Digestorum libri
Ex libro III
Dig. 1,18,17Celsus libro tertio digestorum. Si forte praeses provinciae manumiserit vel tutorem dederit, priusquam cognoverit successorem advenisse, erunt haec rata.
Dig. 2,15,12Celsus libro tertio digestorum. Non est ferendus qui generaliter in his, quae testamento ei relicta sunt, transegerit, si postea causetur de eo solo se cogitasse, quod prima parte testamenti ac non etiam quod posteriore legatum sit. si tamen postea codicilli proferuntur, non improbe mihi dicturus videtur de eo dumtaxat se cogitasse, quod illarum tabularum, quas tunc noverat, scriptura contineretur.
Ad Dig. 2,15,12Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 414, Note 4.Celsus, Digest, Book III. It should not be tolerated that a party may make a compromise with reference to legacies left to him in general terms by will, and afterwards claim that his object was not to compromise except with reference to what was left him in the first part of the will, and not with reference to what was left him in the last part. But where codicils are produced, I think that he could not improperly say to me that he only was thinking about what was contained in those pages of the will of which he knew at the time of the transaction.
Dig. 6,1,38Celsus libro tertio digestorum. In fundo alieno, quem imprudens emeras, aedificasti aut conseruisti, deinde evincitur: bonus iudex varie ex personis causisque constituet. finge et dominum eadem facturum fuisse: reddat impensam, ut fundum recipiat, usque eo dumtaxat, quo pretiosior factus est, et si plus pretio fundi accessit, solum quod impensum est. finge pauperem, qui, si reddere id cogatur, laribus sepulchris avitis carendum habeat: sufficit tibi permitti tollere ex his rebus quae possis, dum ita ne deterior sit fundus, quam si initio non foret aedificatum. constituimus vero, ut, si paratus est dominus tantum dare, quantum habiturus est possessor his rebus ablatis, fiat ei potestas: neque malitiis indulgendum est, si tectorium puta, quod induxeris, picturasque corradere velis, nihil laturus nisi ut officias. finge eam personam esse domini, quae receptum fundum mox venditura sit: nisi reddit, quantum prima parte reddi oportere diximus, eo deducto tu condemnandus es.
Celsus, Digest, Book III. Upon the land of another, which you purchased without investigation, you built or planted, and you were then evicted. In this instance, a good judge will decide in different ways in accordance with the legal condition of the parties, and the circumstances of the case. Suppose the owner to have done the same thing, then, in order to recover his land, he must reimburse you for your expenses, but only to the amount by which it is rendered more valuable; and if what was added to it amounts to more than the purchase-money, he will be required to pay only what was expended. Suppose that the party is poor, and if he is compelled to pay this he must sacrifice his household goods and the tombs of his ancestors; it will then be sufficient for you to be permitted to remove as much as you can of what you have built, provided that the land will not be rendered worse than it would have been if no building had been erected upon it in the first place. We, however, decided that if the owner is ready to pay you a sum equal to what the possessor would have had if these things were removed, he shall have power to do so. But you are not to be permitted to act maliciously, as, for instance, to scrape off plaster which you have put on, or to deface paintings, which would have no effect except to cause annoyance. Suppose that the owner is a party who expects to sell the property as soon as he recovers it; then, unless he delivers the amount which we have already stated he must deliver in the first example, the damages for which judgment has been rendered against you must be paid after this is deducted.
Dig. 12,4,16Celsus libro tertio digestorum. Dedi tibi pecuniam, ut mihi Stichum dares: utrum id contractus genus pro portione emptionis et venditionis est, an nulla hic alia obligatio est quam ob rem dati re non secuta? in quod proclivior sum: et ideo, si mortuus est Stichus, repetere possum quod ideo tibi dedi, ut mihi Stichum dares. finge alienum esse Stichum, sed te tamen eum tradidisse: repetere a te pecuniam potero, quia hominem accipientis non feceris: et rursus, si tuus est Stichus et pro evictione eius promittere non vis, non liberaberis, quo minus a te pecuniam repetere possim.
Celsus, Digest, Book III. I paid you a sum of money on the condition that you should deliver Stichus to me; is this kind of a contract one of incomplete purchase and sale, or does no other obligation arise from it than would from property given in consideration of something which did not take place? I am rather inclined to adopt the last opinion; and therefore, if Stichus had died, I could recover the amount which I gave on the condition that you would deliver Stichus to me. Suppose, for instance, that Stichus belonged to some one else, but you, nevertheless, delivered him to me; I can recover the money from you because you did not transfer the ownership of the slave to the party who received him; and, again, if Stichus is your property, and you are not willing to give security against his recovery by anyone having a better title, you will not be released so that I cannot bring suit to recover the money from you.
Dig. 42,1,39Celsus libro tertio digestorum. Duo ex tribus iudicibus uno absente iudicare non possunt, quippe omnes iudicare iussi sunt. sed si adsit et contra sentiat, statur duorum sententiae: quid enim minus verum est omnes iudicasse?
Celsus, Digest, Book III. Where three judges are appointed to hear a case, two of them cannot decide it, if one is absent, as all three have been ordered to hear it. If, however, the third is present, and does not concur with the others, the judgment of the two shall stand. For it is certainly true that all of them have rendered a decision.
Dig. 44,7,51Celsus libro tertio digestorum. Nihil aliud est actio quam ius quod sibi debeatur, iudicio persequendi.
Dig. 46,2,26Idem libro tertio digestorum. Si is, cui decem Titius, quindecim Seius debebat, ab Attio stipulatus est quod ille aut quod ille debeat, dari sibi, novatum utrumque non est, sed in potestate Attii est, pro quo velit solvere et eum liberare. fingamus autem ita actum, ut alterutrum daret: nam alioquin utrumque stipulatus videtur et utrumque novatum, si novandi animo hoc fiat.
The Same, Digest, Book III. Where a man to whom Titius owes ten aurei, and Seius fifteen, stipulates with Attius that he shall pay him what one or the other of them owes, both the obligations are not subjected to novation; but it is in the power of Attius to pay for whichever one he wishes, and release him. Suppose, however, that it had been agreed that he should pay one or the other of the claims; for otherwise, he would be considered to have stipulated for both, and both would have been subjected to novation, if this had been intended.