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. IV9,
Nautae caupones stabularii ut recepta restituant
Liber quartus
IX.

Nautae caupones stabularii ut recepta restituant

(Sailors, Innkeepers, and the Proprietors of Stables, Must Restore Property Entrusted to Them.)

1Ul­pia­nus li­bro quar­to de­ci­mo ad edic­tum. Ait prae­tor: ‘Nau­tae cau­po­nes sta­bu­la­rii quod cu­ius­que sal­vum fo­re re­ce­pe­rint ni­si re­sti­tuent, in eos iu­di­cium da­bo’. 1Ma­xi­ma uti­li­tas est hu­ius edic­ti, quia ne­ces­se est ple­rum­que eo­rum fi­dem se­qui et res cus­to­diae eo­rum com­mit­te­re. ne quis­quam pu­tet gra­vi­ter hoc ad­ver­sus eos con­sti­tu­tum: nam est in ip­so­rum ar­bi­trio, ne quem re­ci­piant, et ni­si hoc es­set sta­tu­tum, ma­te­ria da­re­tur cum fu­ri­bus ad­ver­sus eos quos re­ci­piunt co­eun­di, cum ne nunc qui­dem abs­ti­neant hu­ius­mo­di frau­di­bus. 2Qui sunt igi­tur, qui te­nean­tur, vi­den­dum est. ait prae­tor ‘nau­tae’. nau­tam ac­ci­pe­re de­be­mus eum qui na­vem ex­er­cet: quam­vis nau­tae ap­pel­lan­tur om­nes, qui na­vis na­vi­gan­dae cau­sa in na­ve sint: sed de ex­er­ci­to­re so­lum­mo­do prae­tor sen­tit. nec enim de­bet, in­quit Pom­po­nius, per re­mi­gem aut meso­nau­tam ob­li­ga­ri, sed per se vel per na­vis ma­gis­trum: quam­quam si ip­se ali­cui e nau­tis com­mit­ti ius­sit, si­ne du­bio de­beat ob­li­ga­ri. 3Et sunt qui­dam in na­vi­bus, qui cus­to­diae gra­tia na­vi­bus prae­po­nun­tur, ut ναυφύλακες et diae­ta­rii. si quis igi­tur ex his re­ce­pe­rit, pu­to in ex­er­ci­to­rem dan­dam ac­tio­nem, quia is, qui eos hu­ius­mo­di of­fi­cio prae­po­nit, com­mit­ti eis per­mit­tit, quam­quam ip­se na­vi­cu­la­rius vel ma­gis­ter id fa­ciat, quod χειρέμβολον ap­pel­lant. sed et si hoc non ex­er­cet, ta­men de re­cep­to na­vi­cu­la­rius te­ne­bi­tur. 4De ex­er­ci­to­ri­bus ra­tium, item lyn­tra­riis ni­hil ca­ve­tur: sed idem con­sti­tui opor­te­re La­beo scri­bit, et hoc iu­re uti­mur. 5Cau­po­nes au­tem et sta­bu­la­rios ae­que eos ac­ci­pie­mus, qui cau­po­nam vel sta­bu­lum ex­er­cent, in­sti­to­res­ve eo­rum. ce­te­rum si qui ope­ra me­dias­ti­ni fun­gi­tur, non con­ti­ne­tur, ut pu­ta atria­rii et fo­ca­rii et his si­mi­les. 6Ait prae­tor: ‘quod cu­ius11Die Großausgabe liest cu­ius­que statt cu­ius. sal­vum fo­re re­ce­pe­rint’: hoc est quam­cum­que rem si­ve mer­cem re­ce­pe­rint. in­de apud Vi­via­num re­la­tum est ad eas quo­que res hoc edic­tum per­ti­ne­re, quae mer­ci­bus ac­ce­de­rent, vel­uti ves­ti­men­ta qui­bus in na­vi­bus ute­ren­tur et ce­te­ra quae ad cot­ti­dia­num usum ha­be­mus. 7Item Pom­po­nius li­bro tri­gen­si­mo quar­to scri­bit par­vi re­fer­re, res nos­tras an alie­nas in­tu­le­ri­mus, si ta­men nos­tra in­ter­sit sal­vas es­se: et­enim no­bis ma­gis, quam quo­rum sunt, de­bent sol­vi. et id­eo si pig­no­ri mer­ces ac­ce­pe­ro ob pe­cu­niam nau­ti­cam, mi­hi ma­gis quam de­bi­to­ri nau­ta te­ne­bi­tur, si an­te eas sus­ce­pit. 8Re­ci­pi22Die Großausgabe liest Re­ci­pit statt Re­ci­pi. au­tem sal­vum fo­re utrum si in na­vem res mis­sae ei ad­sig­na­tae sunt: an et si non sint ad­sig­na­tae, hoc ta­men ip­so, quod in na­vem mis­sae sunt, re­cep­tae vi­den­tur? et pu­to om­nium eum re­ci­pe­re cus­to­diam, quae in na­vem il­la­tae sunt, et fac­tum non so­lum nau­ta­rum prae­sta­re de­be­re, sed et vec­to­rum,

1Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XIV. Ad Dig. 4,9,1 pr.ROHGE, Bd. 25 (1880), Nr. 79, S. 333: Haftpflicht des Gastwirths für das Receptum.The Prætor says: “When sailors, innkeepers, and the proprietors of stables have received property for safe keeping, I will grant an action against them if they do not restore it”. 1Ad Dig. 4,9,1,1ROHGE, Bd. 17 (1875), Nr. 12, S. 40: Haftung des Gastwirths für die Sachen eines Reisenden ohne Rücksicht auf die Dauer und Bezahlung der Beherbergung.Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 384, Note 5.This Edict is extremely useful, for the reason that it is very frequently necessary to place confidence in persons of this kind, and to entrust them with the care of property. No one should think that this Edict imposes any hardship upon them, for they have the choice of refusing to receive anyone; and, unless this rule was established, opportunity would be given for them to cooperate with thieves against those whom they receive as guests; since, even now, they do not abstain from fraudulent acts of this description. 2Therefore, let us consider who those are that are liable. The Prætor says “Sailors”. We must understand a “sailor” to be the person who has charge of the ship, although all are called sailors who are on board the vessel for the purpose of navigating it, but the Prætor only has in mind the owner; for Pomponius says that the latter ought not to be liable for the act of an oarsman, or sub-pilot, but only for what he does himself, or for the act of the captain; although if he himself ordered anyone to commit something to the care of a sailor, he would himself undoubtedly be liable. 3There are also persons who occupy positions on board ships for the purpose of caring for merchandise such as ναυφύλακες, that is to say, marine guards and stewards. Therefore, if any of these should receive anything, I think that an action should be granted against the owner of the ship, because he who appointed persons of this kind to office permits property to be placed in their charge; even though the captain, or master does that which is called χειρεμβολον that is to say, “taking the property in his hands”. But even if he does not do this, the ship-owner will nevertheless be liable for what was received. 4No provision is made with reference to those who have charge of rafts or boats, but Labeo says that the same rule applies to them; and this is our practice. 5We understand by the terms “innkeepers” and “stablekeepers”, those who conduct an inn or a stable, or their agents. Persons, however, who are engaged in menial occupations, are not included; as, for instance, door-keepers, cooks, and others like them. 6The Prætor says, “Where they have received the property of anyone for safe keeping”; that is to say, any article or any goods whatsoever. Hence, it is stated in Vivianus, that this Edict also has reference to things which do not come under the head of merchandise; as, for instance, clothing which is worn on board ship, and other things such as persons daily make use of. 7Moreover, Pomponius says in the Thirty-fourth Book, that it makes a little difference whether we bring in our own property or that of others, if we have an interest in having it kept safely, for the property should be returned to us rather than to those to whom it belonged; and, therefore, if I accept merchandise as a pledge for money loaned on a maritime risk, the owner of the vessel will be liable to me rather than to the debtor, if he had previously received the property from me. 8Ad Dig. 4,9,1,8ROHGE, Bd. 11 (1874), Nr. 108, S. 344: Haftpflicht des Gasthofbesitzers für die vom Gaste eingebrachten Effecten. Uebergabe von Sachen an den Portier zur Beförderung mit dem Gasthofomnibus zur Post.ROHGE, Bd. 25 (1880), Nr. 79, S. 333: Haftpflicht des Gastwirths für das Receptum.Does he “receive the property for safe-keeping”, only where having been placed on board the ship it was entrusted to him, or if it is not thus entrusted, is he still considered to have received it for this purpose, if it was merely placed on board the ship? I think that he always receives property for safe-keeping when it is placed on board, and that he not only should be liable for the acts of the sailors, but also for those of the passengers:

2Gaius li­bro quin­to ad edic­tum pro­vin­cia­le. sic­ut et cau­po via­to­rum.

2Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book V. Just as an innkeeper is liable for the acts of travellers.

3Ul­pia­nus li­bro quar­to de­ci­mo ad edic­tum. Et ita de fac­to vec­to­rum et­iam Pom­po­nius li­bro tri­gen­si­mo quar­to scri­bit. idem ait, et­iam­si non­dum sint res in na­vem re­cep­tae, sed in li­to­re per­ie­rint, quas se­mel re­ce­pit, pe­ri­cu­lum ad eum per­ti­ne­re. 1Ait prae­tor: ‘ni­si re­sti­tuent, in eos iu­di­cium da­bo’. ex hoc edic­to in fac­tum ac­tio pro­fi­cis­ci­tur. sed an sit ne­ces­sa­ria, vi­den­dum, quia agi ci­vi­li ac­tio­ne ex hac cau­sa pot­erit: si qui­dem mer­ces in­ter­ve­ne­rit, ex lo­ca­to vel con­duc­to: sed si to­ta na­vis lo­ca­ta sit, qui con­du­xit ex con­duc­to et­iam de re­bus quae de­sunt age­re pot­est: si ve­ro res per­fe­ren­das nau­ta con­du­xit, ex lo­ca­to con­ve­nie­tur: sed si gra­tis res sus­cep­tae sint, ait Pom­po­nius de­po­si­ti agi po­tuis­se. mi­ra­tur igi­tur, cur ho­no­ra­ria ac­tio sit in­duc­ta, cum sint ci­vi­les: ni­si for­te, in­quit, id­eo, ut in­no­tes­ce­ret prae­tor cu­ram age­re re­pri­men­dae im­pro­bi­ta­tis hoc ge­nus ho­mi­num: et quia in lo­ca­to con­duc­to cul­pa, in de­po­si­to do­lus dum­ta­xat prae­sta­tur, at hoc edic­to om­ni­mo­do qui re­ce­pit11Die Großausgabe liest re­ce­pe­rit statt re­ce­pit. te­ne­tur, et­iam­si22Die Großausgabe liest et­iam si statt et­iam­si. si­ne cul­pa eius res per­iit vel dam­num da­tum est, ni­si si quid dam­no fa­ta­li con­tin­git. in­de La­beo scri­bit, si quid nau­fra­gio aut per vim pi­ra­ta­rum per­ie­rit, non es­se in­iquum ex­cep­tio­nem ei da­ri. idem erit di­cen­dum et si in sta­bu­lo aut in cau­po­na vis ma­ior con­ti­ge­rit. 2Eo­dem mo­do te­nen­tur cau­po­nes et sta­bu­la­rii, quo ex­er­cen­tes neg­otium suum re­ci­piunt: ce­te­rum si ex­tra neg­otium re­ce­pe­runt, non te­ne­bun­tur. 3Si fi­lius fa­mi­lias aut ser­vus re­ce­pe­rit et vo­lun­tas pa­tris do­mi­ni in­ter­ve­nit, in so­li­dum erit con­ve­nien­dus. item si ser­vus ex­er­ci­to­ris sub­ri­puit vel dam­num de­dit, noxa­lis ac­tio ces­sa­bit, quia ob re­cep­tum suo no­mi­ne do­mi­nus con­ve­ni­tur. sin ve­ro si­ne vo­lun­ta­te ex­er­ceant, de pe­cu­lio da­bi­tur. 4Haec au­tem rei per­se­cu­tio­nem con­ti­net, ut Pom­po­nius ait, et id­eo et in he­redem et per­pe­tuo da­bi­tur33Die Großausgabe liest da­tur statt da­bi­tur.. 5No­vis­si­me vi­den­dum, an eius­dem rei no­mi­ne et de re­cep­to ho­no­ra­ria ac­tio­ne et fur­ti agen­dum sit: et Pom­po­nius du­bi­tat: sed ma­gis est, ut vel of­fi­cio iu­di­cis vel do­li ex­cep­tio­ne al­ter­utra es­se con­ten­tus de­beat.

3Ad Dig. 4,9,3ROHGE, Bd. 11 (1874), Nr. 108, S. 344: Haftpflicht des Gasthofbesitzers für die vom Gaste eingebrachten Effecten. Uebergabe von Sachen an den Portier zur Beförderung mit dem Gasthofomnibus zur Post.Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XIV. Pomponius says, in the Thirty-fourth Book, the same thing with reference to the acts of passengers. He also asks that where the property has not yet been placed on board a ship, but has been lost on land, it is at the risk of the owner of the vessel who at first took charge of it. 1The Prætor says: Unless they restore it, I will grant an action against them. The action arising from this Edict is one in factum. Let us consider, however, whether this is necessary, as the case is one in which a party can proceed by a civil action; that is to say, where any compensation is involved, an action based on leasing or hiring will lie. But where the entire ship was hired, the party who did so can bring suit on that ground, even for articles that are missing; but if the master contracted to transport the goods, an action on the ground of hiring can be brought against him; and if he received the goods gratis, Pomponius says that an action on deposit will lie. He, therefore, is surprised that a prætorian action was introduced, since civil actions are applicable; unless, as he states, it was for the purpose of making it known that the Prætor was desirous of checking the dishonesty of persons of this kind, and because in cases of leasing and hiring, a person is responsible for negligence, but in cases of deposit, only for fraud; but, under this Edict, the party who received the property is absolutely liable, even though the goods were lost, or damage resulted without his fault, unless something occurred to cause inevitable injury. Hence, Labeo holds that, where anything is lost through shipwreck, or by the violence of pirates, it is not improper to grant the owner an exception. The same must be said where irresistible force is used in a stable, or an inn. 2Inn-keepers and the proprietors of stables are also liable, if, in the transaction of their business, they take charge of property; but they are not liable if they do so outside of their business. 3Where the son of a family, or a slave receives property for safe-keeping, and the consent of the father or master is granted, an action may be brought against him for the entire amount. Moreover, if a slave of the owner of the vessel stole the property or injured it, a noxal action will not lie, for the reason that the owner can be sued directly, on account of his having received the goods; but if the son of the family, or the slave acted without the consent of his superiors, an action De Peculio will be granted. 4This action, as Pomponius states, has for its object the recovery of property; and therefore is granted perpetually, and against an heir. 5Finally, let us consider whether proceedings by a prætorian action on the ground of property received, and also on that of theft, can be instituted for the same property. Pomponius is in doubt as to whether it can, but the better opinion is that the party ought to be content with one or the other of the two proceedings; that is, either application to the court, or an exception on the ground of fraud.

4Pau­lus li­bro ter­tio de­ci­mo ad edic­tum. Sed et ip­si nau­tae fur­ti ac­tio com­pe­tit, cu­ius sit pe­ri­cu­lo, ni­si si ip­se sub­ri­piat et post­ea ab eo sub­ri­pia­tur, aut alio sub­ri­pien­te ip­se nau­ta sol­ven­do non sit. 1Si nau­ta nau­tae, sta­bu­la­rius sta­bu­la­rii, cau­po cau­po­nis re­ce­pe­rit, ae­que te­ne­bi­tur. 2Vi­via­nus di­xit et­iam ad eas res hoc edic­tum per­ti­ne­re, quae post im­po­si­tas mer­ces in na­vem lo­ca­tas­que in­fe­ren­tur, et­si ea­rum vec­tu­ra non de­be­tur, ut ves­ti­men­to­rum, pe­no­ris cot­ti­dia­ni, quia haec ip­sa ce­te­ra­rum re­rum lo­ca­tio­ni ac­ce­dunt.

4Paulus, On the Edict, Book XIII. But the captain of the ship himself who assumed the risk, has a right of action on the ground of theft, unless he himself stole the property, and afterwards it was stolen from him, or someone else stole it, where the captain is not solvent. 1Where the captain of a ship received for safe-keeping the property of another captain; or the proprietor of a stable, that of another proprietor; or an inn-keeper that of another inn-keeper; they are all equally liable. 2Vivianus states that this Edict also has reference to such property as has been on board after the merchandise whose carriage was agreed upon has been loaded, even though nothing is due for its transportation, as for instance, clothing, or provisions for daily consumption; for the reason that these things are included as additions to those for which compensation has been paid.

5Gaius li­bro quin­to ad edic­tum pro­vin­cia­le. Nau­ta et cau­po et sta­bu­la­rius mer­ce­dem ac­ci­piunt non pro cus­to­dia, sed nau­ta ut tra­iciat vec­to­res, cau­po ut via­to­res ma­ne­re in cau­po­na pa­tia­tur, sta­bu­la­rius ut per­mit­tat iu­men­ta apud eum sta­bu­la­ri: et ta­men cus­to­diae no­mi­ne te­nen­tur. nam et ful­lo et sar­ci­na­tor non pro cus­to­dia, sed pro ar­te mer­ce­dem ac­ci­piunt, et ta­men cus­to­diae no­mi­ne ex lo­ca­to te­nen­tur. 1Quae­cum­que de fur­to di­xi­mus, ea­dem et de dam­no de­bent in­tel­le­gi: non enim du­bi­ta­ri opor­tet, quin is, qui sal­vum fo­re re­ci­pit, non so­lum a fur­to, sed et­iam a dam­no re­ci­pe­re vi­dea­tur.

5Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book V. Ad Dig. 4,9,5 pr.ROHGE, Bd. 17 (1875), Nr. 12, S. 40: Haftung des Gastwirths für die Sachen eines Reisenden ohne Rücksicht auf die Dauer und Bezahlung der Beherbergung.The owner of a ship, an inn-keeper, and the proprietor of a stable, receive pay, but not for the safe-keeping of property; the ship-owner receives it for the transportation of passengers; the inn-keeper for permitting the travellers to remain in his inn; the proprietor of a stable for allowing beasts of burden to be housed in his barn; nevertheless, they are all liable for the safe-keeping of property. A fuller, or a shoemaker receives pay, not for the safe-keeping of property, but for their labor; and they are also liable to an action of hiring for safe custody. 1What we have said with reference to theft should be understood to be equally applicable to damage, for it cannot be doubted that a party who receives property for safe-keeping is considered to do so in order to protect it from theft, as well as from injury.

6Pau­lus li­bro vi­cen­si­mo se­cun­do ad edic­tum. Li­cet gra­tis na­vi­ga­ve­ris vel in cau­po­na gra­tis de­ver­te­ris, non ta­men in fac­tum ac­tio­nes ti­bi de­ne­ga­bun­tur, si dam­num in­iu­ria pas­sus es. 1Si ser­vo meo in na­ve vel in cau­po­na uta­ris et dam­num mi­hi det vel fur­tum fa­ciat, quam­quam et fur­ti ac­tio et dam­ni in­iu­ria me­cum sit, haec ta­men ac­tio, quia in fac­tum est, et­iam ser­vi mei no­mi­ne ad­ver­sus te com­pe­tit. idem di­ce­tur, et si com­mu­nis sit: tu ta­men quod mi­hi prae­sti­te­ris eius no­mi­ne, vel com­mu­ni di­vi­dun­do vel pro so­cio ac­tio­ne, aut si par­tem eius vel to­tum con­du­xis­ti, et­iam ex con­duc­to ha­be­bis me ob­li­ga­tum. 2Sed si dam­num in eo da­tum sit ab alio, qui in ea­dem na­ve vel cau­po­na est, cu­ius fac­tum prae­tor aes­ti­ma­re so­let, non pu­tat Pom­po­nius eius no­mi­ne hanc ac­tio­nem uti­lem fu­tu­ram. 3In fac­tum ac­tio­ne cau­po te­ne­tur pro his, qui ha­bi­tan­di cau­sa in cau­po­na sunt: hoc au­tem non per­ti­net ad eum, qui hos­pi­tio re­pen­ti­no re­ci­pi­tur, vel­uti via­tor. 4Pos­su­mus au­tem fur­ti vel dam­ni in­iu­riae ac­tio­ne uti cum nau­tis, ut cer­ti ho­mi­nis fac­tum ar­gua­mus: sed una con­ten­ti es­se de­be­bi­mus, et si cum ex­er­ci­to­re ege­ri­mus, prae­sta­re ei de­be­mus ac­tio­nes nos­tras, quam­vis ex con­duc­to ac­tio ad­ver­sus eos com­pe­tat ex­er­ci­to­ri. sed si ab­so­lu­tus sit ex­er­ci­tor hac ac­tio­ne, de­in­de aga­tur cum nau­ta, ex­cep­tio da­bi­tur, ne sae­pius de eius­dem ho­mi­nis ad­mis­so quae­ra­tur. et con­tra, si de ad­mis­so unius ho­mi­nis ac­tum sit, de­in­de in fac­tum ac­tio­ne aga­tur, ex­cep­tio da­bi­tur.

6Ad Dig. 4,9,6ROHGE, Bd. 17 (1875), Nr. 12, S. 40: Haftung des Gastwirths für die Sachen eines Reisenden ohne Rücksicht auf die Dauer und Bezahlung der Beherbergung.Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXII. Although you may be transported in a ship without charge, or be entertained gratuitously in an inn, still, an action in factum will not be refused you if your property is unlawfully damaged. 1If my slave is attending you on board a ship, or in an inn, and he injures my property, or steals it; although I will be entitled to actions on the ground of theft, or damage to property, yet in this instance, the action, because it is in factum can be brought against you, even on account of the act of my slave. The same rule applies if the slave is our common property; still, whatever you pay me on account of what he may have done, whether you were liable in an action for partition, or in an action on partnership, or where you hired only a share in said slave, or all of him, you can hold me liable on the contract also. 2But where some injury has been committed against the said slave by someone else, on the same ship, or in the inn, whose acts the Prætor is accustomed to investigate, Pomponius does not think that this action can be brought on account of the slave. 3An inn-keeper is also liable to the action in factum, on account of those who have lodgings in the inn, but this rule does not apply to a party who is entertained as a transient guest, as, for instance, a traveller. 4We can also have recourse to an action of theft, or for damages against sailors, if we can prove the act of any particular person; but we should be content with one action, and if we proceed against the owner of the vessel, we must assign to him our right of action; although an action based upon hiring will lie in his favor against the other party. Where, however, the owner is discharged from liability in this action, and the party injured then brings suit against the sailor: an exception will be granted the latter, in order to prevent frequent trials being held on account of the conduct of the same man. On the other hand, if proceedings are instituted on account of the conduct of one man, and afterwards an action in factum is brought against the owner, an exception will be granted.

7Ul­pia­nus li­bro oc­ta­vo de­ci­mo ad edic­tum. De­bet ex­er­ci­tor om­nium nau­ta­rum suo­rum, si­ve li­be­ri sint si­ve ser­vi, fac­tum prae­sta­re: nec im­me­ri­to fac­tum eo­rum prae­stat, cum ip­se eos suo pe­ri­cu­lo ad­hi­bue­rit. sed non alias prae­stat, quam si in ip­sa na­ve dam­num da­tum sit: ce­te­rum si ex­tra na­vem li­cet a nau­tis, non prae­sta­bit. item si prae­di­xe­rit, ut unus­quis­que vec­to­rum res suas ser­vet ne­que dam­num se prae­sta­tu­rum, et con­sen­se­rint vec­to­res prae­dic­tio­ni, non con­ve­ni­tur. 1Haec ac­tio in fac­tum in du­plum est. 2Sed si quid nau­tae in­ter se dam­ni de­de­rint, hoc ad ex­er­ci­to­rem non per­ti­net. sed si quis sit nau­ta et mer­ca­tor, de­be­bit il­li da­ri: quod si quis quos vol­go ναυτεπιβάτας di­cunt, et huic te­ne­bi­tur, sed hu­ius fac­tum prae­stat, cum sit et nau­ta. 3Si ser­vus nau­tae dam­num de­de­rit, li­cet ser­vus nau­ta non sit, ae­quis­si­mum erit in ex­er­ci­to­rem ac­tio­nem uti­lem da­re. 4Hac au­tem ac­tio­ne suo no­mi­ne ex­er­ci­tor te­ne­tur, cul­pae sci­li­cet suae qui ta­les ad­hi­buit: et id­eo et si de­ces­se­rint, non rele­va­bi­tur. ser­vo­rum au­tem suo­rum no­mi­ne noxa­li dum­ta­xat te­ne­tur: nam cum alie­nos ad­hi­bet, ex­plo­ra­re eum opor­tet, cu­ius fi­dei, cu­ius in­no­cen­tiae sint: in suis ve­nia dig­nus est, si qua­lesqua­les ad in­struen­dam na­vem ad­hi­bue­rit. 5Si plu­res na­vem ex­er­ceant, unus­quis­que pro par­te, qua na­vem ex­er­cet, con­ve­ni­tur. 6Haec iu­di­cia quam­vis ho­no­ra­ria sunt, ta­men per­pe­tua sunt: in he­redem au­tem non da­bun­tur. pro­in­de et si ser­vus na­vem ex­er­cuit et mor­tuus est, de pe­cu­lio non da­bi­tur ac­tio in do­mi­num nec in­tra an­num. sed cum vo­lun­ta­te pa­tris vel do­mi­ni ser­vus vel fi­lius ex­er­cent na­vem vel cau­po­nam vel sta­bu­lum, pu­to et­iam hanc ac­tio­nem in so­li­dum eos pa­ti de­be­re, qua­si om­nia, quae ibi con­tin­gunt, in so­li­dum re­ce­pe­rint.

7Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XVIII. Ad Dig. 4,9,7 pr.ROHGE, Bd. 11 (1874), Nr. 108, S. 344: Haftpflicht des Gasthofbesitzers für die vom Gaste eingebrachten Effecten. Uebergabe von Sachen an den Portier zur Beförderung mit dem Gasthofomnibus zur Post.ROHGE, Bd. 12 (1874), Nr. 35, S. 109: Ausschluß der Haftpflicht ex recepto durch Anordnungen des Absenders zur Sicherung des Frachtguts im Falle drohender Gefahr.The owner of a vessel shall be responsible for the acts of all his sailors, whether they are freemen, or slaves, and not without reason, for he himself employed them at his own risk. But he is not responsible, except where the damage has been committed on board the vessel; for where it happens off the vessel, even though it was committed by the sailors, he will not be liable. Moreover, if he gives warning that every passenger must be responsible for his own property, and that he will not be liable for damage, and the passengers agree to the terms of the warning, he cannot be sued. 1This action in factum is for double damages. 2Where any of the sailors cause damage to the property of one another, this does not affect the owner of the ship. But where anyone is both sailor and merchant, he will be responsible, and where the party injured is one of those commonly called nanlepibatæ that is to say one who works his passage the owner will be liable to him also; and he will be responsible for the acts of a person of this kind since he also is a sailor. 3Where the slave of a sailor causes damage, even though he himself is not a sailor, it is perfectly just to grant a prætorian action against the owner of the vessel. 4The ship-owner is liable in his own name in this action that is to say, he himself is to blame for employing persons of this description; and therefore, even if he should die, he will not be released from liability. Where, however, he becomes liable through the conduct of his own slave, only a noxal action can be brought; for where he employs the slaves of others, he must ascertain whether they are faithful and trustworthy, but he is excusable on account of his own slaves, no matter what kind of slaves he employed for the purpose of manning his ship. 5Where there are several owners of a ship, any one of them can be sued to the amount of the interest which he has in the same. 6These actions, although they are honorary, are still perpetual, but they are not granted against an heir; hence, if a slave has control of a ship, and dies, an action De Peculio will not be granted against his master, even within a year; but where a slave or a son manages a ship with the consent of his father or his master, or has charge of an inn or a stable; I am of the opinion that they will be compelled to defend the suit for the entire amount of damages, on the supposition that they assumed complete responsibility for everything which might happen.