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. XXVII6,
Quod falso tutore auctore gestum esse dicatur
Liber vicesimus septimus
VI.

Quod falso tutore auctore gestum esse dicatur

(Concerning Business Transacted Under the Authority of a False Guardian.)

1Ul­pia­nus li­bro duo­de­ci­mo ad edic­tum. Hu­ius edic­ti ae­qui­tas non est amb­igua, ne con­tra­hen­tes de­ci­pian­tur, dum fal­sus tu­tor ad­hi­be­tur. 1Ver­ba au­tem edic­ti haec sunt. 2‘Quod eo auc­to­re’ in­quit ‘qui tu­tor non fue­rit’. ver­bis edic­ti mul­ta de­sunt: quid enim si fuit tu­tor, is ta­men fuit qui auc­to­ri­ta­tem ac­com­mo­da­re non po­tuit? pu­ta fu­rio­sus vel ad aliam re­gio­nem da­tus. 3Sed Pom­po­nius li­bro tri­gen­si­mo scri­bit in­ter­dum quam­vis a non tu­to­re ges­tum est, non per­ti­ne­re ad hanc par­tem edic­ti: quid enim si duo tu­to­res, al­ter fal­sus, al­ter ve­rus auc­to­ri­ta­tem ac­com­mo­da­ve­rint, non­ne va­le­bit quod ges­tum est? 4Item hoc edic­tum li­cet sin­gu­la­ri­ter scrip­tum sit, si ta­men plu­res in­ter­ve­ne­rint, qui tu­to­res non erant, ta­men lo­cum ha­be­re de­be­re Pom­po­nius li­bro tri­ge­si­mo scri­bit. 5Idem Pom­po­nius scri­bit, et­iam­si pro tu­to­re neg­otia ge­rens auc­to­ri­ta­tem ac­com­mo­da­ve­rit, ni­hi­lo mi­nus hoc edic­tum lo­cum ha­be­re, ni­si for­te prae­tor de­cre­vit ra­tum se ha­bi­tu­rum id, quod his auc­to­ri­bus ges­tum est: tunc enim va­le­bit per prae­to­ris tui­tio­nem, non ip­so iu­re. 6Ait prae­tor: ‘si id ac­tor igno­ra­vit, da­bo in in­te­grum re­sti­tu­tio­nem’. scien­ti non sub­ve­nit, me­ri­to, quon­iam ip­se se de­ce­pit.

1Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XII. The justice of this Edict is in no respect ambiguous, for it was framed to prevent the contracting parties from being deceived through the intervention of a false guardian. 1The following are the terms of the edict: “What is done by the authority (the Prætor says) of one who was not a guardian”. 2Many things are lacking in the terms of the Edict. For what if the party who was guardian should have no right to exert his authority, for example, if he should be insane, or was appointed for some other province. 3However, Pomponius states in the Thirtieth Book that sometimes, although the business has been transacted under the authority of someone who was not a guardian, this part of the Edict will not be applicable. For what if there are two guardians, one of whom is false, and the other genuine, and they should authorize an act, would the transaction be valid? 4Pomponius says in the Thirtieth Book that, even though this Edict does not specifically mention more than one false guardian, it, nevertheless, applies to the acts of several. 5Pomponius also says that, even though a ward transacts business under the authority of a person acting as guardian, this Edict will still apply, unless the Prætor shall have decreed that he will ratify what has been done under such authority, for then the act will be valid, on account of the support of the Prætor, and not by operation of law. 6The Prætor says: “If a ward should be ignorant that his guardian is not genuine, I will grant him complete restitution”. He does not grant relief to a ward who was aware of the fact, which is reasonable, because he voluntarily deceives himself.

2Pau­lus li­bro duo­de­ci­mo ad edic­tum. ‘Si id’, in­quit, ‘ac­tor igno­ra­ve­rit’. La­beo: et si dic­tum sit ei et bo­na fi­de non cre­di­de­rit.

2Paulus, On the Edict, Book XII. “If the ward should be ignorant that his guardian is not genuine”, Labeo holds that this applies where the ward has been informed of the fact, and in good faith refused to believe it.

3Ul­pia­nus li­bro duo­de­ci­mo ad edic­tum. Pla­ne si is sit qui au­xi­lio non ind­iget, scien­tia ei non no­cet, ut pu­ta si pu­pil­lus cum pu­pil­lo egit: nam cum ni­hil ac­tum sit, scien­tia non no­cet.

3Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XII. It is evident that such knowledge does not prejudice a party who is not in need of assistance; as, for example, where one ward transacts business with another, for as the act is void, his knowledge does not prejudice him.

4Pau­lus li­bro duo­de­ci­mo ad edic­tum. Mi­no­ri vi­gin­ti quin­que an­nis suc­cur­re­tur, et­iam­si scie­rit.

4Paulus, On the Edict, Book XII. Relief is afforded to a minor under twenty-five years of age who had knowledge.

5Ul­pia­nus li­bro duo­de­ci­mo ad edic­tum. In­ter­dum ta­men et­si scien­tia no­ceat, ta­men re­sti­tu­tio fa­cien­da erit, si a prae­to­re com­pul­sus est ad iu­di­cium ac­ci­pien­dum.

5Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XII. Sometimes, however, although knowledge may cause prejudice, restitution should be granted where a party was compelled to join issue by order of the Prætor.

6Pau­lus li­bro duo­de­ci­mo ad edic­tum. Pu­pil­li scien­tia com­pu­tan­da non est, tu­to­ris eius com­pu­tan­da est: uti­que et­si pu­pil­lo cau­tum sit, me­lius di­ci­tur rem suam re­sti­tui pu­pil­lo quam in­cer­tum cau­tio­nis even­tum eum spec­ta­re: quod et Iu­lia­nus, si alias cir­cum­ven­tus sit pu­pil­lus, re­spon­dit.

6Paulus, On the Edict, Book XII. In any transaction, the knowledge of a ward should not be taken into account, but only that of his guardian should be considered. Therefore, even if security has been furnished the ward, it is held to be better for the property of the latter to be restored to him, than for him to depend upon the uncertain result of the security. This Julianus gave as his opinion in any case where a ward has been defrauded.

7Ul­pia­nus li­bro duo­de­ci­mo ad edic­tum. No­vis­si­me prae­tor ait: ‘in eum qui, cum tu­tor non es­set, do­lo ma­lo auc­tor fac­tus es­se di­ce­tur, iu­di­cium da­bo, ut quan­ti ea res erit, tan­tam pe­cu­niam con­dem­ne­tur’. 1Non sem­per tu­tor con­ve­ni­tur nec suf­fi­cit, si sciens auc­to fuit, ve­rum ita de­mum, si do­lo ma­lo auc­tor fuit. quid si com­pul­sus aut me­tu, ne com­pel­le­re­tur, auc­to­ri­ta­tem ac­com­mo­da­ve­rit, non­ne de­be­bit es­se ex­cu­sa­tus? 2Quod ait prae­tor ‘quan­ti ea res erit’, ma­gis pu­to non poe­nam, sed ve­ri­ta­tem his ver­bis con­ti­ne­ri. 3Pom­po­nius li­bro tri­ge­si­mo rec­te scri­bit et­iam sump­tuum in hoc iu­di­cio ra­tio­nem ha­be­ri, quos fac­tu­rus est ac­tor re­sti­tu­to­rio agen­do. 4Si plu­res sint qui auc­to­res fue­runt, per­cep­tio­ne ab uno fac­ta et ce­te­ri li­be­ran­tur, non elec­tio­ne:

7Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XII. Finally, the Prætor says: “I will grant an action against a party who, not being a guardian, is said to have fraudulently authorized the act of a ward; and judgment shall be rendered against him for the value of the property in question”. 1A guardian cannot always be sued, nor is it sufficient for him to have knowingly authorized a transaction, but he also must have acted in bad faith. What would be the result if he were forced to grant his authority, or was induced to do so through fear: ought he not to be excused under such circumstances? 2Where the Prætor says: “The value of the property in question”. I do not think that the penalty, but merely the true amount lost is referred to. 3Pomponius very properly states in the Thirtieth Book that the account of the expenses which the plaintiff has been forced to incur by bringing this action should also be included in the judgment. 4Where there are several false guardians, and restitution is made by one of them, the others will be released, but this is not accomplished by the mere selection of one by the plaintiff.

8Pau­lus li­bro duo­de­ci­mo ad edic­tum. et id­eo si ni­hil aut non to­tum ser­va­tum sit, in re­li­quos non de­ne­gan­dam in id quod de­est Sa­b­inus scri­bit.

8Paulus, On the Edict, Book XII. Hence Sabinus says that where the plaintiff did not recover the entire amount from one of them, he should not be refused recourse against the others for the deficiency.

9Ul­pia­nus li­bro duo­de­ci­mo ad edic­tum. Hu­ius ac­tio­nis ex­em­plo Pom­po­nius li­bro tri­ge­si­mo pri­mo scri­bit dan­dam ac­tio­nem ad­ver­sus eum, qui do­lo ma­lo ad­hi­buit, ut alius auc­to­ra­re­tur in­scius. 1Has in fac­tum ac­tio­nes he­redi­bus qui­dem com­pe­te­re ce­te­ris­que suc­ces­so­ri­bus, in eos ve­ro non red­di La­beo scri­bit nec in ip­sum post an­num, quon­iam et fac­tum pu­niunt et in do­lum con­ci­piun­tur: et ad­ver­sus eas per­so­nas, quae alie­no iu­ri sub­iec­tae sunt, noxa­les erunt.

9Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XII. With reference to this action, Pomponius states in the Thirty-first Book that it can be granted against anyone who acts in bad faith, in order to induce another, who is ignorant of the fact, to authorize a transaction by his ward. 1Labeo says that actions of this kind in factum can be brought by heirs and their successors, but that they will not lie against them, nor can they be brought after the expiration of a year, since they punish an act, and are based upon fraud; and that they become noxal actions when instituted against parties who are subjected to the authority of others.

10Gaius li­bro quar­to ad edic­tum pro­vin­cia­le. Si fal­so tu­to­re auc­to­re ac­tum sit et in­ter­ea dies ac­tio­nis ex­ie­rit aut res usu­cap­ta sit, om­nia in­com­mo­da per­in­de sus­ti­ne­re de­bet, ac si il­lo tem­po­re ve­ro tu­to­re auc­to­re egis­set.

10Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book IV. Where an action is brought against a ward on account of a false guardian, and, in the meantime, the term prescribed by law has elapsed, or the property has been acquired by usucaption, the guilty party must sustain all the inconvenience which may arise, just as if he were a genuine guardian, and suit had been brought against him within the prescribed time.

11Ul­pia­nus li­bro tri­ge­si­mo quin­to ad edic­tum. Fal­sus tu­tor, qui in con­tra­hen­do auc­tor mi­no­ri duo­de­cim vel quat­tuor­de­cim an­nis fue­rit, te­ne­bi­tur in fac­tum ac­tio­ne prop­ter do­lum ma­lum. 1Cu­ius­cum­que con­di­cio­nis fue­rit vel sui iu­ris vel alie­ni, qui do­lo ma­lo auc­to­ri­ta­tem ac­com­mo­da­vit, te­ne­bi­tur hoc edic­to. 2Sed et si quis fi­liae fa­mi­lias auc­tor fac­tus sit ad con­tra­hen­dum, te­ne­tur. idem­que iu­ris est, si an­cil­lae quis tu­to­re auc­to­re cre­di­dis­set: nam om­ni­bus is­tis mo­dis prop­ter tu­to­rem de­ci­pi­tur is qui con­tra­xit, quia ali­ter cum im­pu­be­re con­trac­tu­rus non fuit, quam si tu­to­ris auc­to­ri­tas in­ter­ces­sis­set. 3Iu­lia­nus li­bro vi­ce­si­mo pri­mo di­ges­to­rum trac­tat, in pa­trem de­beat da­ri haec ac­tio, qui fi­liam mi­no­rem duo­de­cim an­nis nup­tum de­dit. et ma­gis pro­bat pa­tri ignos­cen­dum es­se, qui fi­liam suam ma­tu­rius in fa­mi­liam spon­si per­du­ce­re vo­luit: af­fec­tu enim pro­pe­n­sio­re ma­gis quam do­lo ma­lo id vi­de­ri fe­cis­se. 4Quod si in­tra duo­de­cim an­nos haec de­ces­se­rit, cum ha­be­ret do­tem, pu­tat Iu­lia­nus, si do­lo ma­lo con­ver­sa­tus sit is ad quem dos per­ti­net, pos­se ma­ri­tum do­li ma­li ex­cep­tio­ne con­di­cen­tem sum­mo­ve­re in ca­si­bus, in qui­bus do­tem vel in to­tum vel in par­tem, si con­sta­bat ma­tri­mo­nium, fue­rat lu­cra­tu­rus.

11Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXV. A false guardian who grants authority to a minor of twelve or fourteen years of age to make a contract shall be liable to an action in factum on the ground of fraud, no matter what his condition may be, whether he is his own master, or under the control of another. 1He who fraudulently grants authority to a minor will be liable under this Edict. 2Moreover, anyone who authorizes a daughter under paternal control to enter into a contract is liable. The same rule of law applies where anyone acting as guardian authorizes a female slave to borrow money; for in all these instances the contracting party is deceived by the agency of the guardian, for he would not have contracted with the minor without the intervention of the authority of the guardian. 3Julianus in the Twenty-first Book of the Digest discusses the point whether this action should be granted against a father who gave his daughter in marriage, while she was under twelve years of age. The weight of authority is that a father is to be excused who desired to introduce his daughter too soon into the family of her husband, for in doing so he is held to have acted rather from an excess of affection, than through malice. 4Julianus thinks, however, that if the daughter should die before reaching the age of twelve years, after having received her dowry, and he who was entitled to it had acted in bad faith, the husband can be barred by an exception on the ground of fraud when he sues for the dowry, in cases where he would have been benefited to the extent of all, or a part of it, if the marriage had been valid.

12Idem li­bro pri­mo re­spon­so­rum. Ex eo, quod in­ter­ro­ga­tus tu­to­rem se es­se re­spon­dit, nul­la eum ac­tio­ne te­ne­ri: si ta­men, cum tu­tor non es­set, re­spon­so suo in ali­quam cap­tio­nem ad­ules­cen­tem in­du­xit, uti­lem ac­tio­nem ad­ver­sus eum dan­dam.

12The Same, Opinions, Book XII. Where a party, having been interrogated in court, answers that he is a guardian, he will not be liable to any action for making this statement. Where, however, he was not a guardian, and the minor was in any way defrauded through his answer, an equitable action should be granted against him.