Digestorum libri
Ex libro VII
Dig. 4,8,50Alfenus libro septimo digestorum. Arbiter ex compromisso sumptus cum ante eum diem, qui constitutus compromisso erat, sententiam dicere non posset, diem compromissi proferri iusserat: alter ex litigatoribus dicto audiens non fuerat: consulebatur possetne ab eo pecunia ex compromisso peti. respondi non posse, ideo quod non esset arbitro permissum ut id iuberet.
Alfenus, Digest, Book VII. An arbiter was selected under an agreement for arbitration, and, not having been able to make his award within the period mentioned in the agreement, ordered the time of the hearing to be extended. One of the parties was not willing to obey the order; hence an opinion was asked as to whether an action could be brought against him for the penalty arising from the arbitration? I answered that this could not be done, for the reason that authority had not been granted to the arbiter to extend the time.
Dig. 19,2,29Alfenus libro septimo digestorum. In lege locationis scriptum erat: ‘redemptor silvam ne caedito neve cingito neve deurito neve quem cingere caedere urere sinito’. quaerebatur, utrum redemptor, si quem quid earum rerum facere vidisset, prohibere deberet an etiam ita silvam custodire, ne quis id facere possit. respondi verbum sinere utramque habere significationem, sed locatorem potius id videri voluisse, ut redemptor non solum, si quem casu vidisset silvam caedere, prohiberet, sed uti curaret et daret operam, ne quis caederet.
Alfenus, Digest, Book VII. The following was inserted in the contract of a lease: “The lessee shall neither cut down trees, nor girdle nor burn them, nor permit anyone to girdle, cut down, or burn the same.” The question arose whether the lessee should prevent anyone whom he saw doing something of this kind, or whether he should keep such a watch upon the trees that no one could do this. I answered that the word “permit” includes both significations, but that the lessor seemed to have intended that the lessee should not only prevent anyone whom he saw cutting down trees, but should also be careful and take such precautions that no one could cut them down.
Dig. 34,2,28Alfenus Varus libro septimo digestorum. Cum in testamento alicui argentum, quod usus sui causa paratum esset, legaretur, itemque vestis aut supellex, quaesitum est, quid cuiusque usus causa videretur paratum esse, utrumne id argentum, quod victus sui causa paratum pater familias ad cotidianum usum parasset an et si eas mensas argenteas et eius generis argentum haberet, quo ipse non temere uteretur, sed commodare ad ludos et ad ceteras apparationes soleret. et magis placet, quod victus sui causa paratum est, tantum contineri.
Alfenus Verus, Digest, Book VII. Where silver destined for the use of the testator is left by will to anyone, together with his wardrobe and his furniture, the question arises for what use these articles would seem to be intended; whether the silver designed for daily table service of the head of the household was meant, or whether the silver tables and other things of the same kind which the testator did not use continually, but was accustomed to lend for games, and on other important occasions were referred to. The better opinion is that the silver only is included in such a bequest which was designed for the ordinary table service of the testator.
Dig. 38,1,26Alfenus Varus libro septimo digestorum. Medicus libertus, quod putaret, si liberti sui medicinam non facerent, multo plures imperantes sibi habiturum, postulabat, ut sequerentur se neque opus facerent: id ius est nec ne? respondit ius esse, dummodo liberas operas ab eis exigeret, hoc est ut adquiescere eos meridiano tempore et valetudinis et honestatis suae rationem habere sineret. 1Item rogavi, si has operas liberti dare nollent, quanti oporteret aestimari. respondit, quantum ex illorum operis fructus, non quantum ex incommodo dando illis, si prohiberet eos medicinam facere, commodi patronus consecuturus esset.
Alfenus Varus, Digest, Book VII. Where a physician, who thought that if his freedmen did not practice medicine he would have many more patients, demanded that they should follow him and not practice their profession, the question arose whether he had the right to do this or not. The answer was that he did have that right, provided he required only honorable services of them; that is to say, that he would permit them to rest at noon, and enable them to preserve their honor and their health. 1I also ask, if the freedmen should refuse to render such services, how much the latter should be considered to be worth. The answer was that the amount ought to be determined by the value of their services when employed, and not by the advantage which the patron would secure by causing the freedmen inconvenience through forbidding them to practice medicine.
Dig. 39,4,15Alfenus Varus libro septimo digestorum. Caesar cum insulae Cretae cotorias locaret, legem ita dixerat: ‘ne quis praeter redemptorem post idus Martias cotem ex insula Creta fodito neve eximito neve avellito’. cuiusdam navis onusta cotibus ante idus Martias ex portu Cretae profecta vento relata in portum erat, deinde iterum post idus Martias profecta erat. consulebatur, num contra legem post idus Martias ex insula Creta cotes exisse viderentur. respondit, tametsi portus quoque, qui insulae essent, omnes eius insulae esse viderentur, tamen eum, qui ante idus Martias profectus ex portu esset et relatus tempestate in insulam deductus esset, si inde exisset non videri contra legem fecisse, praeterea quod iam initio evectae cotes viderentur, cum et ex portu navis profecta esset.
Alfenus Varus, Digest, Book VII. When the Emperor leased the quarries of the island of Crete, he inserted the following clause in the lease: “No one except the farmer of the revenue shall make an excavation, or remove, or take out a single stone from the quarries of the Island of Crete, after the Ides of March.” A ship belonging to a certain individual, which was loaded with flints, having departed from the harbor of Crete before the Ides of March, was driven back into the harbor by the wind and departed the second time after the Ides of March. Advice was asked whether the flints should be held to have been removed contrary to law after the Ides of March. The answer was that although the harbors, which themselves were parts of the island, should all be considered as belonging to it, still, as the vessel, having left the port before the Ides of March, was driven back to the island by a storm, and afterwards departed, it should not be held to have done so in violation of law; especially as the flints must be considered to have been removed before the time prescribed, since the ship had already left the harbor.
Dig. 40,1,7Idem libro septimo digestorum. Duo filii familias peculiares servos separatim uterque habebant: ex his alter servulum suum peculiarem vivo patre manumisit: pater utrique testamento peculium praelegaverat. quaerebatur, servus iste utrum amborum, an eius a quo manumissus erat libertus esset. respondit, si prius testamentum pater fecisset, quam filius eum liberum esse iussisset, unius esse libertum, ideo quod eum quoque in peculio legasse videretur: sed si postea testamentum pater fecisset, non videri eam mentem eius fuisse, ut eum, qui manumissus esset, legaret eumque servum, quoniam praelegatus non esset, mortuo patre amborum servum fuisse.
The Same, Digest, Book VII. Two sons under paternal control had, as part of the peculium of each, separate slaves. One of them, during the lifetime of his father, manumitted a young slave who belonged to his peculium. The father, by his will, bequeathed to each son his own peculium, as a preferred legacy. The question arose whether the above-mentioned slave became the freedman of both of the sons, or only of the one by whom he had been manumitted? The answer was that if the father made his will before the son manumitted the slave, he would only become the freedman of that one, for the reason that he would be considered to have been bequeathed with the remainder of the peculium. If, however, the father had made his will afterwards, he would not be held to have intended to bequeath the slave who had been manumitted; and as he did not bequeath the said slave as a preferred legacy, after the death of the father he would be the slave of the two brothers.
Dig. 50,16,203Idem libro septimo digestorum. In lege censoria portus Siciliae ita scriptum erat: ‘servos, quos domum quis ducet suo usu, pro is portorium ne dato’. quaerebatur, si quis a Sicilia servos Romam mitteret fundi instruendi causa, utrum pro his hominibus portorium dare deberet nec ne. respondit duas esse in hac scriptura quaestiones, primam quid esset ‘domum ducere’, alteram, quid esset ‘suo usu ducere’. igitur quaeri soleret, utrum, ubi quisque habitaret sive in provincia sive in Italia, an dumtaxat in sua cuiusque patria domus esse recte dicetur. Sed de ea re constitutum esse eam domum unicuique nostrum debere existimari, ubi quisque sedes et tabulas haberet suarumque rerum constitutionem fecisset. quid autem esset ‘usu suo’, magnam habuisse dubitationem. et magis placet, quod victus sui causa paratum est, tantum contineri. itemque de servis eadem ratione quaeri, qui eorum usus sui causa parati essent? utrum dispensatores, insularii, vilici, atrienses, textores, operarii quoque rustici, qui agrorum colendorum causa haberentur, ex quibus agris pater familias fructus caperet, quibus se toleraret, omnes denique servos, quos quisque emisset, ut ipse haberet atque eis ad aliquam rem uteretur, neque ideo emisset, ut venderet? et sibi videri eos demum usus sui causa patrem familias habere, qui ad eius corpus tuendum atque ipsius cultum praepositi destinatique essent, quo in genere iunctores, cubicularii, coci, ministratores atque alii, qui ad eiusmodi usum parati essent, numerarentur.
The Same, Digest, Book VII. It was stated in the law relating to the collection of duties in the harbors of Sicily: “That no one should pay any duty on slaves which he was taking to his own house for private use.” The question arose if anyone should send slaves from Sicily to Rome, for the purpose of cultivating land, whether or not he would be compelled to pay duty on them. The answer was that in this law two points were involved: first, what did the words, “Take to his own house,” mean; and second, what was the meaning of the expression, “For his private use”? Therefore, if the word “house” meant where someone lived, inquiry should be made whether this was in a province, or in Italy; or whether his house could only properly be said to be in his own country. On this point it was decided that anyone’s house should be considered to be where he had his home, kept his accounts, and transacted his business. There is, however, great doubt as to the signification of the expression, “For his private use,” and it was decided that this only had reference to what was prepared for his subsistence. For the same reason it might also be asked with reference to slaves who are alleged to be for the use of their master whether stewards, porters, farmers, overseers, weavers, and farm laborers, who are employed in the cultivation of the soil, from which the owner obtains his living and supports himself, are meant; or whether all the slaves which any person purchased and kept for his own use, as well as those whom he employed for other purposes, and were not bought to sell again, are included. It seems to me that only those destined for the use of the head of the family, who are appointed for his personal service and support, which class includes valets, domestic, servants, cooks, attendants, and all others devoted to employments of this kind are meant.