De senatus consulto Macedoniano
(Concerning the Macedonian Decree of the Senate.)
1 Ulpianus 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.
1 Ulpianus, 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. 3Any 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.
2 Idem libro sexagensimo quarto ad edictum. Usque ad quantitatem castrensis peculii, cum filii familias in castrensi peculio vice patrum familiarum fungantur.
2 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.
3 Idem 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:
3 The 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. 3Only 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;
4 Scaevola libro secundo quaestionum. quia quod volgo dicitur filio familias credi non licere, non ad verba referendum est, sed ad numerationem.
4 Scævola, 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.
5 Paulus libro tertio quaestionum. Ergo hic et in solidum damnabitur, non in id quod facere potest.
5 Paulus, 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.
6 Scaevola 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.
6 Scævola, 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.
7 Ulpianus 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.
7 Ulpianus, 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. 14If 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. 16If, 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.
8 Paulus libro trigensimo ad edictum. Cum tamen a curatore per ignorantiam solutum sit, repeti debet.
8 Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXX. If, however, payment has been made through ignorance by a curator, the amount can be recovered.
9 Ulpianus 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 [ed. maior repetunt] <ed. minor repetant>,
9 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXIX. 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. 1Where 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. 3Relief 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,
10 Paulus libro trigensimo ad edictum. quia naturalis obligatio manet,
10 Paulus, On the Edict, Booh XXX. because the natural obligation remains;
11 Ulpianus 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.
11 Ulpianus, 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.
12 Paulus 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.
12 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.
13 Gaius libro nono ad edictum provinciale. Si quod alii mutuum dedimus a filio familias novandi causa stipulemur, non esse impedimento senatus consultum Iulianus scribit.
13 Gaius, 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.
14 Iulianus 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.
14 Julianus, 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.
15 Marcianus 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.
15 Marcianus, 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.
16 Paulus 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.
16 Paulus, 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.
17 Idem 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.
17 The 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.
18 Venuleius 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.
18 Venuleius, 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.
19 Pomponius 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.
19 Pomponius, 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.
20 Idem 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.
20 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.