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. XXV1,
De inpensis in res dotales factis
Liber vicesimus quintus
I.

De inpensis in res dotales factis

(Concerning Expenses Incurred With Reference to Dotal Property.)

1Ul­pia­nus li­bro tri­ge­si­mo sex­to ad Sa­binum. Im­pen­sa­rum quae­dam sunt ne­ces­sa­riae, quae­dam uti­les, quae­dam ve­ro vo­lup­ta­riae. 1Ne­ces­sa­riae hae di­cun­tur, quae ha­bent in se ne­ces­si­ta­tem in­pen­den­di: ce­te­rum si nul­la fuit ne­ces­si­tas, alio iu­re ha­ben­tur. 2In ne­ces­sa­riis im­pen­sis hoc scien­dum est eas de­mum in­pen­sas do­tem mi­nue­re, quae in do­tem fac­tae sunt: ce­te­rum si in do­tem fac­tae non sint, non ha­bent in se re­pu­ta­tio­nem. 3In­ter ne­ces­sa­rias in­pen­sas es­se La­beo ait mo­les in ma­re vel flu­men pro­iec­tas. sed et si pis­tri­num vel hor­reum ne­ces­sa­rio fac­tum sit, in ne­ces­sa­riis im­pen­sis ha­ben­dum ait. pro­in­de Ful­ci­nius in­quit, si ae­di­fi­cium ruens quod ha­be­re mu­lie­ri uti­le erat re­fe­ce­rit, aut si oli­ve­ta re­iec­ta re­stau­ra­ve­rit, vel ex sti­pu­la­tio­ne dam­ni in­fec­ti ne com­mit­ta­tur prae­sti­te­rit,

1Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXIX. Expenses are either necessary, useful, or incurred for purposes of pleasure. 1Those expenses are called necessary which are made through necessity. Where, however, no necessity exists, they come under another head. 2With reference to necessary expenses, it must be remembered that they only decrease the dowry when they are incurred on account of it. When, however, they are not incurred with reference to the dowry, they cannot be taken out of it. 3Labeo says that dikes built in the sea or river come under the head of necessary expenses. Where a mill or a granary, which is required, is built, it should be included among necessary expenses. Hence Falcinius says that if the husband should rebuild a house which was useful to his wife, and which was falling into ruin; or if he should replant an olive-orchard, where the trees had blown down; or if he should enter into a stipulation providing against the occurrence of threatened injury:

2Pau­lus li­bro sep­ti­mo ad Sa­binum. vel in va­le­tu­di­nem ser­vo­rum im­pen­de­rit,

2Paulus, On Sabinus, Book VII. Or should expend money for the cure of slaves who are ill;

3Ul­pia­nus li­bro tri­ge­si­mo sex­to ad Sa­binum. vel si vi­tes pro­pa­ga­ve­rit vel ar­bo­res cu­ra­ve­rit vel se­mi­na­ria pro uti­li­ta­te agri fe­ce­rit, ne­ces­sa­rias in­pen­sas fe­cis­se vi­de­bi­tur. 1Nos ge­ne­ra­li­ter de­fi­nie­mus mul­tum in­ter­es­se, ad per­pe­tuam uti­li­ta­tem agri vel ad eam quae non ad prae­sen­tis tem­po­ris per­ti­neat, an ve­ro ad prae­sen­tis an­ni fruc­tum: si in prae­sen­tis, cum fruc­ti­bus hoc com­pen­san­dum: si ve­ro non fuit ad prae­sens tan­tum ap­ta ero­ga­tio, ne­ces­sa­riis in­pen­sis com­pu­tan­dum.

3Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXVI. Or if he should plant vines, or takes care of trees or nurseries for the benefit of the land, he will be held to have incurred necessary expenses. 1Generally speaking, we make a distinction, and in fact there is much difference where expenses are incurred to the permanent advantage of the land, and where this is done only for the present time, or on account of the crop for the present year. In the latter instance, the expenses ought to be set off against the crop, but where they have not been incurred temporarily, they should be reckoned among those that are necessary.

4Pau­lus li­bro tri­ge­si­mo sex­to ad edic­tum. Et in to­tum id vi­de­tur ne­ces­sa­riis im­pen­sis con­ti­ne­ri, quod si a ma­ri­to omis­sum sit, iu­dex tan­ti eum dam­na­bit, quan­ti mu­lie­ris in­ter­fue­rit eas im­pen­sas fie­ri. sed hoc dif­fert, quod fac­ta­rum ra­tio ha­be­tur, et­si res ma­le ges­ta est, non fac­ta­rum ita, si ob id res ma­le ges­ta est: ita­que si ful­se­rit in­su­lam ruen­tem ea­que ex­us­ta sit, in­pen­sas con­se­qui­tur, si non fe­ce­rit, de­us­ta ea ni­hil prae­sta­bit.

4Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXXVI. Upon the whole the judge shall hold the husband responsible for whatever was omitted by him, to the extent that it was to the interest of his wife to have such expenses incurred, as they are included in those that are necessary, but with this difference, namely: an account of the expenses will be allowed, if the property has not been preserved, and he will not be responsible where they were not incurred, unless the property was destroyed in consequence. Therefore, if he should support a house which is about to fall, and it is burned, he can recover the expenses; but if he did not do this, and the house should be burned, he will not be liable for anything.

5Ul­pia­nus li­bro tri­ge­si­mo sex­to ad Sa­binum. Quod di­ci­tur ne­ces­sa­rias im­pen­sas do­tem mi­nue­re, sic erit ac­ci­pien­dum, ut et Pom­po­nius ait, non ut ip­sae res cor­po­ra­li­ter de­mi­nuan­tur, ut pu­ta fun­dus vel quod­cum­que aliud cor­pus: et­enim ab­sur­dum est de­mi­nutio­nem cor­po­ris fie­ri prop­ter pe­cu­niam. ce­te­rum haec ef­fi­ciet11Die Großausgabe liest res fa­ciet statt ef­fi­ciet. de­si­ne­re es­se fun­dum do­ta­lem vel par­tem eius. ma­ne­bit igi­tur ma­ri­tus in re­rum de­ten­ta­tio­nem, do­nec ei sa­tis­fiat: non enim ip­so iu­re cor­po­rum, sed do­tis fit de­mi­nutio. ubi er­go ad­mit­ti­mus de­mi­nutio­nem do­tis ip­so iu­re fie­ri? ubi non sunt cor­po­ra, sed pe­cu­nia: nam in pe­cu­nia ra­tio ad­mit­tit de­mi­nutio­nem fie­ri. pro­in­de si aes­ti­ma­ta cor­po­ra in do­tem da­ta sint, ip­so iu­re dos de­mi­nue­tur per in­pen­sas ne­ces­sa­rias. hoc de his in­pen­sis dic­tum est, quae in do­tem ip­sam fac­tae sint: ce­te­rum si ex­trin­se­cus, non im­mi­nuent do­tem. 1Sed si in­pen­sis ne­ces­sa­riis mu­lier sa­tis­fe­ce­rit, utrum dos cres­cat an ve­ro di­ci­mus ex in­te­gro vi­de­ri do­tem? et ego, ubi pe­cu­nia est, non du­bi­to do­tem vi­de­ri cre­vis­se. 2Si dos to­ta so­lu­ta sit non ha­bi­ta ra­tio­ne in­pen­sa­rum, vi­den­dum est, an con­di­ci pos­sit id, quod pro im­pen­sis ne­ces­sa­riis com­pen­sa­ri so­let. et Mar­cel­lus ad­mit­tit con­dic­tio­ni es­se lo­cum: sed et­si ple­ri­que ne­gent, ta­men prop­ter ae­qui­ta­tem Mar­cel­li sen­ten­tia ad­mit­ten­da est. 3Uti­les au­tem im­pen­sae sunt, quas ma­ri­tus uti­li­ter fe­cit, rem­que me­lio­rem uxo­ris fe­ce­rit, hoc est do­tem,

5Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXVI. Where it is stated that necessary expenses diminish the dowry, this (as Pomponius says) must be understood to mean not that the property itself is actually diminished, as for instance, land or any other dotal property, for it is absurd to hold that any diminution of the same can occur on account of money expended; but it signifies that the said property ceases to become dotal either wholly, or in part. Hence the husband will remain in possession of it until his claim is satisfied, for no diminution of the same is effected, by operation of law, but merely a diminution of the dowry takes place. When, therefore, shall we admit that a diminution of the dowry occurs by operation of law? This will be the case where the dowry consists of other property than money, for it is reasonable to admit that a diminution of money can take place. Hence, if certain property, after being appraised, is given by way of dowry, the dowry will be diminished by operation of law to the amount of the necessary expenses incurred. This is said to be applicable to expenses incurred with reference to the dowry itself, but if they are made with reference to other matters they do not diminish the dowry. 1Where the wife pays such necessary expenses, can we say that the dowry is increased, or should it be held to remain unimpaired? Where the dowry consists of money, I have no doubt that it should be held to have increased. 2Where the entire dowry is paid without any account having been taken of expenses, it must be considered whether the amount which it is customary to set off against necessary expenses can be recovered by a personal action. Marcellus holds that there is ground for such action, and although many authorities deny that this is the case, still, on account of equity, the opinion of Marcellus should be upheld. 3Useful expenses are those which the husband incurs for the benefit of the property, and which improve the property of the wife, that is to say, her dowry.

6Pau­lus li­bro sep­ti­mo ad Sa­binum. vel­uti si no­vel­le­tum in fun­do fac­tum sit, aut si in do­mo pis­tri­num aut ta­ber­nam ad­ie­ce­rit, si ser­vos ar­tes do­cue­rit.

6Paulus, On Sabinus, Book VII. For instance, where a new plantation is made on the land, or where the husband adds a bakery or a shop to the house, or teaches the slaves some trade.

7Ul­pia­nus li­bro tri­ge­si­mo sex­to ad Sa­binum. Vo­lup­ta­riae au­tem in­pen­sae sunt, quas ma­ri­tus ad vo­lup­ta­tem fe­cit et quae spe­cies ex­or­nant. qua­rum uti­les non qui­dem mi­nuunt ip­so iu­re do­tem, ve­rum­ta­men ha­bent ex­ac­tio­nem.

7Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXVI. Expenses for the purpose of pleasure are those which the husband incurs to that end, and which are an ornament to the property. Such expenses do not diminish the dowry by operation of law, as those which are useful do, nevertheless, they can be demanded.

8Pau­lus li­bro sep­ti­mo ad Sa­binum. Uti­lium no­mi­ne ita fa­cien­dam de­duc­tio­nem qui­dam di­cunt, si vo­lun­ta­te mu­lie­ris fac­tae sint: in­iquum enim es­se com­pel­li mu­lie­rem rem ven­de­re, ut im­pen­sas in eam fac­tas sol­ve­ret, si ali­un­de sol­ve­re non pot­est: quod sum­mam ha­bet ae­qui­ta­tis ra­tio­nem.

8Paulus, On Sabinus, Book VII. Certain authorities hold that a deduction should be made on the ground of useful expenses only where they are incurred with the consent of the wife; for it would be unjust for her to be compelled to sell the property in order to pay the expenses incurred with reference to it, if she is unable to meet them otherwise. This opinion is based upon the highest principles of justice.

9Ul­pia­nus li­bro tri­ge­si­mo sex­to ad Sa­binum. Pro vo­lup­ta­riis im­pen­sis, ni­si pa­ra­ta sit mu­lier pa­ti ma­ri­tum tol­len­tem, ex­ac­tio­nem pa­ti­tur. nam si vult ha­be­re mu­lier, red­de­re ea quae im­pen­sa sunt de­bet ma­ri­to: aut si non vult, pa­ti de­bet tol­len­tem, si mo­do re­ci­piant se­pa­ra­tio­nem: ce­te­rum si non re­ci­piant, re­lin­quen­dae sunt: ita enim per­mit­ten­dum est ma­ri­to au­fer­re or­na­tum quem po­suit, si fu­tu­rum est eius quod abs­tu­lit.

9Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXVI. The husband is permitted to demand from his wife expenses incurred for pleasure, if she does not permit him to remove what caused them. For, if the wife desires to retain such improvements, she should refund the amount expended by her husband; or if she does not wish to retain them, she should permit him to remove them, provided they admit of separation. If, however, they cannot be separated, they should be left; for the husband is not allowed to take away any ornaments which he has added to the property, unless by doing so he can make them his own.

10Pau­lus li­bro tri­ge­si­mo sex­to ad edic­tum. Quod si hae res, in qui­bus im­pen­sae fac­tae sunt, pro­mer­ca­les fue­rint, ta­les im­pen­sae non vo­lup­ta­riae, sed uti­les sunt.

10Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXXVI. If the property on account of which the expenses were incurred is for sale, such expenses are not classed under the head of pleasure, but of utility.

11Ul­pia­nus li­bro tri­ge­si­mo sex­to ad Sa­binum. In vo­lup­ta­riis au­tem Aris­to scri­bit nec si vo­lun­ta­te mu­lie­ris fac­tae sunt, ex­ac­tio­nem pa­re­re. 1Do­na­tio­nem in­ter vi­rum et uxo­rem cir­ca im­pen­sas quo­que in­hi­bi­tam ve­re Sa­b­inus scri­bit.

11Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXVI. Aristo, however, says with reference to expenses incurred for pleasure, that the husband cannot demand them, even if they have been made with the consent of his wife. 1Sabinus very properly holds that gifts which are prohibited between husband and wife also extend to expenses incurred on account of the dowry.

12Pau­lus li­bro sep­ti­mo ad Sa­binum. Om­ni­no et in ae­di­fi­can­dis ae­di­bus et in re­po­nen­dis pro­pa­gan­dis­que vi­neis et in va­le­tu­di­ne man­ci­pio­rum mo­di­cas im­pen­sas non de­bet ar­bi­ter cu­ra­re: alio­quin neg­otio­rum ges­to­rum po­tius quam de do­te iu­di­cium vi­de­bi­tur.

12Paulus, On Sabinus, Book VII. A judge should not pay any attention to moderate expenses incurred for the purpose of building houses, or for planting and cultivating vines, or for the treatment of slaves who are ill; otherwise a judicial decision would rather seem to have reference to the transaction of business than to matters connected with the dowry.

13Idem li­bro sep­ti­mo bre­vium. Ne­que sti­pen­dium ne­que tri­bu­tum ob do­ta­lem fun­dum prae­sti­ta ex­ige­re vir a mu­lie­re pot­est: onus enim fruc­tuum haec im­pen­dia sunt.

13The Same, Abridgments, Book VII. A husband cannot collect from his wife any tax or tribute paid on account of dotal lands, for these charges should be paid out of the crops.

14Ul­pia­nus li­bro quin­to re­gu­la­rum. Im­pen­sae ne­ces­sa­riae sunt, qui­bus non fac­tis dos im­mi­nui­tur, vel­uti ag­ge­res fa­ce­re, flu­mi­na aver­te­re, ae­di­fi­cia ve­te­ra ful­ci­re item­que re­fi­ce­re, ar­bo­res in lo­cum mor­tua­rum re­po­ne­re. 1Uti­les sunt vel­uti pe­co­ra prae­diis im­po­ne­re, id est ster­co­ra­re. 2Vo­lup­tuo­sae sunt ba­li­nea ex­strue­re.

14Ulpianus, Rules, Book V. Necessary expenses are those through which the dowry is diminished, as, for instance, those incurred for the building of dikes, the diversion of streams, the supporting and repairing of old houses, and the replacing of trees where others have died. 1Useful expenses are, for example, such as placing cattle in fields for the purpose of manuring them. 2Expenses incurred for pleasure are, for instance, the construction of baths.

15Ne­ra­tius li­bro se­cun­do mem­bra­na­rum. Quod di­ci­tur im­pen­sas, quae in res do­ta­les ne­ces­sa­rio fac­tae sunt, do­tem de­mi­nue­re, ita in­ter­pre­tan­dum est, ut, si quid ex­tra tu­te­lam ne­ces­sa­riam in res do­ta­les im­pen­sum est, id in ea cau­sa sit: nam tue­ri res do­ta­les vir suo sump­tu de­bet. alio­quin tam ci­ba­ria do­ta­li­bus man­ci­piis da­ta et quae­vis mo­di­ca ae­di­fi­cio­rum do­ta­lium re­fec­tio et agro­rum quo­que cul­tu­ra do­tem mi­nuent: om­nia enim haec in spe­cie ne­ces­sa­ria­rum in­pen­sa­rum sunt. sed ip­sae res ita prae­sta­re in­tel­le­gun­tur, ut non tam in­pen­das in eas, quam de­duc­to eo mi­nus ex his per­ce­pis­se vi­dea­ris. quae au­tem im­pen­dia se­cun­dum eam di­stinc­tio­nem ex do­te de­du­ci de­beant, non tam fa­ci­le in uni­ver­sum de­fi­ni­ri, quam per sin­gu­la ex ge­ne­re et mag­ni­tu­di­ne in­pen­dio­rum aes­ti­ma­ri pos­sunt.

15Neratius, Parchments, Book II. Where it is stated that necessary expenses incurred with reference to dotal property diminish the dowry, this must be understood to mean where anything is expended on such property over and above what is necessary for its preservation, that is to say, for its benefit. For a man should preserve dotal property at his own expense; otherwise, provisions furnished to dotal slaves, and any moderate repairs of buildings, or even the cultivation of the soil, would diminish the dowry; for all these things are included under the head of necessary expenses. The property itself, however, is understood to yield a certain income, so that you appear not to have expended money upon it, but, after having deducted the expenses, you have received a smaller return therefrom. It is not easy, generally speaking, to decide in accordance with this distinction what expenses should be deducted from the dowry, but they can be estimated in detail according to their nature and amount.

16Idem li­bro sex­to mem­bra­na­rum. Et an­te om­nia quae­cum­que in­pen­sae quae­ren­do­rum fruc­tuum cau­sa fac­tae erunt, quam­quam eae­dem et­iam co­len­di cau­sa fiant id­eo­que non so­lum ad per­ci­pien­dos fruc­tus, sed et­iam ad con­ser­van­dam ip­sam rem spe­ciem­que eius ne­ces­sa­riae sint, eas vir ex suo fa­cit nec ul­lam ha­bet eo no­mi­ne ex do­te de­duc­tio­nem.

16The Same, Parchments, Book VI. And, by all means, any expenses incurred by the husband in harvesting the crops must be paid by him out of his own purse, even though these expenses may have been incurred for the purpose of cultivating the land; and therefore not only those made in gathering the crops are included but also such as are necessary for preserving the property itself, and the husband is entitled to no deduction from the dowry on this account.