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. XIV6,
De senatus consulto Macedoniano
Liber quartus decimus
VI.

De senatus consulto Macedoniano

(Concerning the Macedonian Decree of the Senate.)

1Ul­pia­nus li­bro vi­cen­si­mo no­no ad edic­tum. Ver­ba se­na­tus con­sul­ti Ma­ce­do­nia­ni haec sunt: ‘Cum in­ter ce­te­ras sce­le­ris cau­sas Ma­ce­do, quas il­li na­tu­ra ad­mi­nis­tra­bat, et­iam aes alie­num ad­hi­buis­set, et sae­pe ma­te­riam pec­can­di ma­lis mo­ri­bus prae­sta­ret, qui pe­cu­niam, ne quid am­plius di­ce­re­tur in­cer­tis no­mi­ni­bus cre­de­ret: pla­ce­re, ne cui, qui fi­lio fa­mi­lias mu­tuam pe­cu­niam de­dis­set, et­iam post mor­tem pa­ren­tis eius, cu­ius in po­tes­ta­te fuis­set, ac­tio pe­ti­tio­que da­re­tur, ut sci­rent, qui pes­si­mo ex­em­plo fae­ne­ra­rent, nul­lius pos­se fi­lii fa­mi­lias bo­num no­men ex­spec­ta­ta pa­tris mor­te fie­ri.’ 1Si pen­deat, an sit in po­tes­ta­te fi­lius, ut pu­ta quon­iam pa­trem apud hos­tes ha­bet, in pen­den­ti est, an in se­na­tus con­sul­tum sit com­mis­sum: nam si rec­ci­de­rit in po­tes­ta­tem, se­na­tus con­sul­to lo­cus est, si mi­nus, ces­sat: in­ter­im igi­tur de­ne­gan­da est ac­tio. 2Cer­te si ad­ro­ga­tus mu­tuam pe­cu­niam ac­ce­pe­rit, de­in­de sit re­sti­tu­tus, ut em­an­ci­pa­re­tur, se­na­tus con­sul­tum lo­cum ha­be­bit: fuit enim fi­lius fa­mi­lias. 3In fi­lio fa­mi­lias ni­hil dig­ni­tas fa­cit, quo mi­nus se­na­tus con­sul­tum Ma­ce­do­nia­num lo­cum ha­beat: nam et­iam­si con­sul sit vel cu­ius­vis dig­ni­ta­tis, se­na­tus con­sul­to lo­cus est: ni­si for­te cas­tren­se pe­cu­lium ha­beat: tunc enim se­na­tus con­sul­tum ces­sa­bit.

1Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXIX. The words of the Macedonian Decree of the Senate are as follows: “Whereas, among the other causes of crime which nature bestowed upon him, Macedo also added indebtedness, and as he who lends money on doubtful security (without saying any more) often furnishes material for wrong-doing to parties who are evilly disposed; it is hereby decreed that no action or claim shall be granted to anyone who has lent money to a son under paternal control, even after the death of the parent to whose authority he was subject, so that those who, by lending money at interest, set an extremely bad example, may learn that the obligation of no son under paternal control can become a valid claim by waiting for the death of his father.” 1If the question as to whether the son is under parental control is in abeyance, for instance, because his father is in the hands of the enemy, the question as to whether the Decree of the Senate has been violated is itself in abeyance; for if he should again come under parental control, the Decree of the Senate will become operative, but if he does not, it will not apply; and therefore in the meantime an action should be refused. 2It is certain that if a party who has been arrogated borrows money and afterwards obtains restitution, so that he can be emancipated, the Decree of the Senate will be available, for he was a son under paternal control. 3Ad Dig. 14,6,1,3Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 373, Note 6.Any office held by a son under paternal control will not cause the Macedonian Decree of the Senate to become inoperative; for even though he be Consul, or hold any other office, the Decree of the Senate applies, unless he should have castrense peculium, for in this instance the Decree of the Senate will not be applicable.

2Idem li­bro se­xa­gen­si­mo quar­to ad edic­tum. Us­que ad quan­ti­ta­tem cas­tren­sis pe­cu­lii, cum fi­lii fa­mi­lias in cas­tren­si pe­cu­lio vi­ce pa­trum fa­mi­lia­rum fun­gan­tur.

2Ad Dig. 14,6,2Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 373, Note 6.The Same, On the Edict, Book LXIV. To the extent that this has reference to the castrense peculium, since sons under paternal control perform the functions of heads of families, so far as the castrense peculium is concerned.

3Idem li­bro vi­cen­si­mo no­no ad edic­tum. Si quis pa­trem fa­mi­lias es­se cre­di­dit non va­na sim­pli­ci­ta­te de­cep­tus nec iu­ris igno­ran­tia, sed quia pu­bli­ce pa­ter fa­mi­lias ple­ris­que vi­de­ba­tur, sic age­bat, sic con­tra­he­bat, sic mu­ne­ri­bus fun­ge­ba­tur, ces­sa­bit se­na­tus con­sul­tum. 1Un­de Iu­lia­nus li­bro duo­de­ci­mo in eo, qui vec­ti­ga­lia con­duc­ta ha­be­bat, scri­bit (et est sae­pe con­sti­tu­tum) ces­sa­re se­na­tus con­sul­tum. 2Pro­in­de et in eo, qui sci­re non po­tuit, an fi­lius fa­mi­lias sit, Iu­lia­nus li­bro duo­de­ci­mo ces­sa­re se­na­tus con­sul­tum ait, ut pu­ta in pu­pil­lo vel mi­no­re vi­gin­ti quin­que an­nis. sed in mi­no­re, cau­sa co­gni­ta et a prae­to­re suc­cur­ren­dum: in pu­pil­lo au­tem et­iam alia ra­tio­ne de­buit di­ce­re ces­sa­re se­na­tus con­sul­tum, quod mu­tua pe­cu­nia non fit, quam si­ne tu­to­ris auc­to­ri­ta­te pu­pil­lus dat, quem­ad­mo­dum ip­se di­cit Iu­lia­nus li­bro duo­de­ci­mo, si fi­lius fa­mi­lias cre­di­de­rit, ces­sa­re se­na­tus con­sul­tum, quod mu­tua pe­cu­nia non fit, quam­vis li­be­ram pe­cu­lii ad­mi­nis­tra­tio­nem ha­buit: non enim per­de­re ei pe­cu­lium pa­ter con­ce­dit, cum pe­cu­lii ad­mi­nis­tra­tio­nem per­mit­tit: et id­eo vin­di­ca­tio­nem num­mo­rum pa­tri su­per­es­se ait. 3Is au­tem so­lus se­na­tus con­sul­tum of­fen­dit, qui mu­tuam pe­cu­niam fi­lio fa­mi­lias de­dit, non qui alias con­tra­xit, pu­ta ven­di­dit lo­ca­vit vel alio mo­do con­tra­xit: nam pe­cu­niae da­tio per­ni­cio­sa pa­ren­ti­bus eo­rum vi­sa est. et id­eo et­si in cre­di­tum ab­ii fi­lio fa­mi­lias vel ex cau­sa emp­tio­nis vel ex alio con­trac­tu, in quo pe­cu­niam non nu­me­ra­vi, et­si sti­pu­la­tus sim: li­cet coe­pe­rit es­se mu­tua pe­cu­nia, ta­men quia pe­cu­niae nu­me­ra­tio non con­cur­rit, ces­sat se­na­tus con­sul­tum. quod ita de­mum erit di­cen­dum, si non fraus se­na­tus con­sul­to sit co­gi­ta­ta, ut qui cre­de­re non po­tuit ma­gis ei ven­de­ret, ut il­le rei pre­tium ha­be­ret in mu­tui vi­cem. 4Si a fi­lio fa­mi­lias sti­pu­la­tus sim et pa­tri fa­mi­lias fac­to cre­di­de­rim, si­ve ca­pi­te de­mi­nu­tus sit si­ve mor­te pa­tris vel alias sui iu­ris si­ne ca­pi­tis de­mi­nutio­ne fue­rit ef­fec­tus, de­bet di­ci ces­sa­re se­na­tus con­sul­tum, quia mu­tua iam pa­tri fa­mi­lias da­ta est:

3The Same, On the Edict, Book XXIX. Where anyone believed an individual to be the head of a family, not having been deceived by vain folly or ignorance of law, but because he was publicly considered by most persons to be such, and acted, made contracts, and performed the duties of offices as the head of a household, the Decree of the Senate will not be applicable. 1Wherefore, Julianus states in the Twelfth Book of the Digest that the Decree of the Senate will not apply in the case of a party who was accustomed to farm out the public revenues, and this has been frequently decided by the Emperor. 2Hence, where a person could not know whether another was a son under paternal control or not, Julianus says, in the Twelfth Book, that the Decree of the Senate will not be applicable; as, for instance, in the case of a ward or a minor under twenty-five years of age. But so far as the minor is concerned, relief should be granted by the Prætor after investigation, but in the case of the ward, he should say that the Decree of the Senate was not operative for another reason, that is, because the money which the ward pays without the authority of his guardian does not become a loan; just as Julianus himself states in the Twelfth Book of the Digest, that if a son under paternal control makes a loan the Decree of the Senate is not applicable, since the money does not become a loan even if he had the unrestricted management of the peculium. For the father, when he granted him the management of the peculium, did not give him permission to waste it, and therefore he says the right to bring suit for the recovery of the money remains with the father. 3Ad Dig. 14,6,3,3Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 370, Note 11.Only he, however, violates the Decree of the Senate who lent money to a son under paternal control, not one who contracted otherwise, for example, one who has sold, leased, or entered into a contract of another kind, for it was the giving of money which was held to be dangerous to their parents. And therefore, even though I have become the creditor of a son under paternal control, either because of purchase, or on account of some other contract in which I have not paid down any money, but in which I made a stipulation; although the transaction has become a loan, still, as the payment of money did not take place, the Decree of the Senate will not be applicable. This, however, can only be said where no fraud on the Decree of the Senate is intended; so that the party who could not lend money preferred to sell to him, in order that he might have the price of the property instead of a loan. 4If I entered into a stipulation with a son under paternal control, and lent him money after he became the head of the household, whether his change of civil status had occurred through the death of his father, or he had become his own master in some other way without affecting his civil rights; it should be held that the Decree of the Senate is not operative, because the loan was made to one who was already the head of a family;

4Scae­vo­la li­bro se­cun­do quaes­tio­num. quia quod vol­go di­ci­tur fi­lio fa­mi­lias cre­di non li­ce­re, non ad ver­ba re­fe­ren­dum est, sed ad nu­me­ra­tio­nem.

4Scævola, Questions, Book II. For what is commonly stated, namely: that it is not lawful to lend to a son under paternal control, does not relate to the terms of the transaction, but to the payment of the money.

5Pau­lus li­bro ter­tio quaes­tio­num. Er­go hic et in so­li­dum dam­na­bi­tur, non in id quod fa­ce­re pot­est.

5Paulus, Questions, Book III. Therefore, in this instance, judgment will be rendered against him for the entire amount, and not for what he is able to pay.

6Scae­vo­la li­bro se­cun­do quaes­tio­num. Con­tra et­iam rec­te di­ce­tur, si a pa­tre fa­mi­lias sti­pu­la­tus sis, cre­das post­ea fi­lio fa­mi­lias fac­to, se­na­tus po­tes­ta­tem ex­er­cen­dam, quia ex­ple­ta est nu­me­ra­tio­ne sub­stan­tia ob­li­ga­tio­nis.

6Scævola, Questions, Book II. On the other hand, it is very properly stated that, if you have entered into a stipulation with the head of a family, and afterwards lend the money to him when he has become a son under paternal control, the power of the Decree of the Senate should be exercised, because the substantial part of the obligation was completed by the payment of the money.

7Ul­pia­nus li­bro vi­ce­si­mo no­no ad edic­tum. Item si fi­lius fa­mi­lias fi­de­ius­se­rit, Ne­ra­tius li­bro pri­mo et se­cun­do re­spon­so­rum ces­sa­re se­na­tus con­sul­tum ait. idem Cel­sus li­bro quar­to. sed Iu­lia­nus ad­icit, si co­lor quae­si­tus sit, ut fi­lius fa­mi­lias, qui mu­tuam ac­cep­tu­rus erat, fi­de­iu­be­ret alio reo da­to, frau­dem se­na­tus con­sul­to fac­tam no­ce­re et dan­dam ex­cep­tio­nem tam fi­lio fa­mi­lias quam reo, quon­iam et fi­de­ius­so­ri fi­lii sub­ve­ni­tur. 1Idem ait, si duos reos ac­ce­pe­ro fi­lium fa­mi­lias et Ti­tium, cum ad fi­lium fa­mi­lias es­set per­ven­tu­ra pe­cu­nia, id­eo au­tem reum Ti­tium ac­ce­pe­rim, ne qua­si fi­de­ius­sor au­xi­lio se­na­tus con­sul­ti ute­re­tur, uti­lem es­se ex­cep­tio­nem ad­ver­sus frau­dem dan­dam. 2Sed et si fi­lius fa­mi­lias pa­tre suo rele­ga­to vel lon­go tem­po­re ab­sen­te do­tem pro fi­lia pro­mi­se­rit et rem pa­tris pig­no­ri de­de­rit, se­na­tus con­sul­tum ces­sa­bit. pa­tris ta­men res non te­ne­bi­tur: pla­ne si pa­tri he­res ex­sti­te­rit fi­lius et pig­nus per­se­qua­tur, ex­cep­tio­ne do­li sum­mo­ve­bi­tur. 3Mu­tui da­tio­nem non so­lum nu­me­ra­tae pe­cu­niae, ve­rum om­nium, quae mu­tua da­ri pos­sunt, an ac­ci­pe­re de­bea­mus, vi­den­dum. sed ver­ba vi­den­tur mi­hi ad nu­me­ra­tam pe­cu­niam re­fer­ri: ait enim se­na­tus ‘mu­tuam pe­cu­niam de­dis­set’. sed si fraus sit se­na­tus con­sul­to ad­hi­bi­ta, pu­ta fru­men­to vel vi­no vel oleo mu­tuo da­to, ut his dis­trac­tis fruc­ti­bus ute­re­tur pe­cu­nia, sub­ve­nien­dum est fi­lio fa­mi­lias. 4Si fi­lius in al­te­rius erat po­tes­ta­te, cum mu­tua da­re­tur, nunc in al­te­rius, mens se­na­tus con­sul­ti non ces­sat: da­bi­tur ita­que ex­cep­tio. 5Sed et si pa­tri eius non mors, sed alia cau­sa in­ci­de­rit quo mi­nus sit in ci­vi­ta­te, di­cen­dum se­na­tus con­sul­to lo­cum es­se. 6Non so­lum ei, qui mu­tuam de­dis­set, sed et suc­ces­so­ri­bus eius de­ne­gan­da est ac­tio. 7Pro­in­de et si alius mu­tuam de­dit, alius sti­pu­la­tus est, da­bi­tur ad­ver­sus eum ex­cep­tio, li­cet hic non de­de­rit. sed et si al­ter­uter eo­rum igno­ra­vit in pa­tris es­se po­tes­ta­te, se­ve­rius di­cen­dum est utri­que no­ce­re. idem est et in duo­bus reis sti­pu­lan­di. 8Item si duos fi­lios fa­mi­lias ac­ce­pe­ro reos, sed al­te­rum pu­ta­vi pa­trem fa­mi­lias, in­ter­erit, ad quem pe­cu­nia per­ve­nit, ut, si eum sci­vi fi­lium fa­mi­lias ad quem per­ve­nit pe­cu­nia, ex­cep­tio­ne sum­mo­vear, si ad eum quem igno­rem, non sum­mo­vear. 9Si­ve au­tem sub usu­ris mu­tua da­ta sunt si­ve si­ne usu­ris, ad se­na­tus con­sul­tum spec­tat. 10Quam­quam au­tem non de­cla­ret se­na­tus, cui ex­cep­tio­nem det, ta­men scien­dum est et he­redem fi­lii, si pa­ter fa­mi­lias de­ces­se­rit, et pa­trem eius, si fi­lius fa­mi­lias de­ces­se­rit, ex­cep­tio­ne uti pos­se. 11In­ter­dum ta­men­et­si se­na­tus con­sul­to lo­cus sit, ta­men in alium da­tur ac­tio, ut pu­ta fi­lius fa­mi­lias in­sti­tor mu­tuam pe­cu­niam ac­ce­pit: scri­bit enim Iu­lia­nus li­bro duo­de­ci­mo ip­sum qui­dem in­sti­to­rem ex­cep­tio­ne se­na­tus con­sul­ti usu­rum, si con­ve­nia­tur, sed in­sti­to­riam ac­tio­nem ad­ver­sus eum qui prae­po­suit com­pe­te­re. quam­quam, in­quit, si ip­se pa­ter eum prae­po­suis­set mer­ci suae vel pe­cu­lia­rem ex­er­ce­re pas­sus es­set, ces­sa­ret se­na­tus con­sul­tum, quon­iam pa­tris vo­lun­ta­te con­trac­tum vi­de­re­tur: nam si scit eum neg­otia­ri, et­iam hoc per­mis­sis­se vi­de­tur, si non no­mi­na­tim pro­hi­buit mer­ces ac­ci­pe­re. 12Pro­in­de si ac­ce­pe­rit pe­cu­niam et in rem pa­tris ver­tit, ces­sat se­na­tus con­sul­tum: pa­tri enim, non si­bi ac­ce­pit. sed et si ab in­itio non sic ac­ce­pit, ve­rum post­ea in rem pa­tris ver­tit, ces­sa­re se­na­tus con­sul­tum li­bro duo­de­ci­mo di­ges­to­rum Iu­lia­nus ait in­tel­le­gen­dum­que ab in­itio sic ac­ce­pis­se, ut in rem ver­te­ret. non ta­men ver­tis­se vi­de­bi­tur, si mu­tuam pe­cu­niam ac­cep­tam pa­tri in pro­prium de­bi­tum sol­vit et id­eo, si pa­ter igno­ra­vit, ad­huc se­na­tus con­sul­to lo­cus erit. 13Quod di­ci­tur in eo, qui stu­dio­rum cau­sa ab­sens mu­tuum ac­ce­pe­rat, ces­sa­re se­na­tus con­sul­tum, ita lo­cum ha­bet, si pro­ba­bi­lem mo­dum in mu­tua non ex­ces­sit, cer­te eam quan­ti­ta­tem, quam pa­ter so­le­bat sub­mi­nis­tra­re. 14Si fi­lius ac­ce­pit mu­tuam pe­cu­niam, ut eum li­be­ra­ret, qui, si pe­te­ret, ex­cep­tio­ne non sum­mo­ve­re­tur, se­na­tus con­sul­ti ces­sa­bit ex­cep­tio. 15Hoc am­plius ces­sa­bit se­na­tus con­sul­tum, si pa­ter sol­ve­re coe­pit quod fi­lius fa­mi­lias mu­tuum sump­se­rit, qua­si ra­tum ha­bue­rit. 16Si pa­ter fa­mi­lias fac­tus sol­ve­rit par­tem de­bi­ti, ces­sa­bit se­na­tus con­sul­tum nec so­lu­tum re­pe­te­re pot­est.

7Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXIX. Also, if a son subject to paternal control becomes a surety, Neratius states in the First and Second Book of Opinions that the Decree of the Senate is not applicable. Celsus says the same thing in the Fourth Book, but Julianus adds that if a pretext is sought, in order that a son under paternal control, who was about to receive a loan, may become a surety, another party appearing as the principal debtor; the fraud committed against the Decree of the Senate causes prejudice, and that an exception should be granted to the son under paternal control as well as to the principal debtor, since relief is granted also to the surety of a son. 1He also says that if I accept two debtors, a son under paternal control and Titius, when the money was to come into the hands of the former, but I accept Titius as the principal debtor, in order that, as surety, he might not take advantage of the Decree of the Senate; an exception based upon this fraudulent act should be granted. 2Moreover, if a son under paternal control when his father had been exiled or was absent for a long time, promised a dowry for his daughter, and gave property of his father in pledge; the Decree of the Senate will not apply, and the property of the father will not be liable. It is evident that if the son becomes the heir of his father, and brings an action to recover the pledge, he will be barred by an exception on the ground of fraud. 3It should be considered whether we ought to hold that a loan is not only the payment of money, but, in fact, the delivery of everything which can be lent. The words, however, seem to me to refer to money paid, for the Decree of the Senate says, “Has lent money.” But if a fraud has been committed on the Decree of the Senate, for example, where grain, wine, or oil is lent, so that, these things having been sold, the money obtained from them may be used, relief should be granted to a son under paternal control. 4Where the son was under the control of one party when the loan was made, and is now under that of another, the intention of the Decree of the Senate remains, and an exception will therefore be granted. 5But if it was not the death of the father, but something else which happened to him, through which his civil status was changed, it must be said that the Decree of the Senate will be operative. 6The action should be denied not only to the party who lent the money, but also to his successors. 7Hence, if one person paid the money and another made the stipulation, the exception would be granted against the latter, even though he did not make the payment. But if one or the other of them was not aware that he was under the control of his father, the severe rule that the rights of both are prejudiced, is applicable. This is also the case where two debtors enter into the stipulation. 8Moreover, if I accepted two sons under paternal control as debtors, but thought that one of them was the head of a family; it will make a difference which of them got the money, so that, if I was aware that the one to whom the money went was a son under paternal control, I shall be barred by an exception; but if I did not know into whose hands it came, I will not be barred. 9The Decree of the Senate will apply whether the money was lent at interest, or without it. 10Although the Senate does not state to whom it grants the exception, still, it must be remembered that the heir of a son under paternal control, if he dies the head of a family, and his father, if he dies under paternal control, can make use of the exception. 11Sometimes, however, even though there is ground for the Decree of the Senate, still, an action will be granted against a third party; as, for instance, if a son under paternal control, who is a business manager, borrowed money; for Julianus states in the Twelfth Book that the business manager himself can make use of the exception based on the Decree of the Senate, if suit is brought against him; but the Institorian Action will lie against the party who appointed him. He further says that if the father himself had appointed him to carry on his business, or he was permitted to manage his own peculium the Decree of the Senate would not be available, since he would be held to have contracted with the consent of the father; for if the latter knew that he was transacting business, he may be held to have permitted this also, if he did not expressly forbid it. 12Thus, if he has borrowed money and employed it in his father’s business, the Decree of the Senate will not apply, for he borrowed it for his father and not for himself. But if in the beginning he did not borrow it for this purpose, but afterwards employed it in the business of his father, Julianus says in the Twelfth Book of the Digest that the Decree of the Senate does not apply, and that he must be understood to have received it in the first place with the intention of employing it in his father’s business. He will not, however, be held to have employed it in this manner if he pays to his father, for the settlement of his own debt, money which he has borrowed; and therefore, if his father was not aware of it, the Decree of the Senate will still be operative. 13Where it is stated that the Decree of the Senate does not apply in the case of a person who, being absent for the purpose of prosecuting his studies, borrowed money; it will be applicable if he, when borrowing the money, did not exceed a moderate limit, or, at all events, the amount with which his father was accustomed to provide him. 14Ad Dig. 14,6,7,14Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 373, Note 11.If a son has borrowed money in order to satisfy someone who, if he should bring suit could not be barred by an exception, an exception based on the Decree of the Senate will not be available. 15Again, the Decree of the Senate will not apply if the father begins to pay what the son has borrowed, just as if he ratified the act. 16Ad Dig. 14,6,7,16Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 373, Note 17.If, after he has become the head of a family, he pays part of the debt, the Decree of the Senate will not apply, and he cannot recover what he paid.

8Pau­lus li­bro tri­gen­si­mo ad edic­tum. Cum ta­men a cu­ra­to­re per igno­ran­tiam so­lu­tum sit, re­pe­ti de­bet.

8Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXX. If, however, payment has been made through ignorance by a curator, the amount can be recovered.

9Ul­pia­nus li­bro vi­cen­si­mo no­no ad edic­tum. Sed si pa­ter fa­mi­lias fac­tus rem pig­no­ri de­de­rit, di­cen­dum erit se­na­tus con­sul­ti ex­cep­tio­nem ei de­ne­gan­dam us­que ad pig­no­ris quan­ti­ta­tem. 1Si ab alio do­na­tam si­bi pe­cu­niam fi­lius cre­di­to­ri sol­ve­rit, an pa­ter vin­di­ca­re vel re­pe­te­re pos­sit? et ait Iu­lia­nus, si qui­dem hac con­di­cio­ne ei do­na­ta sit pe­cu­nia, ut cre­di­to­ri sol­vat, vi­de­ri a do­na­to­re pro­fec­tam pro­ti­nus ad cre­di­to­rem et fie­ri num­mos ac­ci­pien­tis: si ve­ro sim­pli­ci­ter ei do­na­vit, alie­na­tio­nem eo­rum fi­lium non ha­buis­se et id­eo, si sol­ve­rit, con­dic­tio­nem pa­tri ex om­ni even­tu com­pe­te­re. 2Hoc se­na­tus con­sul­tum et ad fi­lias quo­que fa­mi­lia­rum per­ti­net nec ad rem per­ti­net, si ad­fir­me­tur or­na­men­ta ex ea pe­cu­nia com­pa­ras­se: nam et ei quo­que qui fi­lio fa­mi­lias cre­di­dit de­cre­to am­plis­si­mi or­di­nis ac­tio de­ne­ga­tur nec in­ter­est, con­sump­ti sint num­mi an ex­stent in pe­cu­lio. mul­to igi­tur ma­gis se­ve­ri­ta­te se­na­tus con­sul­ti eius con­trac­tus im­pro­ba­bi­tur, qui fi­liae fa­mi­lias mu­tuum de­dit. 3Non so­lum fi­lio fa­mi­lias et pa­tri eius suc­cur­ri­tur, ve­rum fi­de­ius­so­ri quo­que et man­da­to­ri eius, qui et ip­si man­da­ti ha­bent re­gres­sum, ni­si for­te do­nan­di ani­mo in­ter­ces­se­runt: tunc enim, cum nul­lum re­gres­sum ha­beant, se­na­tus con­sul­tum lo­cum non ha­be­bit. sed et si non do­nan­di ani­mo, pa­tris ta­men vo­lun­ta­te in­ter­ces­se­runt, to­tus con­trac­tus a pa­tre vi­de­bi­tur com­pro­ba­tus. 4Et hi ta­men, qui pro fi­lio fa­mi­lias si­ne vo­lun­ta­te pa­tris eius in­ter­ces­se­runt, sol­ven­do non re­pe­tent: hoc enim et di­vus Ha­d­ria­nus con­sti­tuit et pot­est di­ci non re­pe­ti­tu­ros. at­quin per­pe­tua ex­cep­tio­ne tu­ti sunt: sed et ip­se fi­lius, et ta­men non re­pe­tit, quia hi de­mum so­lu­tum non re­pe­tunt, qui ob poe­nam cre­di­to­rum ac­tio­ne li­be­ran­tur, non quon­iam ex­one­ra­re eos lex vo­luit. 5Quam­quam au­tem sol­ven­do non re­pe­tant11Die Großausgabe liest re­pe­tunt statt re­pe­tant.,

9Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXIX. Ad Dig. 14,6,9 pr.Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 373, Note 17.But if, when he has become the head of a family, he gives property by way of pledge, it must be said that the exception based on the Decree of the Senate should be refused him, to the extent of the value of the pledge. 1Ad Dig. 14,6,9,1Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 373, Note 16.Where the son pays the creditor money which has been given to him, can a father claim said money as belonging to him, or can he recover it by a personal action? Julianus says that if, in fact, the money was given to him on the condition that he should pay it to the creditor, it must be held to have passed immediately from the donor to the creditor, and to have become the property of him who received it, but if it was merely given to him, the son had no right to dispose of the money, and therefore, if he paid it, an action for its recovery will lie in behalf of the father, in any event. 2This Decree of the Senate has reference also to daughters under paternal control, nor does it signify if they are said to have obtained ornaments with the money; for an action is refused by a Decree of the most eminent Order of the State to a party who has lent money to a son under paternal control; and it makes no difference whether the coins have been consumed, or still exist as part of the peculium. Much more, therefore, should a party who has lent money to a daughter under paternal control have his contract disapproved by the severity of the Decree of the Senate. 3Ad Dig. 14,6,9,3Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 477, Note 9.Relief is not only granted to a son under paternal control and to his father, but also to his surety, and to the party under whose direction he acted, and who themselves may have recourse to the action on mandate, unless they have intervened with the intention of making a gift; for then, as they have no recourse to him, the Decree of the Senate will not be applicable. If, however, the parties intervened, not with the intention of making a gift, but at the wish of the father, the entire contract will be held to have been approved by the latter. 4Those also have intervened in behalf of a son under paternal control without the consent of the father, cannot recover after they have made payment; for this was decreed also by the Divine Hadrian, and it may be said that they will not recover their money. Still, however, they are protected by a perpetual exception, and so is the son himself, but he does not recover, for the reason that those only cannot regain what they have paid who are released from an action by way of penalty on the creditors, and not because the law intended that they should be absolutely discharged from liability. 5Although they cannot recover after having paid,

10Pau­lus li­bro tri­gen­si­mo ad edic­tum. quia na­tu­ra­lis ob­li­ga­tio ma­net,

10Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXX. because the natural obligation remains;

11Ul­pia­nus li­bro vi­cen­si­mo no­no ad edic­tum. ta­men, si non op­po­si­ta ex­cep­tio­ne con­dem­na­ti sunt, uten­tur se­na­tus con­sul­ti ex­cep­tio­ne: et ita Iu­lia­nus scri­bit in ip­so fi­lio fa­mi­lias ex­em­plo mu­lie­ris in­ter­ce­den­tis.

11Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXIX. Still, if not having pleaded an exception, they have judgment rendered against them, they can make use of the exception based on the Decree of the Senate. Julianus stated this in the case of a son who was himself under paternal control, just as in the case of a woman who becomes a surety.

12Pau­lus li­bro tri­gen­si­mo ad edic­tum. Si tan­tum scien­te pa­tre cre­di­tum sit fi­lio, di­cen­dum est ces­sa­re se­na­tus con­sul­tum. sed si ius­se­rit pa­ter fi­lio cre­di, de­in­de igno­ran­te cre­di­to­re mu­ta­ve­rit vo­lun­ta­tem, lo­cus se­na­tus con­sul­to non erit, quon­iam in­itium con­trac­tus spec­tan­dum est.

12Ad Dig. 14,6,12Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 307, Note 3.Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXX. Where money is lent to a son with the mere knowledge of his father, it must be said that the Decree of the Senate is not applicable. But if the father directed the loan to be made to the son, and afterwards changed his mind without the creditor being aware of the fact, there will be no ground for the Decree of the Senate, as the beginning of the contract should be considered.

13Gaius li­bro no­no ad edic­tum pro­vin­cia­le. Si quod alii mu­tuum de­di­mus a fi­lio fa­mi­lias no­van­di cau­sa sti­pu­le­mur, non es­se im­pe­d­imen­to se­na­tus con­sul­tum Iu­lia­nus scri­bit.

13Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book IX. If we enter into a stipulation with a son under paternal control, for the payment of a loan made to a third party for the purpose of renewal, Julianus says that the Decree of the Senate will be no impediment.

14Iu­lia­nus li­bro duo­de­ci­mo di­ges­to­rum. Fi­lium ha­beo et ex eo ne­po­tem: ne­po­ti meo cre­di­tum est ius­su pa­tris eius: quae­si­tum est, an con­tra se­na­tus con­sul­tum fie­ret. di­xi, et­iam­si ver­bis se­na­tus con­sul­ti fi­lii con­ti­ne­ren­tur, ta­men et in per­so­na ne­po­tis idem ser­va­ri de­be­re: ius­sum au­tem hu­ius pa­tris non ef­fi­ce­re, quo mi­nus con­tra se­na­tus con­sul­tum cre­di­tum ex­is­ti­ma­re­tur, cum ip­se in ea cau­sa es­set, ut pe­cu­niam mu­tuam in­vi­to pa­tre suo ac­ci­pe­re non pos­sit.

14Julianus, Digest, Book XII. I have a son, and a grandson by him; a loan was made to my grandson under the direction of his father, the question arose whether this was done in violation of the Decree of the Senate? I stated that even though sons are included in the terms of the Decree of the Senate, still, the same rule should be observed also in the case of a grandson; but the direction of his father will not prevent the loan of the money from being considered as made in violation of the Decree of the Senate, as he himself is in such a position that he cannot borrow money if his father is unwilling.

15Mar­cia­nus li­bro quar­to de­ci­mo in­sti­tu­tio­num. Ni­hil in­ter­est, quis fi­lio fa­mi­lias cre­di­de­rit, utrum pri­va­tus an ci­vi­tas: nam in ci­vi­ta­te quo­que se­na­tus con­sul­tum lo­cum ha­be­re di­vi Se­ve­rus et An­to­ni­nus re­scrip­se­runt.

15Marcianus, Institutes, Book XIV. It makes no difference who has made a loan to a son under paternal control, whether it is a private individual or a city; for the Divine Severus and Antoninus stated in Rescript that the Decree of the Senate is also operative in the case of a city.

16Pau­lus li­bro quar­to re­spon­so­rum. Si fi­lius fa­mi­lias ab­sen­te pa­tre, qua­si ex man­da­to eius pe­cu­niam ac­ce­pe­rit, ca­vis­set et ad pa­trem lit­te­ras emi­sit, ut eam pe­cu­niam in pro­vin­cia sol­ve­ret, de­bet pa­ter, si ac­tum fi­lii sui im­pro­bat, con­ti­nuo tes­ta­tio­nem in­ter­po­ne­re con­tra­riae vo­lun­ta­tis.

16Paulus, Opinions, Book IV. If a son under paternal control during the absence of his father, borrows money as having received a mandate from his father, and enters into an obligation, and sends letters to his father to pay the money in a province; his father, if he disapproves of the act of his son, should immediately send a statement of his wish to the contrary.

17Idem li­bro se­cun­do sen­ten­tia­rum. Fi­lius fa­mi­lias si in id ac­ce­pe­rit mu­tuam pe­cu­niam, ut eam pro so­ro­re sua in do­tem da­ret, pa­ter eius de in rem ver­so ac­tio­ne te­ne­bi­tur: ip­si enim mor­tua in ma­tri­mo­nio puel­la re­pe­ti­tio do­tis da­tur.

17The Same, Sentences, Book II. Where a son under paternal control borrows money for the purpose of giving it as a dowry for his sister, his father will be liable to an action for property employed in his affairs; for he will have a right to recover the dowry if the girl dies during marriage.

18Ve­nu­leius li­bro se­cun­do sti­pu­la­tio­num. Cre­di­to­rem fi­lii fa­mi­lias mor­tuo eo fi­de­ius­so­rem ac­ci­pe­re non pos­se Iu­lia­nus scri­bit, quia nul­la ob­li­ga­tio aut ci­vi­lis aut na­tu­ra­lis su­per­sit, cui fi­de­ius­sor ac­ce­dat: pla­ne a pa­tre eius ac­tio­nis no­mi­ne, quae de pe­cu­lio ad­ver­sus eum com­pe­tat, fi­de­ius­so­rem rec­te ac­ci­pi.

18Venuleius, Stipulations, Book II. Julianus states that the creditor of a son under paternal control cannot receive a surety after the death of the latter, because no civil or natural obligation with which the surety is connected survives; but it is evident that a surety can be properly received from the father on account of the action on the peculium which may be brought against him.

19Pom­po­nius li­bro sep­ti­mo ex va­riis lec­tio­ni­bus. Iu­lia­nus scri­bit ex­cep­tio­nem se­na­tus con­sul­ti Ma­ce­do­nia­ni nul­li ob­sta­re, ni­si qui sci­ret aut sci­re po­tuis­set fi­lium fa­mi­lias es­se eum cui cre­de­bat.

19Pomponius, Various Passages, Book VII. Julianus states that an exception based on the Macedonian Decree of the Senate offers no hindrance to anyone except to a party who knew, or could have known, that he to whom he made the loan was a son under paternal control.

20Idem li­bro quin­to se­na­tus con­sul­to­rum. Si is, cui, dum in po­tes­ta­te pa­tris es­set, mu­tua pe­cu­nia da­ta fue­rat, pa­ter fa­mi­lias fac­tus per igno­ran­tiam fac­ti no­va­tio­ne fac­ta eam pe­cu­niam ex­pro­mi­sit, si pe­ta­tur ex ea sti­pu­la­tio­ne, in fac­tum ex­ci­pien­dum erit.

20Ad Dig. 14,6,20Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 288, Note 11.The Same, On the Decrees of the Senate, Book V. If a person to whom money was lent while he was under the control of his father, after he himself becomes the head of the family, through ignorance makes a promise of the money in such a way that a new obligation is created, and suit is brought on the stipulation, an exception founded on the facts should be filed.