De alienatione iudicii mutandi causa facta
(Concerning alienations made for the purpose of changing the conditions of a trial.)
1 Gaius libro quarto ad edictum provinciale. Omnibus modis proconsul id agit, ne cuius deterior causa fiat ex alieno facto, et cum intellegeret iudiciorum exitum interdum duriorem nobis constitui opposito nobis alio adversario, in eam quoque rem prospexit, ut si quis alienando rem alium nobis adversarium suo loco substituerit idque data opera in fraudem nostram fecerit, tanti nobis in factum actione teneatur, quanti nostra intersit alium adversarium nos non habuisse. 1Itaque si alterius provinciae hominem aut potentiorem nobis opposuerit adversarium, tenebitur:
1 Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book IV. The Proconsul takes every precaution to prevent any person’s legal position from becoming worse through the act of another; and as he understands that the result of a trial sometimes causes us a great deal more hardship when we have a different adversary than we had at the beginning, he provided against this by stating: “That if anyone, by transferring the property in question should substitute another party in his place as an opponent, and he did this purposely with fraudulent intent, he will be liable to an action in factum to the extent of the interest which the other party had in not having another adversary.” 1Therefore, if a litigant opposes a man from another province, or one who is more powerful, to us as an adversary, he will be held liable;
2 Ulpianus libro tertio decimo ad edictum. aut alium, qui vexaturus sit adversarium:
2 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XIII. Or anyone who will probably annoy the adversary.
3 Gaius libro quarto ad edictum provinciale. quia etiam si cum eo, qui alterius provinciae sit, experiar, in illius provincia experiri debeo et potentiori pares esse non possumus. 1Sed et si hominem quem petebamus manumiserit, durior nostra condicio fit, quia praetores faveant libertatibus. 2Item si locum, in quo opus feceris, cuius nomine interdicto quod vi aut clam vel actione aquae pluviae arcendae tenebaris, alienaveris, durior nostra condicio facta intellegitur, quia si tecum ageretur, tuis impensis id opus tollere deberes, nunc vero cum incipiat mihi adversus alium actio esse quam qui fecerit, compellor meis impensis id tollere, quia qui ab alio factum possidet, hactenus istis actionibus tenetur, ut patiatur id opus tolli. 3Opus quoque novum si tibi nuntiaverim tuque eum locum alienaveris et emptor opus fecerit, dicitur te hoc iudicio teneri, quasi neque tecum ex operis novi nuntiatione agere possim, quia nihil feceris, neque cum eo cui id alienaveris, quia ei nuntiatum non sit. 4Ex quibus apparet, quod proconsul in integrum restituturum se pollicetur, ut hac actione officio tantum iudicis consequatur actor, quantum eius intersit alium adversarium non habuisse: forte si quas inpensas fecerit aut si quam aliam incommoditatem passus erit alio adversario substituto. 5Quid ergo est, si is, adversus quem talis actio competit, paratus sit utile iudicium pati perinde ac si possideret? recte dicitur denegandam esse adversus eum ex hoc edicto actionem.
3 Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book IV. The reason for this is that if I institute proceedings against some one who belongs to another province, I am compelled to do so in his own province, and we can do nothing on an equal footing where the other party is more powerful. 1Moreover, if the man whom we are suing manumits a slave who is claimed in the action, our condition becomes less advantageous, because the Prætors favor freedom. 2Moreover, if you have erected some structure on a tract of land where you may become liable to an interdict Quod vi aut clam; or, in an action granted against a person who diverts rain-water from its natural course, you alienate said piece of property, our condition is understood to be worse; because if I institute proceedings against you, you will be compelled to remove the structure at your own expense, but now I am forced to bring an action against a different party from the one who performed the act, and will be compelled to remove the structure at my own expense; for the reason that he who is in possession of anything of this kind erected by another, is only liable under these proceedings so far as to permit the structure to be removed. 3If I give you notice of a new structure, and you then alienate the land, and the purchaser finishes the work; it is held that you will be liable to this action, for the reason that I cannot bring suit against you based on a notice of a new structure, because you have not built anything; nor can I do so against the party to whom you have conveyed the property, because he has not been notified. 4From all which it is evident that as the Proconsul promises to grant complete restitution, the plaintiff in this action may by order of court obtain damages to the extent of his interest in not having another adversary; as, for instance, if he had incurred some expense, or had suffered some other inconvenience on account of the substitution of another adversary. 5What then would happen, if the person against whom a prætorian action can be brought is ready to defend it, just as if he was still in possession of the property? In this instance it is very properly held that the action based upon this Edict will be refused him.
4 Ulpianus libro tertio decimo ad edictum. Item si res fuerint usucaptae ab eo cui alienatae sint nec peti ab hoc possint, locum habet hoc edictum. 1Itemque fieri potest, ut sine dolo malo quidem possidere desierit, verum iudicii mutandi causa id fiat. sunt et alia complura talia. potest autem aliquis dolo malo desinere possidere nec tamen iudicii mutandi causa fecisse nec hoc edicto teneri: neque enim alienat, qui dumtaxat omittit possessionem. non tamen eius factum improbat praetor, qui tanti habuit re carere, ne propter eam saepius litigaret (haec enim verecunda cogitatio eius, qui lites exsecratur, non est vituperanda), sed eius dumtaxat, qui cum rem habere vult, litem ad alium transfert, ut molestum adversarium pro se subiciat. 2Pedius libro nono non solum ad dominii translationem hoc edictum pertinere ait, verum ad possessionis quoque: alioquin cum quo in rem agebatur, inquit, si possessione cessit, non tenebitur. 3Si quis autem ob valetudinem aut aetatem aut occupationes necessarias litem in alium transtulerit, in ea causa non est, ut hoc edicto teneatur, cum in hoc edicto doli mali fiat mentio. ceterum erit interdictum et per procuratores litigare dominio in eos plerumque ex iusta causa translato. 4Ad iura etiam praediorum hoc edictum pertinet, modo si dolo malo fiat alienatio. 5Haec actio in id quod interest competit. proinde si res non fuit petitoris aut si is qui alienatus est sine culpa decessit, cessat iudicium, nisi si quid actoris praeterea interfuit. 6Haec actio non est poenalis, sed rei persecutionem arbitrio iudicis continet, quare et heredi dabitur: in heredem autem
4 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XIII. The same Edict also applies where the property has been acquired through usucaption by the party to whom it was transferred, so that no suit could be brought to recover it from him. 1It can also happen that possession is terminated without bad faith, but that this was done for the purpose of altering the conditions of the trial, and there are numerous other cases of this kind. On the other hand, a party may fraudulently relinquish possession, and he may not have acted for the purpose of changing the conditions of the suit; and then he will not be liable under the terms of this Edict, for he does not alienate property, who merely relinquishes possession. The Prætor, however, does not disapprove the act of a party who was so desirous to give up property to prevent his being constantly engaged in litigation on account of it; and this is, in fact, a very modest determination of one who detests lawsuits, and is not to be blamed; but the Prætor only concerns himself with a party who, while desiring to retain the property, transfers his part in the case to another, so that the latter, instead of himself may give his adversary trouble. 2Pedius states in the Ninth Book, that this Edict has not only reference to a transfer of ownership, but also a transfer of possession; otherwise, he says that where the plaintiff brings a suit in rem, and the defendant relinquishes possession, he will not be liable. 3Where, however, anyone through illness, old age, or necessary business, transfers his right of action to another, this is not a case in which he is liable under this Edict, as mention of fraud is made in the Edict; for, otherwise, it would be forbidden to litigate through agents, as ownership is generally transferred to them where proper cause exists for this to be done. 4This Edict also has reference to real servitudes, where their alienation is fraudulently made. 5This action has for its object the amount of the plaintiff’s interest; and therefore, if the property did not belong to him, or if the slave who was alienated should die without the fault of the party who alienated him, the action will not lie, unless there was some additional interest of the plaintiff. 6This action is not a penal one, but it is for the purpose of recovering property by order of court for which reason it is granted to an heir, and also against an heir,
5 Paulus libro undecimo ad edictum. vel similem
5 Paulus, On the Edict, Book XI. Or anyone in similar circumstances;
6 Ulpianus libro tertio decimo ad edictum. vel post annum non dabitur,
6 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XIII. Or after a year it is not granted.
7 Gaius libro quarto ad edictum provinciale. quia pertinet quidem ad rei persecutionem, videtur autem ex delicto dari.
7 Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book IV. Because it relates to the recovery of property it still appears to be granted on account of an offence.
8 Paulus libro duodecimo ad edictum. Ex hoc edicto tenetur et qui rem exhibet, si arbitratu iudicis pristinam iudicii causam non restituit. 1Ait praetor: ‘quaeve alienatio iudicii mutandi causa facta erit’: id est si futuri iudicii causa, non eius quod iam sit. 2Alienare intellegitur etiam qui alienam rem vendidit. 3Sed heredem instituendo vel legando si quis alienet, huic edicto locus non erit. 4Si quis alienaverit, deinde receperit, non tenebitur hoc edicto. 5Qui venditori suo redhibet, non videtur iudicii mutandi causa abalienare,
8 Paulus, On the Edict, Book XII. A person is liable under this Edict, even where he produces the property, if he does not, after notification by the judge, place the case in its original condition. 1The Prætor says: “Or an alienation made for the purpose of changing the conditions of the trial”; that is to say, the conditions of a future trial and not these of the present one. 2To “alienate” is also understood to sell the property of another. 3But where a person alienates anything either by appointing an heir, or by making a bequest, the Edict will not apply. 4Where anyone alienates property, and takes it back again, he will not be liable under this Edict. 5Where a purchaser compels his vendor to take back the property sold, he is not considered to have alienated it for the purpose of changing the conditions of the trial.
9 Paulus libro primo ad edictum aedilium curulium. quia redhibitio homine omnia retro aguntur: et ideo non videtur iudicii mutandi causa alienare qui redhibet: nisi si propter hoc ipsum redhibet non redhibiturus alias.
9 Paulus, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book I. For the reason that when a slave is returned, everything has a retroactive effect, and, therefore, the party who returns the property is not held to have alienated it, in order to change the conditions of the trial; unless he restores the slave for this very purpose, and otherwise would not have restored him.
10 Ulpianus libro duodecimo ad edictum. Nam et si obligatus solvero quod a me petere velles, huic edicto locus non erit. 1Si tutor pupilli vel adgnatus furiosi alienaverint, utilis actio competit, quia consilium huius fraudis inire non possunt.
10 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XII. For if, being in debt, I deliver the property for which you wished to sue me, this Edict will not apply. 1Where the guardian of a ward, or the curator of an insane person alienates property, a prætorian action will lie, because one cannot presume that either the ward or the insane person can have the intention of committing fraud.
11 Idem libro quinto opinionum. Cum miles postulabat suo nomine litigare de possessionibus, quas sibi donatas esse dicebat, responsum est, si iudicii mutandi causa donatio facta fuerit, priorem dominum experiri oportere, ut rem magis quam litem in militem transtulisse credatur.
11 The Same, Opinions, Book V. When a soldier applied to bring suit in his own name in order to obtain an estate which he alleged had been presented to him; he was told that if the gift had been made for the purpose of changing the conditions of the trial, the action must be brought by the former owner, so that it might appear that he had transferred the property to the soldier, rather than a lawsuit.
12 Marcianus libro quarto decimo institutionum. Si quis iudicii communi dividundo evitandi causa rem alienaverit, ex lege Licinnia ei interdicitur, ne communi dividundo iudicio experiatur: verbi gratia ut potentior emptor per licitationem vilius eam accipiat et per hoc iterum ipse recipiat. sed ipse quidem qui partem alienaverit communi dividundo iudicio si agere velit, non audietur: is vero qui emit si experiri velit, ex illa parte edicti vetatur, qua cavetur, ne qua alienatio iudicii mutandi causa fiat.
12 Marcianus, Institutes, Book XIV. Where anyone alienates his share in a piece of property for the purpose of avoiding a suit in partition, he is prohibited by the Lex Licinia from bringing an action in partition himself, for example, in order that some purchaser who is more powerful may obtain it by a lower bid; and he in this way can recover it. He, however, who has disposed of his share, and wishes afterwards to bring suit in partition, shall not be heard; but if the party who purchased it desires to institute proceedings, he is forbidden to do so under that Section of the Edict by which it is provided that no alienation shall be made for the purpose of changing the conditions of a trial.