1Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book V. The term “to give a surety” is derived from the same origin as to furnish security, for as “to satisfy” is said of him whose wish we comply with, so “to give security” has reference to our adversary when he provides for what is desired by us, and when under this name we make him secure by giving sureties.

2Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book V. The surety offered for the appearance of a party in court is considered to be a man of property, not only on account of his means, but also with reference to the ease with which he may be sued. 1When anyone gives a surety for his appearance in court to a person who is not capable of bringing an action, the giving of the surety is of no effect. 2The Prætor says: “Where anyone summons to court his father, his patron, his patroness, the children or parents of his patron or patroness, or his own children, or anyone whom he may have under his control, or his wife, or his daughter-in-law, any surety whosoever for their appearance in court shall be accepted”. 3Where the Prætor says: “or his own children”; we understand that those are meant who are descended from the female sex; and we extend this privilege also to the father, not only when he is his own master, but also when he is under anyone’s control; and this Pomponius also stated. A son can be given as a surety by his father, even though he may be under the control of someone else. By “daughter-in-law” we must also understand granddaughter-in-law, and so on, for succeeding generations. 4Where the Prætor says: “Any surety whosoever shall be accepted”, this merely relates to his financial resources, that is to say, even if he is not wealthy. 5When the Prætor grants an action against a surety who promised that a party would appear in court, he does so for the amount of the property in question. But whether this has reference to the actual value of the article, or a definite sum, is something which we must examine. It is the better opinion that a surety is liable for the actual value, unless he became bound for a certain sum.

3Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book I. Whether the action is for double, triple, or fourfold damages, we hold that one and the same surety is liable for the entire amount, for the reason that the property is understood to be worth that much.

4Paulus, On the Edict, Book IV. If the party who gave a surety for his appearance in court should die, the Prætor ought not order him to be produced. Still, if he should ignorantly order this to be done, or if the party should die after his order, and before the day set for his appearance, no action can be permitted. If he died after the day set for his appearance, or loses his right of citizenship, a suit can legally be brought against him.

5Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book I. Where anyone becomes the surety for a party who has already been condemned, and afterwards died, or has lost his Roman citizenship, an action can, nevertheless, properly be brought against the surety. 1When anyone refuses to accept a sufficient surety for the appearance of another in court, who, it is perfectly evident, is solvent; or if there is any doubt on this point and he is proved to be solvent, an action for injury can be brought against him; for, indeed, it is not an ordinary wrong for a man to be brought into court who can furnish a perfectly solvent surety. The surety who was not accepted can also bring suit for the injury done to himself.

6Paulus, On the Edict, Book XII. Where a bond or an undertaking is given, which is defective, it is held that it is no bond at all.

7Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XIV. If the solvency of the surety is not denied, it should be said that he has the privilege of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court, and as the plaintiff may fear that he will make use of his right; we must ascertain what the law is. The Divine Pius, (as Pomponius states in his Book of Epistles, Marcellus in the Third Book of the Digest, and Papinianus in the Third Book of the Questions), set forth in a rescript to Cornelius Proculus, that the plaintiff might justly reject such a surety, but that if he was unable to find any other, he could warn him not to use his privilege, if suit was brought. 1When security is required, and the defendant cannot readily obtain it where the action is brought, he can be heard, if he is ready to give security in another city of the same province. Where, however, the security is voluntary, he cannot have recourse elsewhere; for he who has imposed upon himself the necessity for security does not deserve such consideration. 2Where security has not been given, and the property for which it is required is personal, and the party is liable to suspicion; the article should be deposited in court if the judge approves of this, or security is furnished, or the suit is brought to an end.

8Paulus, On the Edict, Book XIV. It is customary for litigants to agree upon the day mentioned in the stipulation, and if this is not done, Pedius thinks that it is in the power of the stipulator to appoint a reasonable time to be determined by the judge. 1Where anyone offers a woman as a surety, he is not held to have given a sufficient one; nor can a soldier, or a minor under twenty-five years of age be accepted, unless these persons act as sureties for themselves; as, for instance, where they act as their own agents. Some authorities indeed, think that where dotal land is claimed by a husband, the wife can become a surety on her own account. 2Where a person who, before judgment was rendered, offered himself as surety that it would be paid, is ascertained to be a slave; the plaintiff is entitled to relief and a new bond must be executed. The same consideration must be shown to a minor under twenty-five years of age, and probably to a woman, on account of her inexperience. 3If the surety for the payment of the judgment becomes the heir of the stipulator, or the stipulator that of the surety, a new bond must be executed. 4Guardians and curators who are obliged to give security for the property of their wards, must be sent before the municipal magistrates, because the security is necessary. The same rule applies where property, the usufruct in which has been created, is to be restored to the owner; and also to the case of a legatee, who must give security that, “If he is evicted from the estate, he will restore the legacies and whatever excess he may have received, under the Falcidian Law”. The heir also has a right to be heard in a case where he is sent before a municipal magistrate for the purpose of giving security to legatees. It is clear that the heir, if through his own fault a legatee has already been placed in possession and has failed to provide security, petitions for the legatee to surrender possession, stating that he is ready to give security in a municipal town, he shall not be permitted to do so. The case is different, however, if the legatee had already been placed in possession without the negligence or fraud of the heir. 5A party is ordered to swear that he is not actuated by feelings of malevolence when he summons his adversary to a municipal town, for fear that perhaps he may have the intention of annoying him when it is possible for him to give security at Rome. Some persons, however, are excused from taking this oath, as for instance, parents and patrons. He, however, who is sent before the municipal magistrates must swear: “that he cannot give security at Rome, and that he can do so in the place where he asks to be sent, and that he does not do this for the purpose of annoying his adversary”. He cannot be compelled to swear, “that he is not able to give security elsewhere than in that place”, because if he can not obtain security at Rome and can do so in several other places, he will be forced to perjure himself. 6This permission then can be obtained when just cause seems to exist, but what course should be pursued if the party previously refused to give security in the municipal town? In this instance he ought not to obtain permission, since it was his own fault that he did not give security in the place where he now desires to go.

9Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book V. Where an arbiter is appointed for the examination of sureties and his award appears to be unjust to either party, an appeal can be taken from it, just as it can be done from the decision of a judge.

10Paulus, On the Edict, Book LXXV. If the sureties are declared to be sufficient by the arbiter, they must be considered as solvent, because otherwise a complaint could be brought before a competent judge. 1Where a party, for any reason, rejects sureties approved by the arbiter, or accepts others who have been rejected, much more should he be content with those whom he accepted of his own will. If, in the meantime, any great calamity should befall the sureties, or they should be reduced to great poverty, where proper cause is shown other security must be given.

11Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXXV. Julianus says: “If before I direct you to bring a suit for the recovery of land, and being about to do this, you take sufficient security, and afterwards you begin the suit under my direction, the sureties will be liable”.

12The Same, On the Edict, Book LXXVII. It is agreed by all authorities that where an heir is appointed under a condition, and has possession of the estate during the existence of the condition, he must give security to the substituted heir for the delivery of the estate. If the condition should not be fulfilled, the substituted heir acquiring the estate can claim the same, and if he obtains it, an action can be brought on the bond. The Prætor himself, where proper cause is shown, is frequently accustomed to order the stipulation to be made before the condition is fulfilled, and before the day arrives when the petition can be filed.

13Paulus, On the Edict, Book LXXV. Where several parties are substituted, a bond must be given for each one of them.

14The Same, Opinions, Book II. The son of a family undertakes the defence of his father during his absence; I ask whether he should give security for the payment of the judgment? Paulus replies that anyone who acts in defence of an absent person, even though he be his son or his father, must furnish security to the party asking it under the terms of the Edict.

15Macer, On Appeals, Book I. It must be remembered that the possessors of real property are not compelled to give security. 1Ad Dig. 2,8,15,1Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 154, Note 7.By such a possessor is to be understood one who possesses land either in the country or in the city, either wholly, or in part. He also is understood to be a possessor who holds land subject to the payment of rent to the State, that is, an emphyteutic estate; and he also who has the mere ownership is considered to be a possessor. Ulpianus, however, stated that he who has only the usufruct, is not a possessor. 2A creditor who has accepted a pledge is not a possessor, even though he may have possession of the article, or whether it has been delivered to him, or is held by the debtor at the will of the creditor. 3Where real property is given by way of dowry, both the wife and the husband are understood to be possessors on account of their possession of said property. 4The case is different with a party who has the right of personal action for the recovery of land. 5Guardians, whether their wards or they themselves are in possession, are considered possessors; and the same rule applies where only one of several guardians is in possession. 6If you bring suit against me for land of which I am in possession; and judgment is rendered in your favor, and I take an appeal; am I still to be considered the possessor of said land? It may be very properly stated that I am the possessor of the same, because I still hold it; nor does it make any difference that I can subsequently be deprived of my possession. 7To ascertain whether a party is, or is not a possessor, the time when a bond was required must be considered; for just as the party is none the worse who has sold his possession after giving a bond, so he who takes possession after a bond has been executed obtains no advantage.

16Paulus, On the Edict, Book VI. He who has promised under oath to appear in court, is not held to have committed perjury if he fails to do so for some good reason.