Corpus iurisprudentiae Romanae

Repertorium zu den Quellen des römischen Rechts
Dig. XLVII5,
Furti adversus nautas caupones stabularios
Liber quadragesimus septimus
V.

Furti adversus nautas caupones stabularios

(Concerning theft committed against captains of vessels, innkeepers, and landlords.)

1 Ulpianus libro trigensimo octavo ad edictum. In eos, qui naves cauponas stabula exercebunt, si quid a quoquo eorum quosve ibi habebunt furtum factum esse dicetur, iudicium datur, sive furtum ope consilio exercitoris factum sit, sive eorum cuius, qui in ea navi navigandi causa esset. 1Navigandi autem causa accipere debemus eos, qui adhibentur, ut navis naviget, hoc est nautas. 2Et est in duplum actio. 3Cum enim in caupona vel in navi res perit, ex edicto praetoris obligatur exercitor navis vel caupo ita, ut in potestate sit eius, cui res subrepta sit, utrum mallet cum exercitore honorario iure an cum fure iure civili experiri. 4Quod si receperit salvum fore caupo vel nauta, furti actionem non dominus rei subreptae, sed ipse habet, quia recipiendo periculum custodiae subit. 5Servi vero sui nomine exercitor noxae dedendo se liberat. cur ergo non exercitor condemnetur, qui servum tam malum in nave admisit? et cur liberi quidem hominis nomine tenetur in solidum, servi vero non tenetur? nisi forte idcirco, quod liberum quidem hominem adhibens statuere debuit de eo, qualis esset, in servo vero suo ignoscendum sit ei quasi in domestico malo, si noxae dedere paratus sit. si autem alienum adhibuit servum, quasi in libero tenebitur. 6Caupo praestat factum eorum, qui in ea caupona eius cauponae exercendae causa ibi sunt, item eorum, qui habitandi causa ibi sunt: viatorum autem factum non praestat. namque viatorem sibi eligere caupo vel stabularius non videtur nec repellere potest iter agentes: inhabitatores vero perpetuos ipse quodammodo elegit, qui non reiecit, quorum factum oportet eum praestare. in navi quoque vectorum factum non praestatur.

1 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXVIII. An action is granted against those who have control of ships, inns, and other places of public entertainment, where anything is alleged to have been stolen by any one of them, or by persons in their employ; whether the theft was committed with the aid and advice of the proprietor himself, or the owner of the ship, or of those who were on board for the purpose of navigation. 1We understand the words “for the purpose of navigation,” to refer to those who are employed to navigate a ship, that is to say, the sailors. 2This action is also for double damages. 3For when property is lost in an inn or on a ship, the owner or lessee of the vessel, or the landlord, is liable under the Edict of the Prætor; so that it is in the power of the person from whom the property was stolen to proceed against the proprietor under the Prætorian Law, or against the thief under the Civil Law, whichever he may prefer. 4If the innkeeper or the owner of the ship received the property “to be safely cared for,” the owner of the same cannot bring the action for theft, but he who assumed responsibility for its safe-keeping will be entitled to bring it. 5The owner of the ship, however, can release himself from liability incurred by the act of his slave, by surrendering the latter by way of reparation for the damage committed. Why then should not the owner be condemned, who permitted so bad a slave to remain on his ship? And why is he held liable for the entire amount for the act of a freeman, and not for that of the slave? unless when he employed a freeman, it was his duty to ascertain what his character was; but he should be excused so far as his slave is concerned, just as in the case of a bad domestic, if he is ready to surrender him by way of reparation for the damage he committed. If, however, he employed a slave belonging to another, he will be liable, as in the case of a freeman. 6An innkeeper is responsible for the acts of those who are in his house for the purpose of transacting his business, as well as for all permanent lodgers; he is, however, not responsible for the acts of travellers, since an innkeeper cannot select the travellers, nor can he exclude them while they are pursuing their journey. He, however, to a certain extent, selects his permanent lodgers, if he does not reject them, and he must be liable for their acts. In like manner, the captain of a ship is not liable for the acts of his passengers.