover property given in ἀντίχρησιν, for as there is a pledge he can make use of this term.

34Mar­cel­lus li­bro sin­gu­la­ri re­spon­so­rum. Ti­tius cum cre­di­dis­set pe­cu­niam Sem­pro­nio et ob eam pig­nus ac­ce­pis­set fu­tu­rum­que es­set, ut dis­tra­he­ret eam cre­di­tor, quia pe­cu­nia non sol­ve­re­tur, pe­tit a cre­di­to­re, ut fun­dum cer­to pre­tio emp­tum ha­be­ret, et cum im­pe­tras­set, epis­tu­lam, qua se ven­di­dis­se fun­dum cre­di­to­ri sig­ni­fi­ca­ret, emi­sit: quae­ro, an hanc ven­di­tio­nem de­bi­tor re­vo­ca­re pos­sit of­fe­ren­do sor­tem et usu­ras quae de­ben­tur. Mar­cel­lus re­spon­dit se­cun­dum ea quae pro­pos­i­ta es­sent, re­vo­ca­re non pos­se.

34Marcellus, Opinions. Where Titius lent money to Sempronius, and received a pledge for the same, and the creditor was about to sell the pledge because the money was not paid; the debtor requested him to purchase the land at a certain price, and, when he did so, he wrote a letter in which he intimated that he had sold the said land to the creditor. I wish to know whether the debtor can revoke this sale by tendering the principal and interest which are due? Marcellus answered that, according to the facts stated, he cannot revoke it.

35Flo­ren­ti­nus li­bro oc­ta­vo in­sti­tu­tio­num. Cum et sor­tis no­mi­ne et usu­ra­rum ali­quid de­be­tur ab eo, qui sub pig­no­ri­bus pe­cu­niam de­bet, quid­quid ex ven­di­tio­ne pig­no­rum re­ci­pia­tur, pri­mum usu­ris, quas iam tunc de­be­ri con­stat, de­in­de si quid su­per­est sor­ti ac­cep­to fe­ren­dum est: nec au­dien­dus est de­bi­tor, si, cum pa­rum ido­neum se es­se sciat, eli­git, quo no­mi­ne ex­one­ra­ri pig­nus suum ma­lit. 1Pig­nus ma­nen­te pro­prie­ta­te de­bi­to­ris so­lam pos­ses­sio­nem trans­fert ad cre­di­to­rem: pot­est ta­men et pre­ca­rio et pro con­duc­to de­bi­tor re sua uti.

35Florentinus, Institutes, Book VIII. Where something is due on account of both principal and interest from a party who owes money secured by pledges, whatever is received from the sale of the pledges must be credited upon the interest, which it is established is due at the time, and then, if there is anything left it must be credited on the principal. A debtor should not be heard if, when he is well aware that he is hardly solvent, he desires to make a choice as to the claim on which he prefers the pledge to be released. 1A pledge only transfers possession to the creditor the ownership of the property remaining in the debtor; the latter, however, can make use of his property by sufferance and also under a lease.

36Ul­pia­nus li­bro un­de­ci­mo ad edic­tum. Si quis in pig­no­re pro au­ro aes sub­ie­cis­set cre­di­to­ri, qua­li­ter te­n­ea­tur, quae­si­tum est. in qua spe­cie rec­tis­si­me Sa­b­inus scri­bit, si qui­dem da­to au­ro aes sub­ie­cis­set, fur­ti te­ne­ri: quod si in dan­do aes sub­ie­cis­sit11Die Großausgabe liest sub­ie­cis­set statt sub­ie­cis­sit., tur­pi­ter fe­cis­se, non fu­rem es­se. sed et hic pu­to pig­ne­ra­ti­cium iu­di­cium lo­cum ha­be­re, et ita Pom­po­nius scri­bit. sed et ex­tra or­di­nem stel­lio­na­tus no­mi­ne plec­te­tur, ut est sae­pis­si­me re­scrip­tum. 1Sed et si quis rem alie­nam mi­hi pig­no­ri de­de­rit sciens pru­dens­que vel si quis alii ob­li­ga­tam mi­hi ob­li­ga­vit nec me de hoc cer­tio­ra­ve­rit, eo­dem cri­mi­ne plec­te­tur. pla­ne si ea res am­pla est et ad mo­di­cum ae­ris fue­rit pig­ne­ra­ta, di­ci de­be­bit ces­sa­re non so­lum stel­lio­na­tus cri­men, sed et­iam pig­ne­ra­ti­ciam et de do­lo ac­tio­nem, qua­si in nul­lo cap­tus sit, qui pig­no­ri se­cun­do lo­co ac­ce­pit.

36Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XI. The question arises how a person may be liable who delivers brass instead of gold to a creditor by way of pledge? Sabinus states most properly in this instance, that if, where gold has been given, the party substitutes brass, he is liable for theft; but if, when the gold was given, he substituted brass, he is guilty of a base act, but is not a thief. I think, however, that in this case also, the action of pledge will lie, and Pomponius says the same. Moreover he can be judicially punished on the ground of swindling, as has been very frequently set forth in rescripts. 1Again if anyone knowingly and deliberately gives me property in pledge which belongs to another, or if he encumbers to me property already encumbered to another, and does not inform me of the fact, he can be punished for the same offence. It is evident that, if the property is of considerable value, and is pledged only for a small sum of money, it must be said that the offence of swindling does not exist, and also that the actions on pledge and on fraud will not lie, because the party who received the property as a second pledge was not taken advantage of in any way.

37Pau­lus li­bro quin­to ad Plau­tium. Si pig­nus mi­hi tra­di­tum lo­cas­sem do­mi­no, per lo­ca­tio­nem re­ti­neo pos­ses­sio­nem, quia an­te­quam con­du­ce­ret de­bi­tor, non fue­rit eius pos­ses­sio, cum et ani­mus mi­hi re­ti­nen­di sit et con­du­cen­ti non sit ani­mus pos­ses­sio­nem apis­cen­di.

37Paulus, On Plautius, Book V. If I rent to the owner a pledge which was delivered to me I will retain possession of the same by renting it, because before the debtor leased it he did not have possession, while I have the intention of retaining it, and the party who leases it has not the intention of acquiring the same.

38Mo­des­ti­nus li­bro pri­mo dif­fe­ren­tia­rum. Pu­pil­lo ca­pien­ti pig­nus prop­ter me­tum pig­ne­ra­ti­ciae ac­tio­nis ne­ces­sa­ria est tu­to­ris auc­to­ri­tas.

38Modestinus, Differences, Book I. The authority of a guardian is necessary to a ward who receives property in pledge, on account of the danger of an action on pledge.

39Idem li­bro quar­to re­spon­so­rum. Gaius Se­ius ob pe­cu­niam mu­tuam fun­dum suum Lu­cio Ti­tio pig­no­ri de­dit: post­ea pac­tum in­ter eos fac­tum est, ut cre­di­tor pig­nus suum in com­pen­sa­tio­nem pe­cu­niae suae cer­to tem­po­re pos­si­de­ret: ve­rum an­te ex­ple­tum tem­pus cre­di­tor cum su­pre­ma sua or­di­na­ret, tes­ta­men­to ca­vit, ut al­ter ex fi­liis suis ha­be­ret eum fun­dum et ad­di­dit ‘quem de Lu­cio Ti­tio emi’, cum non emis­set: hoc tes­ta­men­tum in­ter ce­te­ros sig­na­vit et Gaius Se­ius, qui fuit de­bi­tor. quae­ro, an ex hoc quod sig­na­vit prae­iu­di­cium ali­quod si­bi fe­ce­rit, cum nul­lum in­stru­men­tum ven­di­tio­nis pro­fe­ra­tur, sed so­lum pac­tum, ut cre­di­tor cer­ti tem­po­ris fruc­tus ca­pe­ret. He­ren­nius Mo­des­ti­nus re­spon­dit con­trac­tui pig­no­ris non ob­es­se, quod de­bi­tor tes­ta­men­tum cre­di­to­ris, in quo se emis­se pig­nus ex­pres­sit, sig­nas­se pro­po­ni­tur.

39The Same, Opinions, Book IV. Gaius Seius gave his land to Lucius Titius as a pledge for money loaned, and afterwards it was agreed between them that the creditor should have possession of the pledge for a certain time, by way of setoff against his money. But, before the time had expired, the creditor, in stating his last wish, provided by his will that one of his sons should have the said tract of land, and added, “which I bought of Lucius Titius,” while in fact he had not bought it. Gaius Seius, who was the debtor, along with others signed this will. I ask whether, by the fact that he signed it he prejudiced himself in any way, since no instrument evidencing the sale was produced, but only the agreement that the creditor should be entitled to the crops for a certain time? Herennius Modestinus answered that the contract of pledge was not affected because the debtor had signed the will of the creditor in which he stated that he had purchased the pledge.

40Pa­pi­nia­nus li­bro ter­tio re­spon­so­rum. De­bi­tor a cre­di­to­re pig­nus quod de­dit frus­tra emit, cum rei suae nul­la emp­tio sit: nec si mi­no­ris eme­rit et pig­nus pe­tat aut do­mi­nium vin­di­cet, ei non to­tum de­bi­tum of­fe­ren­ti cre­di­tor pos­ses­sio­nem re­sti­tue­re co­ge­tur. 1De­bi­to­ris fi­lius, qui ma­net in pa­tris po­tes­ta­te, frus­tra pig­nus a cre­di­to­re pa­tris pe­cu­lia­ri­bus num­mis com­pa­rat: et id­eo si pa­tro­nus de­bi­to­ris con­tra ta­bu­las eius pos­ses­sio­nem ac­ce­pe­rit, do­mi­nii par­tem op­ti­ne­bit: nam pe­cu­nia, quam fi­lius ex re pa­tris in pre­tium de­dit, pig­nus li­be­ra­tur. 2So­lu­ta pe­cu­nia cre­di­tor pos­ses­sio­nem pig­no­ris, quae cor­po­ra­lis apud eum fuit, re­sti­tue­re de­bet nec quic­quam am­plius prae­sta­re co­gi­tur. ita­que si me­dio tem­po­re pig­nus cre­di­tor pig­no­ri de­de­rit, do­mi­no sol­ven­te pe­cu­niam quam de­buit se­cun­di pig­no­ris ne­que per­se­cu­tio da­bi­tur ne­que re­ten­tio re­lin­que­tur.

40Papinianus, Opinions, Book III. A debtor cannot legally purchase a pledge which he has given to a creditor, because the purchase of one’s own property is void; for if he buys it for less than the amount of the claim and demands it, or brings suit for the ownership, the creditor is not obliged to restore possession to him unless he tenders payment of the entire debt. 1The son of a debtor, who is under the control of his father, cannot obtain possession of a pledge from a creditor with money belonging to his own peculium; and therefore if a patron of the debtor has obtained possession of the property of the estate contrary to the provisions of the will, he will acquire half of the ownership; for the pledge is released by the money which the son paid as a price out of the property belonging to his father. 2The money having been paid, the creditor should restore the possession of the pledge which was actually in his hands; nor can the debtor be compelled to pay anything more. Therefore, if the creditor has, in the meantime, himself given the pledge as security, and the owner of the same has paid the money which he owed, no action will be granted with reference to the second pledge, nor will the right of retention remain.

41Pau­lus li­bro ter­tio quaes­tio­num. Rem alie­nam pig­no­ri de­dis­ti, de­in­de do­mi­nus rei eius es­se coe­pis­ti: da­tur uti­lis ac­tio pig­ne­ra­ti­cia cre­di­to­ri. non est idem di­cen­dum, si ego Ti­tio, qui rem meam ob­li­ga­ve­rat si­ne mea vo­lun­ta­te, he­res ex­ti­te­ro: hoc enim mo­do pig­no­ris per­se­cu­tio con­ce­den­da non est cre­di­to­ri, nec uti­que suf­fi­cit ad com­pe­ten­dam uti­lem pig­ne­ra­ti­ciam ac­tio­nem eun­dem es­se do­mi­num, qui et­iam pe­cu­niam de­bet. sed si con­ve­nis­set de pig­no­re, ut ex suo men­da­cio ar­gua­tur, im­pro­be re­sis­tit, quo mi­nus uti­lis ac­tio mo­vea­tur.

41Ad Dig. 13,7,41Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 26, Note 3; Bd. I, § 230, Note 9.Paulus, Questions, Book III. You gave the property of another in pledge, and afterwards you became the owner of the same; an equitable action on pledge is granted to the creditor. The same rule does not apply, if I become the heir of Titius who encumbered my property without my consent; for, under these circumstances, the right of recovery of the pledge is not granted the creditor; nor, by any means, is it sufficient, in order to render the equitable action on pledge applicable, that the owner should be the same party who also owes the money. But if he had agreed with respect to the pledge, so that his deceit can be established, he cannot properly resist the bringing of an equitable action against him.

42Pa­pi­nia­nus li­bro ter­tio re­spon­so­rum. Cre­di­tor iu­di­cio, quod de pig­no­re da­to pro­po­ni­tur, ut su­per­fluum pre­tii cum usu­ris re­sti­tuat, iu­re co­gi­tur, nec au­dien­dus erit, si ve­lit emp­to­rem dele­ga­re, cum in ven­di­tio­ne, quae fit ex fac­to, suum cre­di­tor neg­otium ge­rat.

42Ad Dig. 13,7,42ROHGE, Bd. 18 (1876), Nr. 40, S. 150: Kompensation des Pfandgläubigers bezüglich des an die Konkursmasse herauszuzahlenden Ueberschusses aus dem Erloese für das Pfand mit einer chirographischen Forderung an den Kridar.Ulpianus, Opinions, Book III. The creditor is legally bound to surrender the excess of the price together with interest, in an action brought relative to the giving of the pledge; and he should not be heard if he wishes to substitute the purchaser, since, in the sale, which is made in pursuance of an agreement, the creditor is transacting his own business.

43Scae­vo­la li­bro quin­to di­ges­to­rum. Lo­cum pu­rum pig­no­ri cre­di­to­ri ob­li­ga­vit ei­que in­stru­men­tum emp­tio­nis tra­di­dit: et cum eum lo­cum in­ae­di­fi­ca­re vel­let, mo­ta si­bi con­tro­ver­sia a vi­ci­no de la­ti­tu­di­ne, quod alias pro­ba­re non pot­erat, pe­tit a cre­di­to­re, ut in­stru­men­tum a se tra­di­tum auc­to­ri­ta­tis ex­hi­be­ret: quo non ex­hi­ben­te mi­no­rem lo­cum ae­di­fi­ca­vit at­que ita dam­num pas­sus est. quae­si­tum est, an, si cre­di­tor pe­cu­niam pe­tat vel pig­nus vin­di­cet, do­li ex­cep­tio­ne po­si­ta iu­dex hu­ius dam­ni ra­tio­nem ha­be­re de­beat. re­spon­dit, si ope­ram non de­dis­set, ut in­stru­men­ti fa­cul­ta­te sub­duc­ta de­bi­tor ca­pe­re­tur, pos­se de­bi­to­rem pe­cu­nia so­lu­ta pig­ne­ra­ti­cia age­re: ope­ra au­tem in eo da­ta tunc et an­te pe­cu­niam so­lu­tam in id quod in­ter­est cum cre­di­to­re agi. 1Ti­tius cum pe­cu­niam mu­tuam ac­ce­pit a Gaio Se­io sub pig­no­re cul­leo­rum: is­tos cul­leos cum Se­ius in hor­reo ha­be­ret, mis­sus ex of­fi­cio an­no­nae cen­tu­rio cul­leos ad an­no­nam sus­tu­lit ac post­ea in­stan­tia Gaii Se­ii cre­di­to­ris re­ci­pe­ra­ti sunt: quae­ro, in­ter­tri­tu­ram, quae ex ope­ris fac­ta est, utrum Ti­tius de­bi­tor an Se­ius cre­di­tor ad­gno­se­ce­re de­beat. re­spon­dit se­cun­dum ea quae pro­po­ne­ren­tur ob id, quod eo no­mi­ne in­ter­tri­men­ti ac­ci­dis­set, non te­ne­ri.

43Scævola, Digest, Book V. A party encumbered a vacant tract of land as security to a creditor, and delivered to him an instrument of purchase. When he desired to build on said land, a controversy arose with a neighbor with reference to the width of the tract, and, as he could not otherwise prove it, he requested the creditor to produce the title-deed which had been delivered by him, and, as he did not do so, he erected a smaller building, and in this way suffered damage. The question arose whether, if the creditor demands the money or brings an action for the recovery of the pledge, and an exception based on fraud is filed, the judge ought to take this damage into consideration? The answer was that if the creditor did not intend to impose upon the debtor by depriving him of the production of the instrument, the debtor could bring an action on pledge when the money was paid; but that if this was done intentionally, an action would lie against the creditor for the amount of his interest at that time, and before payment of the money. 1Titius received a loan of money from Gaius Seius under a pledge of leathern sacks; and while Seius had these sacks in his granary, a centurion, who was sent from the office of the commissary, took the sacks away to be used in the public service; and they were afterwards recovered at the instance of Gaius Seius, the creditor. I ask whether Titius, the debtor, or Seius, the creditor, should be responsible for the wear and tear resulting from their use? The answer is that, according to the facts stated, the creditor was not liable for damage resulting from the wear and tear of the sacks.